To Stand at Armageddon: Teddy wins in 1912

Theoretically, but the question still remains about what causes the defections.

In 1920, the Democratic Party was at its nadir of unpopularity, in a country longing to get back to normal after the sacrifices of the Great War. It was also becoming increasingly divided between its "Wet" and "Dry" factions on Prohibition. In 1924 disagreement about whether, or how far, to distance itself from the Klan was added to the mix. It wasn't just a question of not having a clear front-runner for the nomination. When a party's fortunes are on the rise, any dark horse will do, as Warren Harding demonstrated. The Democrats had a deep internal divide which could not be papered over just by finding a compromise candidate.

In 1912, by contrast, it was the Republicans who were in the deep doo doo, already unpopular even before they started tearing themselves to shreds in the Taft-Roosevelt battle. The Dems were the "rising" party, having won a lopsided HoR majority in 1910, and cutting deep into the Reps' Senate majority. And they were reasonably united. The Prohibition issue was still in its infancy, and the Klan question even more so, while free silver had long since faded. Democratic dvivsions were minor compared to Republican ones.
They Republicans weren't in that much trouble. Taft + Roosevelt together beat Wilson by 10 points and beat Wilson in Missouri. Throw in a complacent candidate that his opposition can define to the public as more conservative than he really is and you have something to work with.
 
Last edited:
They Republicans weren't in that much trouble. Taft + Roosevelt together beat Wilson by 10 points and beat Wilson in Missouri. Throw in a complacent candidate that his opposition can define to the public as more conservative than he really is and you have something to work with.


Was Wilson's image any less conservative? Frex, in the 1912 campaign he never came out for women's suffrage, which TR did and which Bryan had done before him. Clark, OTOH, had made the first moves to organise Democratic women nationally, and his sister, Annie Pitzer of Colorado, was one of the two women delegates at the Democratic Convention that year. Wilson also opposed a national child labour law and minimum wage legislation, which TR supported.

If Clark has been "painted" as more conservative than he really is, he has the entire campaign in which to repair any damage. William Randolph Hearst was a strong Clark supporter, so his papers will probably endorse Clark more enthusiastically than they did Wilson. Might he even be Clark's running-mate? And Bryan, whatever problems he might have with Clark at the Convention, is a passionately loyal Democrat and will certainly campaign for Clark in the general election, as he did for Parker eight years before, though the latter advocated policies far more repellant to him than Clark is likely to do.

I can't help feeling that the widespread notion of a "conservative" Clark is largely a product of hindsight. We all know (if we've studied the period at all) that Wilson, once elected, turned out to be a really strong progressive, pushing through a whole shaft of reforms, so that's how we imagine him campaigning. In reality, though, he ran a pretty standard Democratic campaign of that era, certainly sounding less radical than Bryan normally had. There is no reason to think that he came over to the voters as any more progressive than Clark would have done.

Finally, even if Clark did cultivate a (slightly) more conservative image than Wilson, is there any real evidence that it would have harmed him? If he lost some "Wilson" voters to TR, he would probably make some gains from Taft, leaving the overall effect pretty much "swings and roundabouts". I certainly don't see the slightest reason to expect the massive losses that your scenario requires.

This is not to say that nominating Clark makes no difference, but my guess is that the effects are more geographical than ideological. Wilson, an easterner and former President of an Ivy League college, probably did better in the northeast than Clark would have. I can imagine Clark losing Maine to TR and the rest of New England to Taft, while TR probably increases his lead in Pennsylvania and has at least a chance to pick up New Jersey. Further west, though, Clark should do about as well as Wilson, and maybe better. In the Midwest there is probably no change (TR had fairly solid majorities in the three states he carried there) except that Clark, as a next door neighbour, may take Illinois by a slightly bigger margin than Wilson did. However, if Clark comes out for women's suffrage (quite possible, given his record) he should do better than Wilson in those western states where women already vote, so almost certainly winning California, which Wilson lost by a razor-thin 0.025% (that is not a misprint) and has a slimmer chance of edging out Taft in Utah. That gives him a comfortable 392, against 97 (including Maine and NJ but excluding California) for Roosevelt and 42 (still including Utah) for Taft. I don't expect the popular vote to change much from OTL, though it will be differently distributed.
 
Just had a thought, John Schrank seemed to be against third terms on principal, but he was obviously an extremely unstable individual what with the psychotic dreams and all. It's not hard to imagine him becoming fixated upon some other obsession. What if he hunted down and shot Taft instead of Roosevelt and Taft died with less than a month before the election? Since his VP dies on the 30th due to a chronic illness, won't Roosevelt get the vast majority of the Republican votes?
 
