Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose / Progressive Party win in 1912. Impact on other parties?

During the Progressive Era in the early 1900s wasn’t there a goodly number of liberal Republicans as well as conservative Democrats?

Indeed there were, which was the only reason TR got as far as he did. But liberal Reps alone were too few to win a national election - even a three-way one - and Bryan Dems were more likely to abstain [1] than switch to a Republican.

[1] Or possibly vote Socialist. I don't know what research has been done into Debs' vote, but I suspect that some of it at least probably consisted of Democrats who found the President of Princeton a bit too "establishment" for their taste.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Indeed there were, which was the only reason TR got as far as he did. But liberal Reps alone were too few to win a national election - even a three-way one - and Bryan Dems were more likely to abstain [1] than switch to a Republican.

[1] Or possibly vote Socialist. I don't know what research has been done into Debs' vote, but I suspect that some of it at least probably consisted of Democrats who found the President of Princeton a bit too "establishment" for their taste.
If so, it would have been an extremely small slice of Democrats. In 1912, Debs received 901,000 votes total. That placed him fourth, more than 2.5 million votes behind Taft. He also received no electoral votes.
 
If so, it would have been an extremely small slice of Democrats. In 1912, Debs received 901,000 votes total. That placed him fourth, more than 2.5 million votes behind Taft. He also received no electoral votes.

It was still a lot more than the 420,852 votes he got in 1908. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1908 The difference may in part have been due to new voters; but some of it probably came from 1908 Bryan voters who felt that Wilson, unlike Bryan, wasn't "radical" enough. There might have been more Bryan-to-Debs voters (as well as Bryan-to-TR voters) if the Democrats had nominated Champ Clark (whom Bryan unfairly maligned as a tool of Wall Street) and still more in the unlikely event the Democrats had nominated a more conservative candidate like Oscar W. Underwood or Judson Harmon. Still, as long as the Democratic nominee got the core Democratic vote, he was pretty sure to win in 1912.
 
It was still a lot more than the 420,852 votes he got in 1908. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1908 The difference may in part have been due to new voters; but some of it probably came from 1908 Bryan voters who felt that Wilson, unlike Bryan, wasn't "radical" enough. There might have been more Bryan-to-Debs voters (as well as Bryan-to-TR voters) if the Democrats had nominated Champ Clark (whom Bryan unfairly maligned as a tool of Wall Street) and still more in the unlikely event the Democrats had nominated a more conservative candidate like Oscar W. Underwood or Judson Harmon. Still, as long as the Democratic nominee got the core Democratic vote, he was pretty sure to win in 1912.


And TR wouldn't necessarily have benefited from such a shift.

Clark, a Midwesterner with a very "folksy" campaigning style, would probably be weaker than Wilson in the northeast, and particularly in New England. However, in most of the NE states it was Taft, not TR, who took second place. So a shift from Clark to TR (or just to abstention) might principally benefit Taft, though TR might pick up Maine.

OTOH, Clark did very well in the California Primary. crushing Wilson by almost three to one. Given the razor-thinness of TR's winning margin there, if he pulled even a few hundred [1] extra Democrats out to the polls, that would suffice for him to take the state. If no other states changed columns, the TR's final electoral vote would be somewhat less than OTL.

[1] About 600,000 votes were cast in CA, with TR edging out Wilson by about 170, each receiving a bit over 280,000. Debs got a bit over 79,000.
 
It was still a lot more than the 420,852 votes he got in 1908. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1908 The difference may in part have been due to new voters; but some of it probably came from 1908 Bryan voters who felt that Wilson, unlike Bryan, wasn't "radical" enough. There might have been more Bryan-to-Debs voters (as well as Bryan-to-TR voters) if the Democrats had nominated Champ Clark (whom Bryan unfairly maligned as a tool of Wall Street) and still more in the unlikely event the Democrats had nominated a more conservative candidate like Oscar W. Underwood or Judson Harmon. Still, as long as the Democratic nominee got the core Democratic vote, he was pretty sure to win in 1912.

Just looking at the differences in Wilson's and Bryan's commonly known political opinions and campaign platforms certainly adds credence to this theory. Bryan certainly scraped the left frame of the Overton Window so far as the established elite culture in the US was concerned (I'd call him a National Populist), while Wilson's credentials were far more towards the Technocratic faction of the Progressive current. No doubt that cost the Dems some popular vote to the Socialists
 
And TR wouldn't necessarily have benefited from such a shift.

Clark, a Midwesterner with a very "folksy" campaigning style, would probably be weaker than Wilson in the northeast, and particularly in New England. However, in most of the NE states it was Taft, not TR, who took second place. So a shift from Clark to TR (or just to abstention) might principally benefit Taft, though TR might pick up Maine.

OTOH, Clark did very well in the California Primary. crushing Wilson by almost three to one. Given the razor-thinness of TR's winning margin there, if he pulled even a few hundred [1] extra Democrats out to the polls, that would suffice for him to take the state. If no other states changed columns, the TR's final electoral vote would be somewhat less than OTL.

[1] About 600,000 votes were cast in CA, with TR edging out Wilson by about 170, each receiving a bit over 280,000. Debs got a bit over 79,000.

Clark was strong in the West as long as long as Bryan was regarded as friendly to him. The question is how strong he would be there after Bryan had in effect portrayed him as a tool of August Belmont and Boss Murphy if Clark still manages to get the nomination. Even granted that Bryan as a matter of party loyalty would formally back him once nominated, I doubt that Clark would have the same level of support in the West he once had.
 
We probably get a Progressive versus Republican duopoly in the long term.

