T.R. gets a third term.

Or he doesn't feel LaFollette is a suitable successor, runs again in 12 and 16...no one answered my question on if he would win if he run again in 16?! :mad:


Depends how strong the reaction is against a third term, and also (assuming WW1 is in progress as OTL) whether he is seen as a hot-headed warmonger eager to drag the country into it. If he'as smart enough to avoid the latter trap, he could win, though anti-third term sentiment is likely to cut deep into his victory margin. Otherwise, he may well lose.
 
Depends how strong the reaction is against a third term, and also (assuming WW1 is in progress as OTL) whether he is seen as a hot-headed warmonger eager to drag the country into it. If he'as smart enough to avoid the latter trap, he could win, though anti-third term sentiment is likely to cut deep into his victory margin. Otherwise, he may well lose.

I don't know; his fifth cousin got a fourth term OTL when in the midst of ww2; if we were forced into ww1 by some terrorist attack similar to or possibly worse than pearl harbor he would probably get it, and if he kept the same tone as he did in 04 throughout his presidency (probably would've if didn't say "I wont run again in 08") then would have been elected by a much more substantial margin than FDR in 44, maybe even with rising or relatively constant approval/election ratings (unlike FDR whose popularity peaked in 36 then decreased through 40 and only got 50.1% of the vote in 44...if we were still in the middle of a huge war though, and it was clearly ours, it would've been different)
 
FDR was a bit of a fluke, getting two crises in succession (Great Depression and WW2) to justify staying on.

And note the sequel. The 22nd Amendment was submitted to the states within two years of FDR's death. Nor was this a purely partisan matter, as the Republicans, though controlling both houses, were nowhere near two-thirds in either.

As previously noted, even TR's unsuccessful third term bid triggered an attempt at a similar amendment, which came within an ace of success. He could probably have gotten away with running in 1908, as he'd only had one elected term, but had he tried to perpetuate himself beyond that, expect opposition (not just from Democrats either) to build up fast.
 
FDR was a bit of a fluke, getting two crises in succession (Great Depression and WW2) to justify staying on.

And note the sequel. The 22nd Amendment was submitted to the states within two years of FDR's death. Nor was this a purely partisan matter, as the Republicans, though controlling both houses, were nowhere near two-thirds in either.

As previously noted, even TR's unsuccessful third term bid triggered an attempt at a similar amendment, which came within an ace of success. He could probably have gotten away with running in 1908, as he'd only had one elected term, but had he tried to perpetuate himself beyond that, expect opposition (not just from Democrats either) to build up fast.

Though it would likely not have been retroactive like the 22nd OTL and have gone through tons of fillibustering and if, as i said, they had made an essentially single party government this would have been difficult
 
Though it would likely not have been retroactive like the 22nd OTL and have gone through tons of fillibustering and if, as i said, they had made an essentially single party government this would have been difficult


I'm not sure what you mean by "single party government".

The Democrats had survived the Civil War period, when they were defeated, divided and tainted with treason - a far worse situation than in 1904 or 1908. Similarly, in 1938 the Republicans would come back from their crushing losses in the wake of the Great Depression. Expect the Dems to do likewise in 1910, even under TR.

The two major parties were far too deeply rooted for either of them to be destroyed merely by the advent of a POTUS with a more colourful personality than average. The two-party system isn't likely even to be dented.
 
Or he doesn't feel LaFollette is a suitable successor, runs again in 12 and 16...no one answered my question on if he would win if he run again in 16?! :mad:
The only way I see TR running in 1912 if America is at war or about to be at war. If he does run he would win but I really don't see it happening.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "single party government".

The Democrats had survived the Civil War period, when they were defeated, divided and tainted with treason - a far worse situation than in 1904 or 1908. Similarly, in 1938 the Republicans would come back from their crushing losses in the wake of the Great Depression. Expect the Dems to do likewise in 1910, even under TR.

The two major parties were far too deeply rooted for either of them to be destroyed merely by the advent of a POTUS with a more colourful personality than average. The two-party system isn't likely even to be dented.

