Roosevelt not a Cadidate in 1932

[Carl Schwamberger]

I think this one has been run here before, but I've not the time today to search it out. Like it says on the label Roosevelt is unable to run for president in 1932. The Polio took too much out of him and his health has failed.

So; Does Hoover have a chance then of winning the 1932 election?

..of course who would be the Democratic candidate?

Were any of the possible candidates for the 1936 election liable to support the Allies as far as Roosevelt in 1939-40?

Which of the possible cadidates of 1932 or 1936 are liable to screw up really badly and end with the US economy worse, Congress impotent, and many of the state at the point of quasi independance or anarchy?

 

[Kaiser K]

It is almost impossible for a Republican candidate to win in 1932 with the same exact conditions of OTL, it would take a extremely controversial candidate, such as the Catholic Al Smith to give Hoover or any Republican a chance, and even then, I see Smith still winning.

 

[theirishdreamer]

well

I had him up against Smith (Hoover) and narrowly winning due to the whole Catholic thing. Basically didn't have Smith run in 1928 (for ITTL reasons) so Roosevelt never gets Smiths seat so never gets to run in 1932- without Roosevelt its either a New Dealer (somewhat unlikely without Roosevelt) or Smith.

 

[David T]

I had him up against Smith (Hoover) and narrowly winning due to the whole Catholic thing. Basically didn't have Smith run in 1928 (for ITTL reasons) so Roosevelt never gets Smiths seat so never gets to run in 1932- without Roosevelt its either a New Dealer (somewhat unlikely without Roosevelt) or Smith.

Why? There were plenty of non-New Deal alternatives to both FDR and Smith in 1932--Baker and Garner and Ritchie being the most obvious. There was also McAdoo, who supported most of the New Deal. (See my two posts on "McAdoo in '32?" at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/x5LjpPOyzaY/YDrILv2u19EJ and https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/pSMWbtHTeBE/1BZIQXKb2PwJ

The Democrats are not going to nominate Smith in 1932, anyway, Roosevelt or no Roosevelt. The only reason he got the nomination so easily in 1928 is that southern and western Democrats thought that Hoover was probably unbeatable anyway, so make the wet, Catholic Easterners take the blame. In 1932, when victory was in sight, the Democrats would never have taken a chance on Smith (though in the unlikely event they did I think even Smith would have won).

 

[Cook]

So; Does Hoover have a chance then of winning the 1932 election?

Quite simply no; the Great Depression was an economic and social disaster of global and unprecedented scale that saw the fragile new democracies collapse to totalitarian dictatorships, while the older, more stable democracies saw governments defeated in electoral landslides. Every government in power was considered to blame, or at the very least impotent in the face of events, regardless of the real qualities and policies of those governments. In Canada the 1930 federal election saw a swing against the governing Liberals of 29% of the vote; the British general election of 1932 saw Labour lose 231 of their 287 seats, a swing against them of 29%; in Australia the 1931 federal election saw Jim Scullin’s Labor Party lose two thirds of their seats become the only first term government ever to be voted out in Australia. None of the governments mentioned were particularly bad and neither was Hoover’s administration; Hoover was an exceptional organiser, his term in government saw an unprecedented federal government expenditure in efforts to relieve the worst of the impact of the depression and generate new jobs and new growth, it just wasn’t enough to lift the United States out of the Depression. Neither for that matter were Roosevelt’s efforts; the US GDP did not recover its pre-crash 1929 level until 1940, and then only because of massive war investment, while unemployment was still just under 20% even as late as 1939. When considering Hoover’s capabilities it is worth noting that when faced with rebuilding a devastated Western Europe in 1945-46, the Truman administration turned to Herbert Hoover to manage to job.

 

[theirishdreamer]

hmmm

I went for Smith ITTL (he didn't run in 1928 for TL reasons) and the New Deal vote got divided up among the various northern new dealers and Huey Long trying to get the ticket. Of all the candidates Smith was the most likely to lose to Hoover (not that Smith saw it), but also the most "safe" choice for the conservative wing of party. The New Deal and Roosevelt were an aberration for US politics in the 30's. To remove Roosevelt you need to avoid Smith running in 1928, therefore denying Roosevelt his platform into the arena due to this. This then raises the odds of a Smith candidacy in 32' and I don't think Smith can win personally - Hoover was well hated but Smith was very obviously just another Hoover

Without Roosevelt then the version of the New Deal will be very watered down if you manage to get Garner or McAddo - there was enormous pressure from the establishments with the party against it. America was well down the road to craziness by this stage and you need a radical reform to avoid serious social collapse in certain states.

 

[Seleucus]

I think this one has been run here before, but I've not the time today to search it out. Like it says on the label Roosevelt is unable to run for president in 1932. The Polio took too much out of him and his health has failed.

So; Does Hoover have a chance then of winning the 1932 election?

..of course who would be the Democratic candidate?

Were any of the possible candidates for the 1936 election liable to support the Allies as far as Roosevelt in 1939-40?

Which of the possible cadidates of 1932 or 1936 are liable to screw up really badly and end with the US economy worse, Congress impotent, and many of the state at the point of quasi independance or anarchy?

Yes, Hoover has a chance, but it's tiny.

What's necessary is for the Democrats to nominate someone like John Nance Garner or Al Smith who isn't seen as substantially different from Hoover policy-wise, such that the party has much less appeal to reformists. At the same time, you need to have much much stronger third party performance (Socialists, progressives, smattering of others) that win at least 10% of the vote (15-20% should do it), drawing votes everywhere except the South and winning enough of the anti-Hoover vote that he squeaks by on a plurality.

It's impossible for Hoover to win on his own merits (barring him going ASB and doing drastic reform policies), but possible for him to win due to the failings of the US electoral system.