WI: Theodore Roosevelt assassinated in 1912?

During the contentious 1912 US Presidential elections the progressive faction of the Republican Party split and formed their own party, nominating Teddy Roosevelt as their candidate in opposition to the conservative Taft. On October 14 1912, whilst on his way to give a speech while campaigning in Milwaukee Roosevelt was shot by a mentally unstable saloon-keeper, though fortunately for Roosevelt the bullet didn't penetrate his lungs, and he went on to deliver the speech speaking for 90 minuets whilst bleeding from the chest. What would have happened if Teddy had been struck down that day?

Specifically from a legal standpoint would the Progressive Party have been allowed to nominate a new Presidential candidate so close to the election or would they have been forced to forego the 1912 election? Furthermore, with the Progressives out of the running, what would Taft's chances of winning the election be?
 
The Progressives were only held together by TR. In many ways, it was little more than a vehicle to get him elected. With TR out of the running, a Taft victory is virtually ensured (as IOTL, the Republicans and Progressives made up well over fifty percent of the vote).
 
What I want to know is, from a constitutional standpoint, would the Progressives have been able to nominate a replacement candidate in time for the election? Presumably they would only get a small share of the OTL Progressive vote. Is there a precedent for Presidential candidates dying during an election campaign, especially with so close to the election (less than a month in Teddy's case).
 
What I want to know is, from a constitutional standpoint, would the Progressives have been able to nominate a replacement candidate in time for the election? Presumably they would only get a small share of the OTL Progressive vote. Is there a precedent for Presidential candidates dying during an election campaign, especially with so close to the election (less than a month in Teddy's case).

It's a constitutional grey area, so it would really be up to the Progressive Party. I highly doubt that they'd have much of a convention, perhaps a gathering of party bosses to endorse Hiram Johnson, Teddy's VP, to become their nomination for President.

I also highly doubt that all of Teddy's voters would go for Taft, if anything I think TR getting killed would only strengthen Wilson.
 
Presumably the Progressive party's National Committee meets to designate a successor candidate. That after all is how the Republicans arrived at a replacement for James S. Sherman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_S._Sherman as their vice-presidential candidate--the Republican National Committee met and decided on Nicholas Murray Butler.

The most likely choice would be to bump Hiram Johnson up to the presidential candidacy and choose a new vice-presidential candidate.

Whoever they nominate will get fewer votes than TR but more than enough to guarantee Wilson's victory. Indeed, even if the Progressives decided (as they wouldn't) not to nominate anyone, Wilson would almost certainly still win, for reasons I go into at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.history.what-if/NZXQky_Jgpk/OhWnTSyjfwoJ The idea that all TR supporters would vote for Taft is simply a fantasy.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
What I want to know is, from a constitutional standpoint, would the Progressives have been able to nominate a replacement candidate in time for the election? Presumably they would only get a small share of the OTL Progressive vote. Is there a precedent for Presidential candidates dying during an election campaign, especially with so close to the election (less than a month in Teddy's case).

It's actually not a constitutional grey area: the same slate of electors will presumably be on the ballot, who at the Electoral College in will cast their votes as instructed by the party. As David T noted above, the same thing happened with the death of Vice President Sherman in the 1912 election: electors pledged to Sherman for VP were instructed to cast their ballot instead for Butler instead.

However, whether whoever that is -- be it Hiram Johnson or another -- can hold together a party that was there in no small part as Roosevelt's vanity project is a different question entirely, and some will return to Taft, and others drift to Wilson.
 
It's actually not a constitutional grey area: the same slate of electors will presumably be on the ballot, who at the Electoral College in will cast their votes as instructed by the party. As David T noted above, the same thing happened with the death of Vice President Sherman in the 1912 election: electors pledged to Sherman for VP were instructed to cast their ballot instead for Butler instead.

However, whether whoever that is -- be it Hiram Johnson or another -- can hold together a party that was there in no small part as Roosevelt's vanity project is a different question entirely, and some will return to Taft, and others drift to Wilson.

Isn't there a deadline by which candidates have to register their intention to run for President?
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Isn't there a deadline by which candidates have to register their intention to run for President?

It's on a state by state basis. There's no Federal Law, Constitutional or otherwise, that regulates Political Party procedure.


Besides that, this WI is tots ASB. There's no way TR could be assassinated. He's too memically awesome!
 