How, exactly, when even a Democrat as un-radical as Alton Parker still got 38% of the vote? With Socialists, Prohibitionists et al together taking several percentage points, that leaves less than 60% for the Rs and Ps to divide between them. The figures just don't add up.
 
How, exactly, when even a Democrat as un-radical as Alton Parker still got 38% of the vote? With Socialists, Prohibitionists et al together taking several percentage points, that leaves less than 60% for the Rs and Ps to divide between them. The figures just don't add up.
Smaller parties don't endure historically. Briefly having strength here would be in-line historically, but the prospects for long-term survival are not there.
 
Smaller parties don't endure historically. Briefly having strength here would be in-line historically, but the prospects for long-term survival are not there.

Exactly, and the Progressives were definitely a "smaller party". Iirc they never amounted to much in Congress, and would have amounted to even less but for those states where a Prog could get the Republican nomination as well. Having TR as a candidate made them look more important than they really were, but they soon shrank back to life size once the election as over.
 
Exactly, and the Progressives were definitely a "smaller party". Iirc they never amounted to much in Congress, and would have amounted to even less but for those states where a Prog could get the Republican nomination as well. Having TR as a candidate made them look more important than they really were, but they soon shrank back to life size once the election as over.
But if TR wins on their line, that changes things.
 
But if TR wins on their line, that changes things.

In what way?

If by some freak TR managed to get in (mathematically impossible as far as I can see, but let it pass for now) he would have only two choices. Either he must resign himself to being a POTUS without a party and achieving next to nothing, or he must mend his fences with the Party regulars and revert to being a Republican POTUS, leaving the Progressive Party to fade away as the Populists did before them. Either way it has no long-term future.

The key to a party realignment is to capture Congress, which the PP never came within a hundred miles of doing. W/o a major party on the Hill, a President can achieve next to nothing. And since the PP is essentially a Republican faction, the better it does, the deeper it will cut into the Republican vote, thus virtually ensuring heavy Democratic majorities in both houses.
 
In what way?

If by some freak TR managed to get in (mathematically impossible as far as I can see, but let it pass for now) he would have only two choices. Either he must resign himself to being a POTUS without a party and achieving next to nothing, or he must mend his fences with the Party regulars and revert to being a Republican POTUS, leaving the Progressive Party to fade away as the Populists did before them. Either way it has no long-term future.

The key to a party realignment is to capture Congress, which the PP never came within a hundred miles of doing. W/o a major party on the Hill, a President can achieve next to nothing. And since the PP is essentially a Republican faction, the better it does, the deeper it will cut into the Republican vote, thus virtually ensuring heavy Democratic majorities in both houses.
Could they not have fielded candidates in 1914?
 

SsgtC

Banned
In what way?

If by some freak TR managed to get in (mathematically impossible as far as I can see, but let it pass for now) he would have only two choices. Either he must resign himself to being a POTUS without a party and achieving next to nothing, or he must mend his fences with the Party regulars and revert to being a Republican POTUS, leaving the Progressive Party to fade away as the Populists did before them. Either way it has no long-term future.

The key to a party realignment is to capture Congress, which the PP never came within a hundred miles of doing. W/o a major party on the Hill, a President can achieve next to nothing. And since the PP is essentially a Republican faction, the better it does, the deeper it will cut into the Republican vote, thus virtually ensuring heavy Democratic majorities in both houses.
Actually, I think that was TR's plan all along had he won. To basically win a position of strength, and force the Republican Party to the table. Essentially, he was trying to coup the GOP and bypass the Party Bosses to force the party back in line with his own progressive ideals
 
Last edited:
Could they not have fielded candidates in 1914?

They did OTL, and were pretty well wiped out.

TRs election won't change that, as either TR is achieving nothing or else he has abandoned them and rejoined the GOP.

The Democratic majority in Congress will ignore TR and pass a set of Progressive measures of their own, for which they will take the credit if TR accepts them, or use as their campaign plank against him if he vetoes them.


Actually, I think that was TR's plan all along had he won. To basically win a position of strength, and force the Republican Party to the table. Essentially, he was trying to coup the GOP and bypass the Party Bosses to force the party back in line with his own progressive ideals

Trouble with that is that he needs the party more than the party needs him.

W/o a Congressional party he is a political cripple, and, in the public mind, the obvious way to end the gridlock will be to elect a Democrat in 1916. The Regulars can live with that for a few years if it is the price of their continued control of their own party.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Trouble with that is that he needs the party more than the party needs him.

W/o a Congressional party he is a political cripple, and, in the public mind, the obvious way to end the gridlock will be to elect a Democrat in 1916. The Regulars can live with that for a few years if it is the price of their continued control of their own party.
I didn't say he'd be successful at it. Lol. But from the research I've done, that appeared to be his plan
 
Clark was strong in the West as long as long as Bryan was regarded as friendly to him. The question is how strong he would be there after Bryan had in effect .him as a tool of August Belmont and Boss Murphy if Clark still manages to get the nomination. Even granted that Bryan as a matter of party loyalty would formally back him once nominated, I doubt that Clark would have the same level of support in the West he once had.


Of course much depends on exactly how Clark gets the nomination.

Afaics, most of the credible ones involve Bryan not making that speech, or its getting butterflied away. Maybe Bryan falls ill and isn't in his seat that day, or Wilson collapses a few days before the Convention, and a stampede develops. In the latter case, no doubt the Tammany people would still switch to Clark, but they would be but one of several delegations doing so, and attract far less attention. In such circs, would Bryan still make an issue of it? After all, despite the Tammany business, Clark's political record is nothing like as offensive to him as Parker's was.
 
Top