WI: Theodore Roosevelt wins 1912 as a Progressive?

Yeah as i mentioned earlier it was pretty much a pro TR party and most of it's other candidates lost.
 
I'm not sure how this alt-1916 would unfold. Possible especially if TR drops out that polarization over the war issue will benefit the Democrat. But I suspect this race would tilt Republican. So in the end, you likely get a pro-war Republican in office from 1917-1921, and all the spillover effects that entails. And as OTL, the Progressives disappear as a third force.

If TR is elected in 1912, then the US will probably be at war by 1916. Since no American President has ever lost a general election in wartime - not even during the War of 1812 - Roosevelt is bound to be re-elected. Especially if the Republicans nominate a Wall Street conservative like Elihu Root (as they might, if the Progressive wing of the GOP is gone then there would be much less of a need for a moderate like Hughes to unite the Republicans).
 
If TR is elected in 1912, then the US will probably be at war by 1916. Since no American President has ever lost a general election in wartime - not even during the War of 1812 - Roosevelt is bound to be re-elected. Especially if the Republicans nominate a Wall Street conservative like Elihu Root (as they might, if the Progressive wing of the GOP is gone then there would be much less of a need for a moderate like Hughes to unite the Republicans).

This is a good point. In that case, I'd imagine TR might form a rapprochement with the Republicans over the war and run again as a candidate of both parties, dumping Hiram Johnson and picking a conservative as his running mate.

On the other hand, I think TR would have serious difficulties getting a war resolution through a Democratic Congress in that term, which has some potentially interesting wrinkles. Whether he tries to involve the US without a congressional declaration of war is another question.
 
This is a good point. In that case, I'd imagine TR might form a rapprochement with the Republicans over the war and run again as a candidate of both parties, dumping Hiram Johnson and picking a conservative as his running mate.

On the other hand, I think TR would have serious difficulties getting a war resolution through a Democratic Congress in that term, which has some potentially interesting wrinkles. Whether he tries to involve the US without a congressional declaration of war is another question.

Given that he'll need to keep strong, positive relations with the Democratic Congress - and that on the whole the liberal Democrats agree with him far more than the now largely conservative Republicans - TR is much more likely to pick a Democratic running mate. Just as his hero Lincoln did in 1864. (BTW, if TR gets elected as a Progressive in 1912 then he probably has a Democratic running mate with him. As I've pointed out before, without Democratic support it's mathematically impossible for TR to win as a third party candidate). Maybe James Cox, the Democratic Governor of Ohio who in OTL ran for President in 1920.
 
La Follette was pretty much ignored once TR went progressive and he didn't have much impact outside of Wisconsin in any event for the most part at this time.
 
I'm not sure how this alt-1916 would unfold. Possible especially if TR drops out that polarization over the war issue will benefit the Democrat. But I suspect this race would tilt Republican. So in the end, you likely get a pro-war Republican in office from 1917-1921

How? There's no pro-war sentiment to speak of in 1916, and won't be until America's own ships come under attack. Why would a TR presidency cause this to happen any sooner than OTL?
 
There's no pro-war sentiment to speak of in 1916

No, actually there was among Northeastern Republicans like Roosevelt and Lodge, as well as prominent businessmen. FWIW, America was strongly anti-war as late as 1917. But once it was clear that Germany had violated America's neutrality Wilson pushed for a declaration of war - and he got it by a wide margin in Congress. There's no reason that TR wouldn't be able to do the same in 1915. He necessarily get a war declaration immediately after the Lusitania - but he probably would be able to in the next month or so once the Transatlantic situation escalates from there.
 
No, actually there was among Northeastern Republicans like Roosevelt and Lodge, as well as prominent businessmen. FWIW, America was strongly anti-war as late as 1917. But once it was clear that Germany had violated America's neutrality Wilson pushed for a declaration of war - and he got it by a wide margin in Congress. There's no reason that TR wouldn't be able to do the same in 1915. He necessarily get a war declaration immediately after the Lusitania - but he probably would be able to in the next month or so once the Transatlantic situation escalates from there.

Wilson got a declaration of war because Germany had launched all-out USW against all ships - American ones included. In 1915 they backed off from that eve in the face of Wilson, and would do so even quicker in the face of TR - if indeed the Lusitania gets sunk at all with TR in the White House.

I'm not sure what you mean about the transatlantic situation "escalating". Whatever that means, it certainly didn't involve wholesale attacks on US shipping - the only thing that would have made war a serious possibility. Absent that, America stays neutral - totally regardless of who is President. Till that happens, TR's wishes are totally irrelevant.

If, for some reason, you want America in the war sooner, you need a change of policy in Berlin. Nothing that happens in Washington is going to bring it about.
 
Top