Plausibility Check: Hughes Wins in 1916, Wilson Wins in 1920?

CaliGuy

Banned
Was it plausible for Woodrow Wilson to do in 1920 what Grover Cleveland previously did in 1892 if Wilson would have lost in 1916?

Specifically, could Wilson--if his stroke would have been delayed until after the 1920 election due to butterflies arising from his ATL 1916 defeat--have won the 1920 election after losing in 1916 to Hughes in this TL?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I think 1920 is going to be a Democratic year, for the reasons I go into at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nt-charles-evans-hughes.401163/#post-13400697 However, I don't know if Wilson will be the Democratic candidate. For one thing, we should not assume that just because he will be out of the White House in 1917-20, he won't get a stroke. Campaigning for the presidency might be almost as stressful as campaigning for the League...
Agreed that Wilson is out of the running in 1920 if he has a stroke. However, what if Wilson's stroke is delayed until after the 1920 election? After all, Wilson would be able to relax in 1917-1918 in this TL before returning to politics in 1919.
 
I read that Wilson had 3 minor stokes before becoming president ina book about the 1912 election.
 
Agreed that Wilson is out of the running in 1920 if he has a stroke. However, what if Wilson's stroke is delayed until after the 1920 election? After all, Wilson would be able to relax in 1917-1918 in this TL before returning to politics in 1919.

That's more or less what I postulated in Mr Hughes Goes To War - though I simplified matters by making the stroke fatal. I assumed that the outgoing President Hughes firmly eschewed any temptation to steal the election (should the Democratic Electors split and send the election into the HoR), and threw his weight behind the right of the Vice-President Elect to succeed in Wilson's place, holding that the Constitution implied this even if it didn't explicitly say so.
 
Top