WI More Politically Successful Hearst

Supposing William Randolph Hearst had managed to win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1904, the NYC Mayoral Election in 1905, and/or the New York Governorship in 1906?

What kind of candidate and/or governor would he be? Where would be his “faction” in the party, and what kind of influence would his greater success have in the party as a whole, and subsequently on us politics? And (safe to assume he doesn’t win in 1904) would he be more likely to win the presidency later (eg 1912)? If so, what would his administration be like and how would it change history?
 
Last edited:
He could have won the NY Governorship in 1906, which might have catapulted him to the Presidency in 1908 or 1912. Had he been elected POTUS in either year, I imagine that we'd see a continuation of TR's Progressive reforms, but an isolationist foreign policy vis a vis Europe and WW1.

Oh, and "Citizen Kane" would focus on the life of an American President as Orson Welles originally intended. I imagine that instead of candidate Kane being taken down by a sex scandal, President Kane is initially popular and successful but forced to resign in disgrace over an affair with a star opera singer. The former Chief Exec then secludes himself in Xanadu for the remainder of his life and the movie's storyline is otherwise the same.
 
Had Hearst been nominated by the Democrats in 1912, he would have likely become POTUS given the Republican/Progressive split that year.

This could have a big impact on foreign policy! Hearst was an isolationist concerning Europe, and he hated the British Empire -- BUT concerning Mexico (just like Cuba 15 years earlier) he was a big advocate for U.S. intervention and war during the Mexican Revolution.

According to The Chief: The Life of William Randolph Hearst by David Nasaw, Hearst wrote in a November 1913 editorial "There is only one course to pursue. That is to occupy Mexico and restore it to a state of civilization by means of American MEN and American METHODS."

Wilson did send troops to Mexico for several fairly limited interventions, but it wasn't enough for Hearst, who accused him of capitulating to Mexico by agreeing to international arbitration.

Things got more heated in December of 1915, when the forces of Pancho Villa seized Hearst's million-acre Mexican ranch and confiscated his cattle and sheep for food, and horses for transport. It became a personal vendetta for him. And Hearst wasn't prone to putting aside personal vendettas.

Ben Procter's William Randolph Hearst: The Later Years :

'Hearst continued to be extremely unhappy with Wilsonian efforts in Mexico. In a barrage of editorials he railed against the administration. [. . .] "Our army should go forward into Mexico, first, to rescue Americans, and, secondly, to redeem Mexicans" (May 3, 1916) [. . .] Intervention in Mexico is not for the purpose of MAKING war. It is for the purpose of ENDING war [ . . .] since the policy of neglect of duty has so utterly failed to secure peace and justice, let us try the policy of active performance of duty. (July 9, 1916)."'

Around this time, Hearst was also investigated by the FBI (or, back then, just the BI) for "secretly financing Mexico revolt near his ranch in Mexico [and] helping to fit out a Military Expedition in this country directed against Mexico." (William Randolph Hearst: Media Myth and Mystique by Daniel Alef).

So we've got President Hearst strongly advocating for war in Mexico years before the Zimmermann Telegram. Under certain circumstances, this could lead to WW1 expanding to the Americas in some form or another! A really underrated POD.
 
@BrilliantMistake By any chance, did Hearst's heavy interest in intervention predate Huerta's coup in 1913 at all? Did he express any similar sentiments during or shortly after Madero's revolt against Diaz?

Nasaw says that Hearst had a longstanding arrangement with Porfirio Diaz before the Revolution, and so was naturally unsettled when it started, but that Hearst had hoped Madero "would be able to restore order and protect American investments." But Hearst's Mexican property was twice occupied by Mexican peasant rebels (in July and then October 1912) before being reclaimed by the "official" government forces. It seems like Huerta's coup is what fully converted him to the cause of war rather than skepticism and caution. Apparently Madero and Hearst had some kind of correspondence in 1911, so it's not like they were enemies.
 
Top