Just had a thought, John Schrank seemed to be against third terms on principal, but he was obviously an extremely unstable individual what with the psychotic dreams and all. It's not hard to imagine him becoming fixated upon some other obsession. What if he hunted down and shot Taft instead of Roosevelt and Taft died with less than a month before the election? Since his VP dies on the 30th due to a chronic illness, won't Roosevelt get the vast majority of the Republican votes?


Had it happened six months earlier, maybe. But by election eve the passion of the conflict has reached fever pitch. The Republican National Committee will just name another candidate - Probably President Knox, who will enjoy quite a bit of public sympathy after coming to office in such circs -and might not be above dropping dark hints that TR or his supporters were somehow behind the killing.
 
Last edited:
Had it happened six months earlier, maybe. But by election eve the passion of the conflict has reached fever pitch. The Republican National Committee will just name another candidate - Fairbanks perhaps -and might not be above dropping dark hints that TR or his supporters were somehow behind the killing.

They'll only 5 days to do it and they're all spread out over the country campaigning in their local districts. Its not as if they can just work the thing out over a teleconference. Moreover the ballot can't be changed. People will have to be convinced to vote for dead people so that whomever the party names will get their electoral votes.

Even if they manage it somehow, a lot of people vote for names, not party slates. Having the whole Republican ticket wiped out like that at the last minute will be worth a big swing, five percentage points easily.
 

Glen

Moderator
Always a favorite point of divergence, Roosevelt winning in 1912. However, if you wish to be respectful, I would point out that Theodore Roosevelt hated Teddy. I can change the title of the thread if you'd like.
 
Always a favorite point of divergence, Roosevelt winning in 1912. However, if you wish to be respectful, I would point out that Theodore Roosevelt hated Teddy. I can change the title of the thread if you'd like.

"An outrageous impertinence"- TR :D
 
They'll only 5 days to do it and they're all spread out over the country campaigning in their local districts. Its not as if they can just work the thing out over a teleconference. Moreover the ballot can't be changed. People will have to be convinced to vote for dead people so that whomever the party names will get their electoral votes.

Even if they manage it somehow, a lot of people vote for names, not party slates. Having the whole Republican ticket wiped out like that at the last minute will be worth a big swing, five percentage points easily.


The ballot couldn't be changed after Sherman died, but it doesn't seem to have been any problem. Of course, a change of President is a bigger deal than a change of VP, but Knox will be a sympathetic figure after coming to office (even if it is a rather "brief authority") in this way. I don't see why he shouldn't do as well as Taft, and he might do better.

In theory I suppose they could choose someone else - Fairbanks perhaps - or Knox might refuse, but given that it's something of a formality in these circumstances, there's no reason for either. Basically, the priority for the Taft people is not to win (they know they can't) but to make sure that TR doesn't profit from his "treachery". That they can still do.
 
Mikestone8,

Have you considered some sort of foreign crisis to help nudge TR to victory? Or some unusual domestic event? Possibily even a failed attempt on TR's life, or TR finds himself in a position to dash into a burning tenament building to save lots of residents. :)
 
Mikestone8,

Have you considered some sort of foreign crisis to help nudge TR to victory? Or some unusual domestic event? Possibily even a failed attempt on TR's life, or TR finds himself in a position to dash into a burning tenament building to save lots of residents. :)

There was a failed attempt on TR's life. That's the "Schrank" that Timmy811 was referring to. It gave him a boost, but didn't come anywhere near electing him.

As to a foreign crisis, I'm not sure what would do it. A revolution in Mexico (if it came to a head earlier) probably wouldn't be enough. There was a crisis in Europe, which looked for a while as if general war might break out, but it only came to a head in December, after the election. Had it exploded earlier, that might well have shifted some voters to TR - but probably shifted equal numbers against him from fear that his bellicosity might drag America into war.

Sorry to be such a wet blanket on this one, but it really is next to impossible. As soon as TR opted for the third party route, he put the Democrats in a "win-win" situation. If their candidate was seen as progressive, he would hold enough progressive voters to defeat TR. If seen as Conservative, any losses to TR would be largely balanced by gains from Taft, whose supporters were angry enough to vote Democratic if they couldn't beat TR any other way. And if he took a middle course, as long as he stayed firmly in the "mainstream" of his party he would probably do both. As a politician put it "Why should Democrats vote against Wilson just because Taft has cheated Roosevelt of the Republican nomination?" And the same point would have held good for Champ Clark or Tom Marshall. So long as the Democrats didn't go bananas and nominate a Tom Watson or a Theodore Bilbo, they were virtually guaranteed to win. Even Bryan could have won in 1912.

TR's only viable route back to the White House was on the Republican ticket. Either he must win the nomination from Taft, or if that proved impossible, then support Taft against the Democrats, stay ostentatiously loyal to the party, and try again in 1916. But in his anger with the Taft Administration, he allowed his heart to rule his head, and doomed himself to spend the rest of his life in the wilderness.