Isn't there a deadline by which candidates have to register their intention to run for President?

I don't think so, but it wouldn't really matter if there were.

If Presidential electors choose to vote for somebody, whether because their party organisation has asked them to or for any other reason, there is no constitutional way they can be prevented from doing so. Their votes could be invalidated if cast for someone under 35, or otherwise constitutionally ineligible, but not otherwise, assuming the Electors themselves have been properly chosen.
 
It's on a state by state basis. There's no Federal Law, Constitutional or otherwise, that regulates Political Party procedure.


Besides that, this WI is tots ASB. There's no way TR could be assassinated. He's too memically awesome!

So any replacement they chose would still be viable to stand for election, provided that they meet all the other requirements of being the POTUS; +35 years old, natural born citizen etc.

As for plausibility, let's just assume the assassin managed to get his hands on some kryptonite.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Isn't there a deadline by which candidates have to register their intention to run for President?

What you're probably thinking of is the modern Federal Elections Commission's requirement that you file a Statement of Candidacy within a certain period of beginning campaigning, but that's a creature of 1970s financial reform.

In 1912, campaign finance reform, while still a hot topic -- "getting money out of politics" has been a rallying cry for over a century, now -- was still a different creature.
 
Whoever they nominate will get fewer votes than TR but more than enough to guarantee Wilson's victory. Indeed, even if the Progressives decided (as they wouldn't) not to nominate anyone, Wilson would almost certainly still win, for reasons I go into at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.history.what-if/NZXQky_Jgpk/OhWnTSyjfwoJ The idea that all TR supporters would vote for Taft is simply a fantasy.

You raise a lot of interesting points here. One idea I'm thinking about is having Champ Clark win the Democrat nomination. As a result both the Democrat and Republican candidates are viewed as conservatives (Taft due to his not entirely justified reputation as a reactionary and Clark due to Bryan denouncing him as the "candidate of Wall Street"). How do you think that might impact the election?
 
You raise a lot of interesting points here. One idea I'm thinking about is having Champ Clark win the Democrat nomination. As a result both the Democrat and Republican candidates are viewed as conservatives (Taft due to his not entirely justified reputation as a reactionary and Clark due to Bryan denouncing him as the "candidate of Wall Street"). How do you think that might impact the election?


It won't. See the other thread about Bryan supporting TR.

Bryan was a gut Democrat and would no more abandon his Party than he would deny Christ. He supported Parker in 1904, so the more Progressive Clark would be no problem at all.

A TR win in 1912 requires him to get the republican nomination, and the results in CA and SD, where Taft wasn't on the ballot, suggest that it's a long shot even then. His victory on a third ticket is out in "successful Sealion" country.
 
How plausible is this scenario:

TR is killed in October 14 and Hiram Johnson assumes the Progressive nomination (who would be his running mate?). A few weeks later the Republican VP candidate James Sherman dies, and instead of replacing him with Nicholas Butler as IOTL the Republicans choose a major progressive like La Follette or Borah as a last minuet appeal to progressive Republicans and capitalise on the disruption of the Progressive campaign. I don't expect this to lead to a Republican victory, just wondering if it would make sense and what sort of an impact it might have.
 
OTL results

PopVote EV
Wilson 41.8% 435
Teddy 27.4% 88
Taft 23.2% 8
Debs 6.0% 0

266 EV needed to win.

I'm assuming without TR's direct appeal, the Progressive vote collapses. People were voting for Teddy specifically, not the Party.

I'll assume Taft wins all the states Teddy did. (I know this is debatable as it includes California and South Dakota where Taft was not on the ticket.) So he's at 96 EV, no change in Wilson's total yet.

There were 10 states won by Wilson that were decided by less than 5% of the Popular vote. I assume all these will be won by Taft. That is a total of 94 EV. Taft is now at 190 EV, and Wilson at 341.
Connecticut
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Iowa
  • Maine
  • Massachusetts
  • New Hampshire
  • North Dakora
  • Rhode Island
  • Wyoming

There is an additional 6 states won by Wilson by only 5-10% of the vote. They are worth 49 additional votes. That brings Taft to 239 and Wilson to 292.
  • Kansas
  • Montana
  • New Mexico
  • New Jersey
  • Oregon
  • Wisconsin

In all of these states, Wilson was under 42% of the vote. I think it is safe to assume Wilson will lose these.

