U.S. Politics in a 'No World War I' world

Assuming that for whatever reason World War I does not break out, how does this effect American politics? Before the Great War and subsequent state clampdown on the socialist movement, Debs got his highest showing ever in 1912 with 6% of the vote. Do the Socialists continue their upward movement in the polls, possibly knocking the Democrats to third party status?

Without a war to run on not being in, does Wilson lose in 1916? Who do the Republicans nominate? How well do the Socialists do in 1916, and who do they nominate?

What other possible butterflies could we see happening from a 'No WWI' in American politics?
 
If anything Debs would steal GOP votes. Remember these Dems are the Bourbons, my second-favorites behind Blue Dogs/DLC. ;)

Wilson: depends on the GOP candidate. If it's TR he gets curbstomped, but he'll probably eke out a win against anyone else if he pushes progressive social issues (except race, but I don't expect much from W. Verwoerd) to keep his economic Bourbonism under wraps. If it's Hughes then it becomes 1924: Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

Generally speaking: Progressive issues move slower because there's no "country fit for heroes" that swept North America to create the 1945-79 "postwar consensus" after both world wars. Wilson might get more of his program through but it depends on how cooperative Congress is.
 
If anything Debs would steal GOP votes. Remember these Dems are the Bourbons, my second-favorites behind Blue Dogs/DLC. ;)

Wilson: depends on the GOP candidate. If it's TR he gets curbstomped, but he'll probably eke out a win against anyone else if he pushes progressive social issues (except race, but I don't expect much from W. Verwoerd) to keep his economic Bourbonism under wraps. If it's Hughes then it becomes 1924: Tweedledum or Tweedledee.

Generally speaking: Progressive issues move slower because there's no "country fit for heroes" that swept North America to create the 1945-79 "postwar consensus" after both world wars. Wilson might get more of his program through but it depends on how cooperative Congress is.

Yeah, but the Democrats tended to have the smaller support base at the time, right? And like today, there will be Democratic or Republican regions that are really closer to some other party, and they might flip to Debs. If they can get Congressmen and Senators in, then they can really start affecting the country to a great extent.
 
Correct about the D support base. Remember this was when the ACW was well within living memory- just as fresh as 'Nam today. The Dems could still be beaten, as their poor post-ACW track record showed, by waving the bloody shirt. Civil War veterans' reunions were well-publicized by the GOP: "we're the party of Blue, they're the party of Grey", or just a few years earlier, saying "not every Democrat was a traitor, but every traitor was a Democrat." Wilson broke the losing streak, since apart from Cleveland they hadn't won an election since 1856. The Dems were just regarded as the Southern party- since they won precious little EV above Mason-Dixon.
 
Wilson broke the losing streak, since apart from Cleveland they hadn't won an election since 1856.

And we've got to bear in mind that Wilson wouldn't have broken the losing streak if Theodore Roosevelt hadn't ran as a third party candidate in 1912. If the Socialists pick up the vote among the Democratic base in the north (immigrant workers and organized labor), then the Democrats are doomed in the north and probably become a completely regional party based in the South. They'll run Presidential candidates, but like the British Lib Dems, there's effectively no chance of them ever being able to win the leadership again.

As the decades go on and the Socialists and Republicans predominate, I figure that the Democrats will corrode in the South as well, probably when the Socialists inevitably try and pass civil rights legislation. Republicans will open the Democrats into the party with open arms, and all but the hardest core of the Yellow Dogs will go along with it, making the country a de facto two party system again by mid-century or later.
 
I don't see the Socialists making big gains, TBH. Since you made the LibDem comparison: there would be just as much hype ITTL as there was with "Cleggmania" :)rolleyes:) IOTL back in April. Instead of doubling their seat count, they lost seats. Same with the Socialists. Dems will remain a major party. I wouldn't mind the Bourbons joining the GOP, heaven knows they could use some Gladstonian economics instead of TR's statism.
 
The Dems were just regarded as the Southern party- since they won precious little EV above Mason-Dixon.

More complex than that. The democrats tended to be a loose alliance between the South the the urban political machines. These machines allowed the democrats to lock up much of the catholic, immigrant, and jewish vote. This helped keep the democrats from becoming a soley regional party, however until 1900 america was still demographically more rural than urban.
 
That's where the interfactional economic tension came in as well. You would have the Gladstonian Bourbons and the Tammany Hall loose-moneyists, and of course the racial issue, since the Bourbons were less-than-enthusiastic about non-WASPs to say the least. It was the Northerners who won control with Al Smith's nomination in '28 and made it permanent with FDR in '32. Without WWI the latter will keep pushing for a swing to the left, and the Bourbons will say "you're DINOs, go join the statist Yankees if you don't like it." At least, I hope they do. :D
 
That's where the interfactional economic tension came in as well. You would have the Gladstonian Bourbons and the Tammany Hall loose-moneyists, and of course the racial issue, since the Bourbons were less-than-enthusiastic about non-WASPs to say the least. It was the Northerners who won control with Al Smith's nomination in '28 and made it permanent with FDR in '32. Without WWI the latter will keep pushing for a swing to the left, and the Bourbons will say "you're DINOs, go join the statist Yankees if you don't like it." At least, I hope they do. :D

Of course, if they do it will quite destroy the Democrats as a non-regional party, as anything more than Dixiecrats, really. You're talking about burning everything they had outside the South! Then they *will* become the Lib Dems of US politics. Those northern groups might swing to the Socialists or the Republicans, but swing they will.
 
Top