The idea of him doing a rescue is nice, but again unlikely to be enough. After all, people already knew he was brave. He was the hero of San Juan Hill. They'd have applauded him, but not necessarily voted for him.
 
The ballot couldn't be changed after Sherman died, but it doesn't seem to have been any problem. Of course, a change of President is a bigger deal than a change of VP, but Knox will be a sympathetic figure after coming to office (even if it is a rather "brief authority") in this way. I don't see why he shouldn't do as well as Taft, and he might do better.

In theory I suppose they could choose someone else - Fairbanks perhaps - or Knox might refuse, but given that it's something of a formality in these circumstances, there's no reason for either. Basically, the priority for the Taft people is not to win (they know they can't) but to make sure that TR doesn't profit from his "treachery". That they can still do.

I think you over estimate how dedicated the average, individual members of the electorate are to such petty partisan principles. The average voter needs to feel comfortable about the individual they're voting for on both a political and personal level, which means they need to feel like they know them. The Secretary of State or an ex-Vice President picked out of obscurity a few days before the election isn't going to instantly engender that feeling.

It's like as if in 2008 Hillary used Superdelegates to steal the nomination and Obama ran on a third party Progressive ticket (how ironic) and Hillary and her VP died a week before the election. There'd be massive defections to Obama (who'd basically destroyed the party's chances in a golden year) rather than the sheep blindly voting for whoever the DNC trotted out at the last minute. Similarly TR's gonna pick up a great deal of Taft's support.
 
I think you over estimate how dedicated the average, individual members of the electorate are to such petty partisan principles. The average voter needs to feel comfortable about the individual they're voting for on both a political and personal level, which means they need to feel like they know them. The Secretary of State or an ex-Vice President picked out of obscurity a few days before the election isn't going to instantly engender that feeling.

But Knox ain't SoS any more. He is President, promoted in tragic circumstances, and relatively little involved in the issues that made Taft unpopular, few of which related to foreign policy. He may even do slightly better than Taft himself did.

It's like as if in 2008 Hillary used Superdelegates to steal the nomination and Obama ran on a third party Progressive ticket (how ironic) and Hillary and her VP died a week before the election. There'd be massive defections to Obama (who'd basically destroyed the party's chances in a golden year) rather than the sheep blindly voting for whoever the DNC trotted out at the last minute. Similarly TR's gonna pick up a great deal of Taft's support.

But so will Clark (or Wilson as the case may be). The really committed party loyalists will stick with the "Taft" ticket, whatever that now is, while the less committed will at least consider voting Democratic. After all, TR has all along been clearly stronger than Taft, so by October anyone willing to switch to him has almost certainly already done so. The ones still loyal to Taft by now are the hardcore, who are least willing to consider going Progressive. If they despair of their ticket winning, they might as well "go the whole hog" and vote Democratic. With any luck it will only be for one term.
 
But Knox ain't SoS any more. He is President, promoted in tragic circumstances, and relatively little involved in the issues that made Taft unpopular, few of which related to foreign policy. He may even do slightly better than Taft himself did.

But so will Clark (or Wilson as the case may be). The really committed party loyalists will stick with the "Taft" ticket, whatever that now is, while the less committed will at least consider voting Democratic. After all, TR has all along been clearly stronger than Taft, so by October anyone willing to switch to him has almost certainly already done so. The ones still loyal to Taft by now are the hardcore, who are least willing to consider going Progressive. If they despair of their ticket winning, they might as well "go the whole hog" and vote Democratic. With any luck it will only be for one term.
He might as well be SoS still, he has no time to imprint himself on the American public like TR did after McKinley got whacked. Anyways, logistically how quickly could the Republican party get together and nominate a new candidate. Five days seems to be stretching. They all have to go by train, even picking a central location like Chicago or St. Louis will take 2-3 days for people to get there and that presumes they'll all be able to agree as soon as they get a quorum. Then they have 2 days to get their message out. That's not gonna be very effective.

They're the most partisan Republicans, presumably because they have deeply held differences with the Democratic party platform. That's like saying a lot of those Hillary voters would go over to McCain rather than Obama in the situation I laid out above. I just don't see it, the vast majority will go with the candidate closer to them. And that's Obama, or in this case Roosevelt.

We just don't seem to agree on how politics work, so I doubt this is gonna go anywhere. Lets just agree to disagree.
 
There wan't anything like the ideological divide between Taft and Wilson (or Clark) that there was between McCain and either Obama or Clinton. If anything, the Democrats of 1912 were (or appeared to be, judging by their campaign) in the middle politically, between Taft and TR. McCain certainly wasn't intermediate between Clinton and Obama.

However, you're probably right that we could argue this a year and never agree, so I'll leave it if you will.
 
Top