There are three additional states where Wilson remained under 42%. They were worth a total of 72 EV. Taft only needs 27.
  • Nevada - 3 EV
  • Ohio - 24 EV
  • New York - 45 EV

Taft would need to win New York, or take both Ohio and Nevada, and he'd win the Presidency. Taft being from Ohio likely takes that state. Taft at 263 and Wilson at 268. In this era New York went Republican every year except 1912. So let's give him that as well. In both states, Taft won more votes that Teddy. Taft wins 308 to 223. Let's remove CA and SD since Taft wasn't on ballot there - that is 16 EV. Taft still wins 292 to 239.

Unless a significant proportion of Progressive Party voters defect to Wilson, it seems to me Taft will win.

Taft could lose another 26 EV and still win. That's a good margin of error.

In 1916, Wilson won a squeaker of an election, but he had both the advantages of incumbency and having "kept us out of the war." He has neither in 1912.

While a Wilson victory is still possible, I'm giving Taft the advantage.
 
While a Wilson victory is still possible, I'm giving Taft the advantage.

IMO you are *wildly* overestimating the appeal Taft could have with TR voters. Taft was simply a very unpopular president. That is why the GOP lost control of the House in 1910, *before* the Progressive split. In fact, one reason some Republicans tried to get TR to run in 1911-12 was precisely because they thought Taft's electoral prospects in 1912 were hopeless. (As David Sarasohn notes in his *The Party of Reform*, p. 149, the few elections held in 1911 showed further Democratic gains.)

And if anything the assassination of TR would make his followers *more* bitter about Taft. Remember that Taft had said of his progressive critics that "With the effort to make the selection of candidates, the enactment of legislation and the decision of courts depend on the momentary passions of a people necessarily indifferently informed as to the issues presented, and without he opportunity having been given them for time and study and that deliberation that gives security and common sense to the government of the people, such extremists would hurry us into a condition which could find no parallel except in the French Revolution or in that bubbling anarchy that once characterized the South American republics. Such extremists are not progressives; they are political emotionalists or neurotics...." http://news.yahoo.com/february-13-p...neurotics-mysteries-providence-010350867.html I do not doubt that some TR supporters would blame words like this for the assassination. Even those who didn't would be bitter at Taft for "stealing" the GOP nomination from TR.

For that reason, while he would not get as many votes as TR, Hiram Johnson or whoever the Progressives would nominate would get a substantial vote--as a protest against Taft and a symbolic gesture of support for TR's memory. Many other Progressives would stay at home. And yes, a substantial number would vote for Wilson as the more "progressive" of the two remaining major candidates (and the one who had not said anything as personally offensive toward TR as Taft's "neurotics" remarks were interpreted). No doubt some would vote for Taft but not nearly as large a proportion as you think.

One piece of evidence that the Taft and TR vote could not be combined behind one candidate (least of all one as unpopular as Taft) is that in some states the Republicans and Progressives *did* run "fusion" tickets for governor and other offices--and the fusion candidates almost always did considerably worse than the combined TR and Taft vote. in Kansas, for example, Taft and TR combined got 53.4 percent of the vote and Wilson only 39.3% http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1912.txt Yet the Democratic candidate for governor, Hodges, narrowly defeated the Republican Capper (46.55%-46.54%), even though there was no Progressive candidate. https://books.google.com/books?id=ksBiaAS8jXoC&pg=PA1

In fact, Louis Bean has argued (in *How to Predict Elections* [New York: Knopf 1948]) based on congressional returns of 1912, that the Bull Moose vote for president would have split evenly between the two old parties--which would have given Wilson almost 60 percent of the two-party vote! https://archive.org/stream/howtopredictelec00inbean#page/68/mode/2up I would not go so far. But it must be emphasized that Wilson would not have *needed* one-half or even one-third or even one-fourth of the Bull Moose vote. One should not ignore that while the majority of Bull Moose support was undoubtedly from Republicans (albeit Republicans who would not necessarily vote for Taft in 1912) they did have support from a few prominent Democrats like the famed Tammany Hall orator Bourke Cockran, and Judge Ben Lindsey of Denver, and no doubt some rank-and-file Democrats as well.

