WI Coolidge ran in 1928?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How does he deal with Mississippi flooding, the economy and foreign affairs, particularly in Latin America and East Asia?
 
I would assume that Mr. Coolidge deals with most problems the same way Mr. Hoover did : do absolutely nothing, at least when it comes to the economic malaise the country found itself in.
 
I agree with the above poster; however, the American people were so oblivious to the economic issues going on, nobody would have noticed until the end of his term.

That the the way things were back then. Nobody cared that they had high interest rates, jacked up their credit card bills, or bought something they couldn't afford. The Roaring 20s were called the "Roaring 20s" for a reason.

I thin Coolidge, had he ran in 1928, would be the Grover Cleveland of his day. Great aspirations, great personality, a "hands off" approach, but lost in the ways and means of society. I like Coolidge and Cleveland (I study them); but they were, like current President Bush, "in over their heads."

There would most-likely be an economic panic toward the end of Mr. Coolidge's second full term. He would do absolutely nothing. The people would just ignore the problem until the panic ballooned. Then, they would probably elect Democrats for Governorships and the Congress. I doubt that a Great Depression would occur, because Coolidge was so popular; and I also think that a Democrat would have come in 1933, but not FDR --- more of a "conservative Democrat." Similar situation that is happening today.
 
I doubt that a Great Depression would occur, because Coolidge was so popular

Are you suggesting that a politician's popularity makes or breaks a Depression? The signs all point to one coming regardless of who is in office in 1928, whether it's Hoover, Coolidge, or Smith. I highly doubt economic forces are going to stop because the public likes Calvin Coolidge and they don't feel like ruining his approval ratings.

I also think that a Democrat would have come in 1933, but not FDR --- more of a "conservative Democrat."

Albert Ritchie of Maryland seems to fit the bill, and was heading towards nomination in the event of a deadlocked convention in 1932.
 
part of me feels that Coolidge's Popularity would of dried up quickly after the Great Depression broke, Flush's point is well taken given that the Depression was starting under a popular second term president and not in the first months of a new President might help public confidence, if thats the case a conservative Democrat would run (and win) in 1932, both Al Smith and John Nance Garner had their eyes on it that year one of them is likely.
however if as i think, public confidence is ever more shaken by having a two term president be powerless and inactive things can ether go as they did in OTL and FDR will get the win in 1932, or........
 
part of me feels that Coolidge's Popularity would of dried up quickly after the Great Depression broke, Flush's point is well taken given that the Depression was starting under a popular second term president and not in the first months of a new President might help public confidence, if thats the case a conservative Democrat would run (and win) in 1932, both Al Smith and John Nance Garner had their eyes on it that year one of them is likely.
.

I really don't think the Democrats would be stupid enough to renominate Smith, who'd lost even most of the Solid South four years earlier. Even in 1932, he never had enough support to deprive Roosevelt of the nomination, and lost strength on every ballot, whereas Garner gained on every ballot. If anything, I could see a ticket with Albert Ritchie for President and John Nance Garner for Vice President, just because of the stigma of nominating a southerner for President after the Civil War was still lingering until the fifties, at least.
 
I really don't think the Democrats would be stupid enough to renominate Smith, who'd lost even most of the Solid South four years earlier. Even in 1932, he never had enough support to deprive Roosevelt of the nomination, and lost strength on every ballot, whereas Garner gained on every ballot. If anything, I could see a ticket with Albert Ritchie for President and John Nance Garner for Vice President, just because of the stigma of nominating a southerner for President after the Civil War was still lingering until the fifties, at least.

Al's sill the light of the conservitive Dems, whats with your love of Ritchie? he did awful in OTL's Convention, and him and Garner together is unlikely they're two southerners (FYI Ritchie was born in Richmond, Virginia, the son of Virginia royalty)
 
Al's sill the light of the conservitive Dems, whats with your love of Ritchie? he did awful in OTL's Convention, and him and Garner together is unlikely they're two southerners (FYI Ritchie was born in Richmond, Virginia, the son of Virginia royalty)

Must be my reading over and over again about the convention in '32 (concerning Ritchie). He just seems like he would have emerged as a solid choice for the conservative wing of the party.

I just don't see why the Democrats would risk nominating Smith again when he had been trounced four years earlier. Maybe another conservative Democrat, other than Smith or Ritchie (I still can't see Garner getting it, to be honest), but I just can't see Smith getting it, considering how badly he did in the general election.
 
Must be my reading over and over again about the convention in '32 (concerning Ritchie). He just seems like he would have emerged as a solid choice for the conservative wing of the party.

I just don't see why the Democrats would risk nominating Smith again when he had been trounced four years earlier. Maybe another conservative Democrat, other than Smith or Ritchie (I still can't see Garner getting it, to be honest), but I just can't see Smith getting it, considering how badly he did in the general election.

on Smith, maybe, maybe not, both he and Garner are well connected in the party, Smith has the strike of having had his ass kicked in 28 (which may have been worse if Coolidge was running) and being out of office, however he gets to say, 'if you'd elected me we wouldn't be here so vote for me to fix it' just as if Gore had run in 08 any GOPer would have been crushed. Garner is very well connected but a shitty campaigner,

all the hats in the ring in OTL's 1932 race for the nomination
Franklin Roosevelt
Al Smith
John Nance Garner
George White
Harry F. Byrd
Melvin A. Traylor
James A. Reed
Albert C. Ritchie
William "Alfalfa Bill" Murray
Will Rogers
 
Well, just because it needs to be said:

Coolidge, having taken office in 1922 or after Harding's death, missed several chances to avoid the Great Depression--and he certainly would not have acted as Hoover did to issue several warnings over a stock market bubble.

Hoover deserves more credit than he recieved--the Democrats stifled his attempts to address the depression for their own political gain, with ideas they seized for themselves in the new deal.

Coolidge would not attempt to address the Stock Market in any way, shape, or form--in short, he would do much less than Hoover. This might butterfly the stock market crash a few days in either direction or it could lead to a nastier crash in 1930.

Hoover, at least, tried to take action after the crash. Coolidge would not even do that--and we can expect very negative consequences to follow.

The election of 1932 is going to be interesting, because Coolidge is not going to be able to run again (nor would anyone want him to.) FDR probably runs for the Democrats, and he sweeps the election by a huge margin. The Republicians probably decide that this is not their year and a second rate candidate decides to take the plunge.

All things considered, a slightly nastier depression and a far stronger showing for FDR in 1932. The Margin of victory might be so large that the democrats can respond to the Supreme Court's rulings against the New Deal with constitutional amendments instead of a poorly considered court-packing plan.

How the USA develops when "The Federal Government has the Right to support and strengthen the Economy of the United States through any reasonable and proper means" is enshrined as a constitutional amendment is an excellent question.
 
Top