What I mean is that he is going to be continuing his typical (1904-style) attitude and way of handling things. He is going to convince liberals and moderates from both sides to support him and his people (at the civilian level), so they will vote for him and other people like him, thus granting him (as in 1904 but with his same beliefs) immense majorities in both houses to easily guide through his legislation, however it will not be as progressive as he will not have had time to become much more progressive (and getting irritated with the conservative Taft) so he will remain a social center-progressive and a fiscal conservative. He will turn the republican party into a moderate (or relatively moderate) group, and because everything will go well there will basically be little opposition by third parties (or "second party" is the term now that dems are pretty much out of the picture? ;)) similar (yet likely not as extreme as with the D-Rs during the Jefferson-Madison-Monroe era
 
He will turn the republican party into a moderate (or relatively moderate) group, and because everything will go well there will basically be little opposition by third parties (or "second party" is the term now that dems are pretty much out of the picture? ;)) similar (yet likely not as extreme as with the D-Rs during the Jefferson-Madison-Monroe era


Why would the Dems be "out of the picture?

They lost 42 seats in 1904, but regained 28 of them in 1906. They may lose a few in 1908 (rather than gaining eight as they did OTL) but are likely to make sizeable gains in 1910 even if significantly less than OTL.

They are certainly outnumbered in Congress, but less badly than they were for most of the Reconstruction era (and would be again in the 1920s), or than the Republicans would be in the early years of FDR. In none of these cases did the party concerned die out or merge with any other. They just weathered the off-season and came back when the in-party had worn out its welcome. No reason why it should be any different in the 1910s.

I don't see how the DR parallel is relevant. The Federalists never put down roots outside New England, Delaware and parts of Maryland. So they were bound to dwindle as the country expanded west. By contrast, a century later the Democrats had strong (if often minority) support in almost every state, and the Republicans ditto outside the South. Neither was going to go away for any length of time.
 
Why would the Dems be "out of the picture?

They lost 42 seats in 1904, but regained 28 of them in 1906. They may lose a few in 1908 (rather than gaining eight as they did OTL) but are likely to make sizeable gains in 1910 even if significantly less than OTL.

They are certainly outnumbered in Congress, but less badly than they were for most of the Reconstruction era (and would be again in the 1920s), or than the Republicans would be in the early years of FDR. In none of these cases did the party concerned die out or merge with any other. They just weathered the off-season and came back when the in-party had worn out its welcome. No reason why it should be any different in the 1910s.

I don't see how the DR parallel is relevant. The Federalists never put down roots outside New England, Delaware and parts of Maryland. So they were bound to dwindle as the country expanded west. By contrast, a century later the Democrats had strong (if often minority) support in almost every state, and the Republicans ditto outside the South. Neither was going to go away for any length of time.

He would have appealed to both conservatives, liberals, and moderates, obviously not a unanimous congress but would have had intense majorities in both houses, not necessarily 2:1 or even 60% but 55-59%ish because he would have had his support for women's rights and abolishing the jim crow laws; look at his predecessor who had filled his cabinet w/ african-americans. He would have gotten the black vote and if allowed to push it through the women's vote
 
He would have appealed to both conservatives, liberals, and moderates, obviously not a unanimous congress but would have had intense majorities in both houses, not necessarily 2:1 or even 60% but 55-59%ish because he would have had his support for women's rights and abolishing the jim crow laws; look at his predecessor who had filled his cabinet w/ african-americans. He would have gotten the black vote and if allowed to push it through the women's vote


He had a respectable majority (HoR 222/164, Senate 61/29) in the final year of his Presidency, yet still got hardly any new measures through because his party had had enough of reforms. Republican landslides, even if attained, are no use to him if they elect the wrong kind of Republicans. Indeed, it they resiult in the replacement of a Progressive Democrat by a more conservative Republican (as is likely to happen in many districts) they make Congress less progressive trather than more.

TR got an easy ride in 1904 due to the Democrats' mistake of nominating Parker and thus leaving their progressive wing in the wilderness. They were hardly likely to repeat that miscalculation.

