WI: Democratic Presidential Candidate Champ Clark?

What if Tammany Hall didn't throw its support for Champ Clark in the 1912 United States Presidential Election. Would he be able to win the Democratic nomination against Woodrow Wilson?
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Possibly. The popular story, of course, has it that Tammany's shift of support caused William Jennings Bryan to publicly denounce Clark on the floor of the Convention, and that led to the shift to Wilson.

However, there's some solid evidence that it wasn't Tammany -- or even Bryan -- that did it, but a number of backroom deals being cut by Wilson's lieutenants on the floor: with the Underwood team to stop Clark from making it; the deal with the Indiana bosses, for instance, at the price of making Thomas Marshall Vice President.

After all, it wasn't an immediate shift after Bryan's grand oration condemning Clark as a pawn of Tammany Hall, and Wall Street; it took several more ballots before it happened...
 
What if Tammany Hall didn't throw its support for Champ Clark in the 1912 United States Presidential Election. Would he be able to win the Democratic nomination against Woodrow Wilson?

Yes.

He was, IIRC, the first contender to receive a majority of the convention's votes and to then go on to lose the nomination in about 50 years. Clark had a lead over Wilson without Tammany at every point through the first twenty ballots. Indeed, after the New York votes swung behind him, Wilson came within a hair's breadth of throwing in the towel by telegram. Clark could easily have been nominated with or without Tammany, providing they came in the right way at the right time.

Had it gone the other way, in line with all precedent, we'd probably be considering it ASB that Wilson came back from such a deficit to claim the nomination.
 
Really, the reasons Bryan gave for opposing Clark were pretty flimsy. Clark had a progressive record in Congress when Wilson was still a Cleveland Democrat. Furthermore, Clark had the support of Samuel Gompers of the AFL. Bryan's attempt in 1912 to portray Clark as conservative because of the latter's support (allegedly as part of a deal with Tammany Hall) of Alton Parker as temporary chairman of the Democratic convention is unconvincing. The temporary chairmanship hardly meant control of the convention; its function consisted primarily of making the keynote speech and handing the gavel over to the permanent chairman. Bryan had been offered the temporary chairmanship himself and declined it. And as Gompers pointed out, Parker had actively supported Bryan in 1908. (The same point was made by Governor Thomas Marshall of Indiana in a response to a Bryan telegram urging all progressives to oppose Parker: "Parker came to Indiana in 1908 to advocate your election and mine. I do not see how his election as temporary chairman will result in a reactionary convention.")

One need not be a cynic to suggest that Bryan's real motive in portraying Clark as a conservative was to stop a front-runner and thereby increase the chances that he himself would win the Democratic nomination--and for once in a year the Democrats could win!--despite his disavowals of interest. (Indeed, one reason that party bosses like Roger Sullivan of Illinois in the end decided to support Wilson was that they feared that a prolonged Wilson-Clark deadlock would lead to a fourth Bryan nomination.) Bryan's argument that anyone with Tammany backing could not be a real progressive is a bit hard to accept when you recall that he himself avidly courted Tammany in 1908. Not to mention the famous incident in 1900 when Bryan, making a campaign speech in New York City, "impulsively held his hand over [Tammany boss Richard] Croker's head and intoned, 'Great is Tammany and Croker is its prophet.'" http://books.google.com/books?id=W1A6VZs1nNMC&pg=PA172
 
True, the Dems could win in 1912--but a fourth time around for Bryan would have been hilarious. He was already pretty shopworn as a three-time loser. And if anything could have cold-soldered the GOP factions back together in that year, Bryan's nomination would have been enough. The factions would have declared a temporary truce, perhaps nominated a compromise candidate (Hadley? Beveridge? Hughes?) and curb-stomped Bryan once and for all.

