Teddy abstains from 1912, wins in 1916

How would Roosevelt have handled the Great War?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...tructing_teddy.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_2
When TR sought to return to the fold in 1916, the still-bitter party leaders nominated the pallid Charles Evans Hughes instead. Even so, Hughes, "the bearded iceberg," came within a whisker of beating Wilson. Hughes lost California by fewer than 4,000 votes, on a day when TR's GOP ally Hiram Johnson was winning his California senatorial race by 300,000. Had Roosevelt been on the ballot that day, California would have been his, and with it an Electoral College victory. "This was my year to run," he said glumly after Wilson's re-election. "I did not want to run in 1912. Circumstances compelled me to run then. This year it was different."

...

What if he had waited until 1916? He could have led a united party to victory on a "preparedness" platform. It would have been Roosevelt, not Wilson, as the hero-president of World War I; Roosevelt shaping the peace terms; Roosevelt the all-around titan of 1918, bestriding the transatlantic world like a colossus. Then he would have died right on cue on the eve of the Paris Peace Conference, preserved like Lincoln in the perfection of his victory. That would have capped a far more astonishing career than the one Roosevelt actually had, impressive as it was.
 

Glen

Moderator
If TR hadn't run in 1912 then Taft probably wins and it won't be Wilson running in 1916.
 
Might this cause a conservative Dem to win in 1920?

What are the chances of a conservative democrat 1920s and a Progressive Repbublican New Deal analogue?
 
If TR hadn't run in 1912 then Taft probably wins and it won't be Wilson running in 1916.


Not a chance.

The Taft Administration was thoroughly unpopular and had suffered a crushing defeat in the 1910 midterms. In 1912 the Republicans would suffer further losses despite most Congressional contests being two-way races. Taftites and Progressives could not unite behind a single candidate - the rift was too great.

With TR out, between a third and half of his supporters are liable to either abstain or vote for Wilson - more than enough to elect him.
 
is TR running on a blatantly interventionist platform in 1916? Wilson was able to run on "he kept us out of war."

Actually, I think the bigger difference is after the war, not on the handling of it, since Wilson still got the US in as early as TR could have.


But with TR, no 14 points, no League of Nations, lots of butterflies.
 
is TR running on a blatantly interventionist platform in 1916? Wilson was able to run on "he kept us out of war."

Actually, I think the bigger difference is after the war, not on the handling of it, since Wilson still got the US in as early as TR could have.


But with TR, no 14 points, no League of Nations, lots of butterflies.

Actually Teddy could have organized a far better peace most likely be it easy peace or something damaging enough to keep them out of the colonial game. Wilson mucked up the treaty of Versaille and threw out most of the fourteen points because of some really inept diplomacy and his insistence on the League which sabotaged any hope that the war wouldn't be repeated.
 
Might Lafollate run as a progressive in 1912 and help elect Wilson? I think TR's interventionist views would be a problem in 1916.
 
Top