As to the Black vote, I'm not sure what you are driving at. The Republicans had always had that, and would have it for another generation regardless of whether their candidate was progeressive or conservative, but its influence on national elections was marginal at best.
 
He had a respectable majority (HoR 222/164, Senate 61/29) in the final year of his Presidency, yet still got hardly any new measures through because his party had had enough of reforms. Republican landslides, even if attained, are no use to him if they elect the wrong kind of Republicans. Indeed, it they resiult in the replacement of a Progressive Democrat by a more conservative Republican (as is likely to happen in many districts) they make Congress less progressive trather than more.

TR got an easy ride in 1904 due to the Democrats' mistake of nominating Parker and thus leaving their progressive wing in the wilderness. They were hardly likely to repeat that miscalculation.

As to the Black vote, I'm not sure what you are driving at. The Republicans had always had that, and would have it for another generation regardless of whether their candidate was progeressive or conservative, but its influence on national elections was marginal at best.
And that man was Williams Jenning Bryan who won the nomination in a tsunami of a landslide on the first ballot. TR would have beat him like a drum.
 
It’s a long held belief (backed up by plenty of evidence) that a President has way, way more clout in his first term than he does in his second. And although Roosevelt had no formal bar to a third or fourth term, one has to wonder whether or not his clout would diminish. However, being in charge of a new Political Party might give a third term more oomph to really relegate the GOP to third place.

Now the usual reaction for a TR Presidency from 1912 is that he either drags the US into WW1 or attempts to mediate a truce.

Roosevelt felt that, Manifest Destiny aside, the US should attempt to mend fences and establish a proper relationship with the UK, in part to check the rise of Prussian/German militarism which he witnessed first hand whilst in Berlin as a child. The very recent Agadir Crisis would have spelled out just how far Imperial Germany were willing to go in order to protect their interests.

I doubt the Triple Entente would become the Quadruple Entente but I think there’s greater scope for more trans-Atlantic co-operation with the UK and by extension France and Russia. But I would say that Roosevelt would perhaps offer his services as a mediator between AH & Serbia which would make the other WW1 belligerents sit up and take notice.

It’s highly doubtful but could the election of TR somehow have averted the Titanic’s sinking? Perhaps he wanted to meet with the ship when it docked in New York and the Captain wasn’t going to be so stupid as to sail in the middle of the icy shipping lanes at full pelt…just a thought.
 
And that man was Williams Jenning Bryan who won the nomination in a tsunami of a landslide on the first ballot. TR would have beat him like a drum.

I don't think anybody disputes that TR would have won - after all, his stand-in did. He would indeed probably do somewhat better than Taft, perhaps squeezing Bryan down to around 41% against OTL's 43.5%.

My point is that there isn't the slightest likelihood of his winning big enough to put the Democrats out of business and triggering some sort of party realignment. His big 1904 victory didn't do any such thing, so there's no reason to suppose that an almost certainly smaller win in 1908 would be any more likely to.

In particular, it isn't likely to make any serious dent on the Dems' position in Congress - more important than the Presidential race if any kind of realignment is to be possible. OTL, despite losing heavily to Taft, they actually gained eight seats in the HoR (plus three in the Senate) on top of the 28 gained in the 1906 midterms. and in fact would not suffer a net loss of seats in any House election until 1914. If TR's 1908 victory is slightly bigger than Taft's was, then the Dems may suffer a modest loss that year, but there's no reason to think it will be anything major. In short, the Democratic Party stays firmly in business, TR or no TR.
 
When we look at this we know of the reaction to FDR and the no third term campaign

The main reason for the reaction to FDR's third term was that it had taken him so long to announce his intentions to run in 1940, and they largely came from Willkie supporters and the conservative democrats who had been tailoring Cactus Jack to run since 1932. Also, the media was a lot more frantic then as opposed to 20 years earlier. People didn't pay as much notice, and thought more about the man rather than all the mud...plus people then were accostumed and open to breaking precedent; he was TEDDY FUCKING ROOSEVELT! :D
 
I don't think anybody disputes that TR would have won - after all, his stand-in did. He would indeed probably do somewhat better than Taft, perhaps squeezing Bryan down to around 41% against OTL's 43.5%.

