WI Roosevelt beat Taft for the 1912 Republican nomination?

Yes, the Hanna Republicans were strong, but this wasn't entirely implausible.
My prediction? Roosevelt wins the election. Taft didn't have the backbone to run (He wanted to be in the SCOTUS anyway), and with the Republicans' resources, Roosevelt's campaign would have been well oiled and definitely a lock for the presidency.
However, I think Roosevelt would have followed Wilson's progressive economic policies, continued to be the trustbuster, and he would also have created the Federal Reserve System.
OTOH, Roosevelt would have jumped at the chance to go to war, right after Bismarck sank the Lusitania. But instead of suffering because we entered too early, we would have benefited, as Roosevelt would have quickly committed a lot of troops to the effort, and quickly beat the Central Powers.
Here's the election.
1912: Theodore Roosevelt/Elihu Root (Balance the ticket)
 
Elihu Root is a New Yorker like TR. Need a running mate from a different state.

Possibly Henry Cabot Lodge.
 
OTOH, Roosevelt would have jumped at the chance to go to war, right after Bismarck sank the Lusitania./quote]

Bismarck had been dead since 1898.

Moreover, even if TR hadn't been distracted by getting into a war with Mexico (highly probable at the time) Congress was nowhere near ready to declare war on Germany in 1915, or even probably 1916.


But instead of suffering because we entered too early, we would have benefited, as Roosevelt would have quickly committed a lot of troops to the effort, and quickly beat the Central Powers.

How exactly would the US benefit?

Sending troops to Europe one or two years earlier means suffering massive casualties in stalemated trench warfare, perhaps half a million as against OTL's 120,000, while the resulting peace will be at least as bad as OTL's - perhaps worse if Russia, either under the Tsar or whatever dictatorship of left or right replaces him, emerges from the war as one of the victorious allies. .
 
A lot of the TR-philia on this forum deals with foreign policy. But perhaps just as important are his domestic policy views, namely his differences with Wilson. As President, both men were progressives. Yet they both arrived at that ideology from very different places and therefore implemented it differently. Roosevelt was a corporatist, and a patrician. Therefore he saw there being good trusts and bad trusts, good tycoons and bad tycoons. Wilson was a Jeffersonian and genuinely feared both the power of business and the power of government (ironically, considering his iron fist during WWI). In practice, Wilson was closer to Roosevelt than to his 1912 platform, but if TR is president from 1913-1917 or beyond, expect a fair amount of heavy-handed government, but less agencies long-term.

Shifting to the political front, if TR wins the nomination in 1912, he wins the White House. Combining TR and Taft's scores gives you this map:
genusmap.php


A wipe-out landslide, with Wilson winning only the South. If Roosevelt runs in 1916, he'll win reelection, regardless of our situation in Europe or Mexico. If he retires, the Republicans aren't in as good shape, but they probably still win. Long-term, the party remains more progressive while the Democrats are more conservative for at least a generation (the Great Depression obviously could change things, depending on who is in power).
 
A lot of the TR-philia on this forum deals with foreign policy. But perhaps just as important are his domestic policy views, namely his differences with Wilson. As President, both men were progressives. Yet they both arrived at that ideology from very different places and therefore implemented it differently. Roosevelt was a corporatist, and a patrician. Therefore he saw there being good trusts and bad trusts, good tycoons and bad tycoons. Wilson was a Jeffersonian and genuinely feared both the power of business and the power of government (ironically, considering his iron fist during WWI). In practice, Wilson was closer to Roosevelt than to his 1912 platform, but if TR is president from 1913-1917 or beyond, expect a fair amount of heavy-handed government, but less agencies long-term.

Does it necessarily matter what TR's policies are?

If the Republicans hold the Senate and/or regain the HoR, they will block progressive measures as they did in the final year of TR's OTL presidency. If, OTOH, the Democtrats hiold the House, then Congress is gridlocked and little or nothing gets done.
 
Bismarck

Bismarck as in the battleship.
The reason I say Root would have been the nominee is because he provided ideological balance to the ticket, which was more important at that time than our current emphasis on regional balance.
hcallega: Cool map, could you tell me how you found/formed it? I've been trying to know the origins of these customized maps on here (I'm new).
Mikestone: Had TR been the Republican nominee, progressive Republicans would have been running for Congress in the same numbers as the Old Guard. But the Progressives would ride TR's coattails. Furthermore, TR was a tough, intimidating President, like LBJ. He could bully people into supporting him.
 
