I discussed this here in 2015 at
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/democrats-nominate-cleveland-in-1904.342938/
***
1901-4 marked the low point of William Jennings Bryan's influence on the Democratic Party. After Bryan had lost twice, the conservative "reorganizers" were in the saddle and were determined to nominate a safe, pro-gold-standard Grover Cleveland Democrat in 1904. The way seemed clear for them when Bryan announced he would not be a candidate; the only other plausible "radical" candidate, William Randolph Hearst, was vulnerable to attacks on his personal morality. But if the party was going to nominate a Cleveland Democrat, why not have Cleveland himself, who obviously was the best-known and most prestigious of conservative Democrats?
Some Republicans showed concern about the possibility. In May, 1903 Theodore Roosevelt wrote Henry Cabot Lodge that "Most of the people out here [in the Far West] believe that Cleveland will be nominated on the Democratic ticket, and that he will be a very formidible man to beat--perhaps the most formidable Democrat." Henry White, then in London, wrote to TR that he had talked to many wealthy tourists there who told them they would vote for TR "unless Cleveland is nominated" in which case they would unhesitatingly vote for him. One thing that worried the Republicans is that Cleveland would be one Democrat who would not lack financial support--James Stillman, the influential president of the National City Bank, asserted that if Cleveland were nominated, he (Stillman) would assure him a larger campaign fund than Mark Hanna had raised for McKinley in 1896.
In any event, Cleveland was 67 and in poor health; he enjoyed retirement, and had no desire for a fourth presidential campaign. He made it clear that he would not be a candidate under any circumstances, and the Cleveland boom faded. The Democrats nominated the colorless Judge Alton B. Parker of New York, and went down to overwhelming defeat. Charles W. Stein, in *The Third Term Tradition: Its Rise and Collapse [1] in American Politics* (New York: Columbia University Press 1943) (from which all quotations in the previous paragraph are taken) wrote that "it is not generally realized how close Cleveland came to being the Democratic nominee in 1904. His failure to do so lay solely in the fact that he was firmly and unalterably opposed to reentering public life in any capacity." (p. 143) One may take issue with that "solely," for even if Cleveland had wanted the nomination, it was by no means certain he would get it. Everyone knew that the nomination of Cleveland would mean that Bryan, with his still numerous following, would not support the ticket. Parker, despite his devotion to the gold standard, had voted for Bryan in both 1896 and 1900, and would have at least nominal support from him in the general election. (Cleveland had of course opposed Bryan in 1896 and would not put in a good word for him even in 1900 when some Cleveland Democrats backed Bryan out of a shared opposition to imperialism.) Moreover, the nomination of Cleveland would bring back bitter memories of the depression of 1893-7. In particular, Cleveland would be vehemently opposed by organized labor, which remembered the Pullman strike, whereas Parker could at least point to some pro-labor decisions he made as a judge in New York. (Actually, even some of these decisions were really just an aspect of Parker's devotion to laissez-faire--he ruled that labor could strike for a closed shop because he believed that in general the state had no right to interfere in the struggle between labor and capital. It is true, though, that he did dissent in the *Lochner* case, arguing in favor of sustaining a regulation of bakers' hours, which he considered a legitimate health measure.) Finally, Cleveland could be vulnerable on the "third term" issue, even though his supporters scoffed that three non-consecutive terms could hardly lead to "Caesarism."
So I doubt that Cleveland would be nominated, but let's say he would be. He would of course lose to TR; those wealthy American tourists Henry White had talked to were hardly typical of the electorate. (As Stein writes, *The Third Term Tradition,* p. 136, "Those who supported the former President for a third term in 1904 were for the most part conservative business men who were as much alarmed at the progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt as at Bryan's populism.") Henry Cabot Lodge may even have been right when he wrote TR about Cleveland, "I think he would be the easiest man for us to beat that they could possibly put up." He probably wouldn't even get the advantage in financial support over TR that conservative Democrats expected; as the *New York Sun,* considered the voice of Wall Street, stated in explaining its reluctant endorsement of TR over the "safe" Parker, "We prefer the impulsive candidate of the party of conservatism to the conservative candidate of the party which the business interests regard as permanently and dangerously impulsive." Besides, some business interests would favor TR because they were suspicious of the low-tariff views of radical and (many though not all) conservative Democrats alike. (It is also possible that some businessmen would support TR in the belief that he would win and in the hope that their support would gain them immunity from antitrust or other prosecutions. Something of this nature allegedly happened in OTL; Henry C. Frick is supposed to have said "We bought the son of a bitch and then he did not stay bought"...)
So does it make any difference whether Democrats nominate the conservative Parker and lose or nominate the conservative Cleveland and lose just as badly? It might, for this reason: A Cleveland candidacy would mean that the validity and scope of the anti-third-term tradition would be an issue in the campaign. The Republicans would doubtless argue that a third term was wrong and un-American, whether consecutive or not. If TR himself publicly endorsed this line of reasoning, it would be harder for him to seek a third term in 1912--though his supporters may argue that it would only be his "second elective term." (In OTL, TR issued a statement immediately after the 1904 election: "On the 4th of March next I shall have served three and one-half years, and this three and one-half years constitutes my first term. The wise custom which limits the President to two terms regards the substance and not the form. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination." His supporters in 1912 argued that, as the *Outlook* put it, "When a man says at breakfast in the morning, 'no thank you, I will not take any more coffee,' it does not mean that he will not take any more coffee to-morrow morning, or next week, or next month, or next year." In this ATL, TR, in order to condemn Cleveland, may explicitly rule out a "third cup of coffee" at *any* time.)
Another conceivable consequence would be an anti-third-term constitutional amendment decades earlier than in OTL, but I doubt it. Neither Grant's attempt at a third term nomination in 1880 nor TR's Bull Moose candidacy in 1912 were enough to bring about a constitutional amendment. It took a *successful* third (and fourth) term candidacy to bring about a constitutional amendment in OTL. I don't think an unsuccessful Cleveland candidacy would be enough; for one thing, many Republicans might oppose the amendment in the hope that whatever TR had said about not running again, he might change his mind...
[1] Obviously, the word "Collapse" was premature...