I’ve been listening to a biography of Calvin Coolidge (bias alert: my favorite president for reasons both political and parochial) and I was struck at how durable his candidacy was in the 1920 Preaidential election. He was always a dark horse candidate, but that was, in part, by design. His team wanted to avoid scandalous fundraising, which was smart, since such concerns around improper fundraising killed several frontrunners’ candiscues. They were also banking on the repudiation of party bosses picking Senators in backroom deals, in the spirit of the Progressive Era, which was a mixed bag: A backroom deal is exactly how Harding got picked, but a mass movement among the delegates is how Coolidge got tapped for VP.
Now, without swooning too much over Coolidge, or raking Harding over the coals too much for his lax attitude when dealing with less than incorruptible men, I do think its fair to say that, of the two men, Coolidge was the better and more capable President.
So, lets sat that that the Convention goes for Coolidge, and he’s picked as the compromise candidate after a delegate revolt of some sort (likely the only way to get past Lodge, who wasn’t Coolidge’s biggest fan), with Harding as VP, to keep the Party Bosses somewhat molified. Coolidge wins, likely with less of a landslide than Harding (This was a 60/34 election, after all, plenty of room for a margin of error).
We’ll assume that Congressional elections in his 8 years proceed in recognizable fashion; I think Coolidge would lose fewer seats in 1922 than Harding, but that would likely be balanced by picking up fewer in 1924.
So, no Harding-era scandals, no Presidential death, a few of the Coolidge anecdotes stillborn (being sworn in by his dad, loaning a would be robber ticket money).
Any big changes?
Edit: wrong subforum. Edit 2: Now moved, thanks mods!