(One other point: In OTL some of Debs' vote was from voters who were advanced small-p progressives but not committed Socialists. They felt it safe to vote for Debs because a moderately progressive candidate--either Wilson or TR--was considered sure to win. If it suddenly became a choice between Wilson and the "reactionary" Taft--Taft's image as a reactionary may have been unfair but it was a common perception-- many of them might vote for Wilson. After all, the reason many 1912 Debs voters voted for Wilson in 1916 was not *solely* the peace issue or the fact that the Socialists had nominated a less charismatic candidate in 1916. There was also the fact that Hughes--in the words of William Allen White, who supported him!--" talked tariff like Mark Hanna. He talked of industrial affairs like McKinley..." https://books.google.com/books?id=yXpNAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA10-PA6)

I have in the past argued that Wilson would win a one-on-one race with TR in 1912, but I'll admit to some uncertainty on that. I think it *much* less likely that Wilson could lose to Taft one-on-one--and the race we are talking about is not even one-on-one, since the Progressives will still exist and will get *some* votes from those who revered TR.
 
Last edited:
Roosevelt estimated the sympathy from the assassination attempt got him an extra million votes. Now, Hiram Johnson or Robert La Follette or whoever takes over after he drops out will get a sympathy bonus due to the martyred Roosevelt. But on the other hand, he also won't be as big a name with as big a fan base, so he'll lose a lot of votes. So overall, I'd go with subtracting a million votes from Roosevelt's, which will be between 6 and 7%. So basically, whichever replacement Progressive gets nominated will come in third place.
 
  • Nevada - 3 EV
  • Ohio - 24 EV
  • New York - 45 EV
Nevada is a bit wild. Taft couldn't carry it in 1908 in a straight fight, at a time when the Republicans were running far stronger than in 1912, and as the hand-picked heir of popular incumbent. So he's hardly going to take it in 1912.

As for NY, the OTL vote was Wilson 655,000, Taft 455,000 and TR 390,000. So even if Hiram Johnson (or whoever) held only half of TR's votes, Taft would narrowly lose the state even if he got all of the other half. If, as is far more likely, the other half scattered, say one third to Taft, one-third to Wilson, a few to Debs and the rest abstaining, then Wilson takes NY by a 60,000 or 70,000 vote margin. Ohio similar.
Throw in Nebraska and Colorado (which Bryan took in 1908), Arizona (where Wilson's vote exceeded Tafts and TRs combined) and Indiana - plus of course all the South and the Border States, and Wilson is already over the top. And unless Lafollette gets the Progressive nomination, Wilson is pretty certain to get Wisconsin as well. If Lafollette is chosen, then he doesn't, but probably picks up California instead. But it doesn't really matter as he can win without either.
 
Taft being from Ohio likely takes that state.

Taft was never particularly popular in his home state. In 1908 he defeated Bryan there by only 51.03-44.82 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1908 By contrast, his national average that year was 51.57-43.04--and that includes the South!

In 1912 Taft's 26.82 percent in Ohio was a little above his national average of 23.17--but it was certainly not above his *northern* average. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912

Anyway, the OTL 1912 vote in Ohio was Wilson 40.96, Taft 26.8, TR 22.2., and Debs 8.69. Let's say that the Progressive vote is not only greatly diminished by TR's death (as I agree would happen) but practically collapses (which I doubt) and Hiram Johnson only gets 5 percent of the total vote. Let's say the remaining 17.2 percent TR vote is distributed as follows: 80% for Taft (13.8%), 10% for Wilson (1.7%--a very modest estimate; given that Wilson got a lower percent of the vote in Ohio in 1912 than Bryan did in 1908, it seems almost certain that *some* Democrats voted for TR) and 10 percent (1.7%) abstaining (actually a few of the more "advanced" Progressives would probably vote for Debs, but we'll ignore that for now). Wilson still wins the state. And given the hatred of many TR followers for Taft, I think I am *overstating* the percentage of TR voters who will vote for Taft.

It should also be noted that Ohio not only gave Bryan a better-than-average vote in 1908 and went surprisingly decisively for Wilson in 1916 http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1916.txt but that it also elected Democratic governors in 1905, 1908, 1910, 1912, 1916, and 1918. (The only time in that era when it elected a Republican governor was 1914, when a Catholic candidate for senator hurt the entire Democratic ticket). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_gubernatorial_elections Ohio was definitely not dominated by Republicans in the Progressive Era to anything like the extent it was during the Gilded Age.
 
Top