U.S. President Champ Clark in 1913

[CaliGuy]

What if, rather than nomination Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats nominated House Speaker Champ Clark in 1912 and Clark ended up winning the 1912 election due to the Republican split that year?

How would Clark have governed the U.S.? Also, would Clark have gotten re-elected in 1916? In addition to this, would Clark have taken the U.S. into World War I?

Finally, who would Clark have picked as VP? Indeed, the answer to this question is especially important if Clark dies a little earlier in this TL but nevertheless wins two terms; in such a case, his VP would be able to be U.S. President for more than just two days (Clark died on March 2, 1921--two days before the end of what would have been his second term).

Any thoughts on all of this?

 

[Mikestone8]

The question of re-election may not arise.

In Feb 1913 the Senate passed an Amendment giving the POTUS a single six-year term. It would have passed the House easily, but Pres-Elect Wilson disapproved, and got the relevant committee chairman to stop it coming to a vote. Clark, iirc, favoured a single term, so presumably would not have intervened. So the next election would be 1918 and he wd not be a candidate.

 

[CaliGuy]

The question of re-election may not arise.

In Feb 1913 the Senate passed an Amendment giving the POTUS a single six-year term. It would have passed the House easily, but Pres-Elect Wilson disapproved, and got the relevant committee chairman to stop it coming to a vote. Clark, iirc, favoured a single term, so presumably would not have intervened. So the next election would be 1918 and he wd not be a candidate.

Very interesting!

However, would this Amendment have enough support to be ratified in 38 U.S. states?

 

[Mikestone8]

Very interesting!

However, would this Amendment have enough support to be ratified in 38 U.S. states?

The Senate vote is all we have to go on.

It was 47-23,which means that quite a few either abstained, were absent or were paired - I've no idea how to interpret that. However, of those who did vote, the nays included only one Democrat (Shiveley of Indiana) while the Republicans went 22 nay vs 19 yea. There were exceptions, but most of the Republican supporters were presumably Taft men wanting to foreclose on any possible TR comeback.

If the same pattern holds in the State Legislatures, the combination of Democrats and Regular Republicans would probably see it through, though several Progressive states out west might reject it. And history is definitely on its side. Of eleven amendments sent to the states during the 20C, only two (the 1920s Child Labor Amendment and the 1970s Equal Rights Amendment) failed of ratification, and both failures were due to strong opposition in one particular region - no prizes for guessing which region. This is unlikely to arise with the Single Term Amendment, as only one Southern Senator voted nay, and he was a Republican, appointed to fill a vacancy by one of Tennessee's rare GOP Governors. So the South doesn't seem to have had a problem with it. And while Progressive Republicans are strong in some Western states, Taft ones are strong in others, so the West is unlikely to be solid in opposition. My guess is that it gets ratified.

 

[SsgtC]

He may not even get elected to begin with. Wilson won in part because he was progressive with similar values to TR. If Wilson doesn't run, or isn't nominated, then TR pulls in allot of progressive Democrat votes. We may see a situation where no one wins enough votes in the electoral college and the election gets thrown to the House of Representatives. I know Democrats controlled the house, but would they all support their Party's nominee?

 

[Mikestone8]

He may not even get elected to begin with. Wilson won in part because he was progressive with similar values to TR. If Wilson doesn't run, or isn't nominated, then TR pulls in allot of progressive Democrat votes. We may see a situation where no one wins enough votes in the electoral college and the election gets thrown to the House of Representatives. I know Democrats controlled the house, but would they all support their Party's nominee?

Yes. They had no reason to do otherwise.

Clark was also progressive - he had been a long-time Bryan supporter until they fell out at the Democratic Convention. Note that in a state as progressive as California, he easily won the Democratic Primary, crushing Wilson by almost three to one. If he was weak anywhere, it was probably in the Northeast, where his "cornball" campaigning style might not have appealed. But this is uncertain as he also comfortably won the Massachusetts Primary, and in any case the beneficiary there is more likely to be Taft than TR.

And TR had little or no appeal to Democrats. Even his 1904 landslide was due to Democratic abstentions rather than defections. When allowance is made for population increase, TR's vote outside the Old Confederacy was virtually the same as McKinley's four years earlier. His electoral college sweep was due to "Bryan" Democrats who refused to vote for Parker, but wouldn't vote for him either. And these would have no reason to object to Clark. Certainly Bryan himself, whatever his reservations, would have supported the Democratic ticket regardless of who was nominated. He would no more desert his party than he would deny Christ. And TR's vote would be confined to a section of the Republican Party, with no significant Democratic support.

 

[Mikestone8]

We may see a situation where no one wins enough votes in the electoral college and the election gets thrown to the House of Representatives. I know Democrats controlled the house, but would they all support their Party's nominee?

Wouldn't matter. Being split between Regulars and Bull Moosers, the Republicans have no hope of re-electing Taft. The Regulars will probably go through the motions of voting for him on the first few ballots, but after that they'll just abstain and allow Clark an easy win, rather than give TR any opening. TR is their principal enemy.

 

[raharris1973]

How does lame-duck-itude evolve in system where the 6-year term amendment is passed?

Do Congresses begin waiting out Presidents by their fourth year, eroding Presidential powers?