That would have had siginificant butterflies, I'd say. With an 0-4 record, Bryan's credibility would have been zero. It's doubtful he'd have even been somewhat effective in leading the prohibition movement. And with a Republican in the White House, very possibly that president could well have offered the services of and dispatched former president Theodore Roosevelt to mediate / arbitrate the Austro-Serbian crisis of June / July 2014.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
True, the Dems could win in 1912--but a fourth time around for Bryan would have been hilarious. He was already pretty shopworn as a three-time loser. And if anything could have cold-soldered the GOP factions back together in that year, Bryan's nomination would have been enough. The factions would have declared a temporary truce, perhaps nominated a compromise candidate (Hadley? Beveridge? Hughes?) and curb-stomped Bryan once and for all.

The Republican convention, though, was before the Democratic one. They had already named Taft and had their rather riotous split with Roosevelt. I think it unlikely that in the face of a Bryan candidacy that Roosevelt would think his chances worse rather than better: it may just encourage him all the more that he has a solid chance at victory.
 
Would Clark do better or worse than Wilson in the election?

Also since some people brought it up, how would Bryan do as the Democratic nominee?
 
The Republican convention, though, was before the Democratic one. They had already named Taft and had their rather riotous split with Roosevelt. I think it unlikely that in the face of a Bryan candidacy that Roosevelt would think his chances worse rather than better: it may just encourage him all the more that he has a solid chance at victory.

I'd forgotten that timing. OK, scratch what I'd written and try this: TR would have ignored Taft completely and would have landed on Bryan with both feet, hard, with a theme in the midwest and prairie states along the lines of "whatever Bryan thinks he could do, I've already done better--and can keep demand for your products up in the bargain." He flips that coin in the northeast, reminding the establishment that he can handle the more populist elements and wants only to make business responsible, not open the Pandora's box of free silver. In the end, Roosevelt wins in a near cakewalk in the electoral college.

Now, what I wrote earlier might work if somehow there was a prodromal threat of a fourth Bryan candidacy: that might have served to yield a truce on the intramural GOP struggles as noted.
 
With Taft and Clark we could see major defections to TR from both parties.


Why?

Clark had won the Democratic Primary in CA (a highly Progressive state) by almost three to one, and the Illinois Primary by two to one. This does not suggest that he was offensive to progressive Dems.

As for the Taft men their top priority was stopping TR, whose victory would threaten their control of the Republican Party. They knew this meant a Democratic victory, but that was a triviality by comparison. The identity of the Democratic candidate did not concern them. Indeed, from their pov, the worse he was, the better for them, since that improved GOP chances of a comeback in 1916.
 
Now, what I wrote earlier might work if somehow there was a prodromal threat of a fourth Bryan candidacy: that might have served to yield a truce on the intramural GOP struggles as noted.


I don't follow.

If Bryan turns out to be a dreadful POTUS (as conservative Republicans assume he will), that greatly improves the chances of the GOP coming back next time round - hopefully back under safe conservative leadership. This would be an ideal outcome for the Taft men. In such circs, why waste time seeking a compromise with TR which would probably be unattainable anyway?
 
Last edited:
Why?

Clark had won the Democratic Primary in CA (a highly Progressive state) by almost three to one, and the Illinois Primary by two to one. This does not suggest that he was offensive to progressive Dems.

As for the Taft men their top priority was stopping TR, whose victory would threaten their control of the Republican Party. They knew this meant a Democratic victory, but that was a triviality by comparison. The identity of the Democratic candidate did not concern them. Indeed, from their pov, the worse he was, the better for them, since that improved GOP chances of a comeback in 1916.

I'd wholly agree with that. I once tried to use a Clark nomination as the PoD for a TR Bull Moose victory and concluded that it's just not possible to do it plausibly.

Even if Clark does worse than Wilson did, and for sake of argument let's assume he does, the scale of change simply won't be enough to result in anything other than a slightly less overwhelming Democrat victory. The crucial state is probably New York with its 45 ECVs. TR can't win without it and despite NY being his home state, in OTL he finished third with 24.6% to Wilson's 41.2% (and Taft's 28.7%). I can't see a switch from Wilson to Clark having anything like the swing required to flip the state.
 
Top