My point is that there isn't the slightest likelihood of his winning big enough to put the Democrats out of business and triggering some sort of party realignment. His big 1904 victory didn't do any such thing, so there's no reason to suppose that an almost certainly smaller win in 1908 would be any more likely to.

In particular, it isn't likely to make any serious dent on the Dems' position in Congress - more important than the Presidential race if any kind of realignment is to be possible. OTL, despite losing heavily to Taft, they actually gained eight seats in the HoR (plus three in the Senate) on top of the 28 gained in the 1906 midterms. and in fact would not suffer a net loss of seats in any House election until 1914. If TR's 1908 victory is slightly bigger than Taft's was, then the Dems may suffer a modest loss that year, but there's no reason to think it will be anything major. In short, the Democratic Party stays firmly in business, TR or no TR.

TR really started to change in the last 2 years of his presidency. This was due to what I call Bush syndrome; the midterms are out of the way, and he isn't running again in 08 so doesn't give a shit what people think about him, he does what he believes is right. With plans to run again in 1908 this would all change. Also, the main reason for their successes in the legislature is due to Bryan; he got the Democrats to turn out in droves, however TR had the same effect on the GOP. Also, the icon of Democratic Progressivism would think twice about running against a popular 2-term incumbent president. He still has his own political career to think about. Champ Clark or a conservative Dem would run in 1908 and get crushed under the big stick. Now moving to TR's successor it would either be Hiram Johnson or (if we get 20 years of TR) Hoover. Perhaps even Coolidge who emphasize his support for women's suffrage and racial equality and play down his economic conservatism. the GOP congress would act against TR's income and corporate tax, even maybe the Federal Reserve
 
I'll cover a third 1912 starting Teddy Roosevelt in my timeline.

What should be mentioned in regards to a 1908 elected TR is that Champ Clark would have blocked whatever he might have done. Clark, from his position as Speaker, utterly stalemated anything Taft did. It's quite probable that the same thing would happen again if TR won a third term in 1908.

Yeah cuz of WW2. That was what really ended the depression;

WW2 was a massive stimulus program. In other words if the New Deal had spent as much money as gearing up to fight WW2 cost then the gearing up to fight WW2 part would not be needed.

Say what you will about FDR (I have plenty of bad things to say about the man, personally) but the New Deal worked according to all empirical evidence. Yes WW2 truly ended the Great Depression, but WW2 was just a really big New Deal.

gold.png
 
I'll cover a third 1912 starting Teddy Roosevelt in my timeline.

What should be mentioned in regards to a 1908 elected TR is that Champ Clark would have blocked whatever he might have done. Clark, from his position as Speaker, utterly stalemated anything Taft did. It's quite probable that the same thing would happen again if TR won a third term in 1908.



WW2 was a massive stimulus program. In other words if the New Deal had spent as much money as gearing up to fight WW2 cost then the gearing up to fight WW2 part would not be needed.

Say what you will about FDR (I have plenty of bad things to say about the man, personally) but the New Deal worked according to all empirical evidence. Yes WW2 truly ended the Great Depression, but WW2 was just a really big New Deal.

If your logic includes Germany, why isn't it doing better? Germany was the world's first welfare state, started in the 1870's by Von Bismark. But no more economics! We must talk about TEDDYPHILIA :p
 
What should be mentioned in regards to a 1908 elected TR is that Champ Clark would have blocked whatever he might have done. Clark, from his position as Speaker, utterly stalemated anything Taft did. It's quite probable that the same thing would happen again if TR won a third term in 1908.


The Democrats did not gain control of the House until 1910, so Clark isn't speaker until 1911.

However, TR will have more than enough trouble from his own party. Iirc he got very little through Congress in his final year, despite its being still in Republican hands.
 
Top