Long-term, the party remains more progressive while the Democrats are more conservative for at least a generation (the Great Depression obviously could change things, depending on who is in power).
Huh. The Democrats were still leaning left fiscally, with Bryan at the head. So this would lead to a socially conservative, fiscally left-wing, isolationist Democratic Party. The Republicans would be fiscally progressive, socially left-center, and interventionist.
 
Bulletsfromthegrassyknoll

:confused::confused::confused: Lusitania was sunk by a submarine in 1915. The only battleship Bismarck was in only in service in 1940/41.

I'm not an American and hence less knowledgeable about US politics but from what I've read I would say that glenn67 is correct. Idealogical balance would be important but so would getting a VP from another big state.

Steve

Bismarck as in the battleship.
The reason I say Root would have been the nominee is because he provided ideological balance to the ticket, which was more important at that time than our current emphasis on regional balance.
hcallega: Cool map, could you tell me how you found/formed it? I've been trying to know the origins of these customized maps on here (I'm new).
Mikestone: Had TR been the Republican nominee, progressive Republicans would have been running for Congress in the same numbers as the Old Guard. But the Progressives would ride TR's coattails. Furthermore, TR was a tough, intimidating President, like LBJ. He could bully people into supporting him.
 
^I'm wrong, you're right. I don't know why Bismarck and Lusitania are associated in my mind.
Regional balance wasn't really a factor in American politics during the Progressive Era. The Solid South was Democratic, and there wasn't really a concept of swing states back then. The idea of campaigning in battleground states was still relatively novel (WJB used it well in '96). Ideological balance was more important, especially among Republicans, who were divided between the Progressives and the Old Guard.
 
You can not have both members of the ticket from the same state or you will forfeit the electoral votes from that state. Thus TR would need to look at someone else fro his VP.
 
I honestly don't see any Republican winning in 1912. TR vastly underperformed on the Bull Moose ticket. I think Wilson still wins. It was just a Democratic year.
 
I honestly don't see any Republican winning in 1912. TR vastly underperformed on the Bull Moose ticket. I think Wilson still wins. It was just a Democratic year.


Agreed.

As I've recently mentioned on another thread, TR scraped through in CA by less than 200 votes in a straight fight with Wilson, despite having its popular governor, Hiram Johnson, as running mate - and this in a state where Taft had beaten Bryan by almost two to one. This reresented a massive shift to the Dems. Even if CA were exceptional, and the swing elsewhere only half as great, that would still be quite enough to elect Wilson. This is why I suspect hat even if TR somehow managed to scrape in, he would probably face a Democratic Congress.
 
But what you have to look at is that if TR had been the Republican nominee he would have gotten the GOP and the Bull Moose party votes. Wilson won because the Republican vote was divided up. This could also have resulted in more Republicans having won seats in the Congress not less.
 
Your forecasts for the actual Roosevelt presidency are a bit wankish of his goals.

1. Roosevelt can't build a new military off of sheer awesomeness unfortunately, entering earlier means we send what was basically a glorified constabulary force into the European meatgrinder.

2. We're in the middle of a series of conflicts with Mexico, historically Wilson drew then down because of impending war, Roosevelt can't fight both battles so he might have to ease up on Germany for the time being. Entering earlier again will mean more conscription, less support for the war, and higher deaths, also with Russia still in the war the "let's fight for democracy" angle would be a hard sell.

3. Like others have said, TR is running against a Democratic grain, the optimistic result gives him the presidency but not a Republican congress, that's right, he now has to deal with a majority opposition that can't be bullied becaus they'd be stupid to allow it.

4. I doubt TR's ability to seriously and completely reshape the GOP with a win in 1912, the same establishment, pro-business GOP that shot him down for the nomination is largely still around.
 
But what you have to look at is that if TR had been the Republican nominee he would have gotten the GOP and the Bull Moose party votes. Wilson won because the Republican vote was divided up. This could also have resulted in more Republicans having won seats in the Congress not less.

Some more yes, but remember the Democrats gained control of the House in 1910 by almost two to one. The Republicans are unlikely to undo that regardless of whom they nominate.

And TR is leading a deeply divided party. He cannot satisfy progressives without losing Taftites, or vice versa. The combined Taft/TR vote doesn't mean a thing, as there's no way to hold both groups at once. They hate each other more than they hate the Democrats.
 
Top