Theodore Roosevelt originally planned to sit out the 1912 election and wait for 1916. But he later changed his mind and unsuccessfully challenged President Taft in 1912. After being denied the Republican nomination, he ran on the Progressive ticket and came in second place to Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt never ran for President again and he died in 1919. But what if he had stuck to his original plan and decided not to run in 1912?
WI: TR Doesn't Run in 1912
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Wilson (or whoever the Democrats nominated) would still have won. Remember, the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, before the Taft-TR split. Indeed, much of the pressure for TR to run came from Republicans who were worried that Taft couldn't win in 1912.
As I posted here a few years ago:
***
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. If the Bull Moose vote had gone for Taft over Wilson by *five to one*, Wilson would still have more votes than Taft....
One piece of evidence, incidentally, that neither Taft not TR (but *especially* not Taft) could have gotten nearly as many votes as the combined TR-Taft vote of OTL is that in a number of states, TR and Taft supporters *did* support "fusion" candidates for governor--and such candidates invariably did worse than the combined Taft and TR vote in the state. David Sarasohn has pointed this out in *The Party of Reform: Democrats in the Progressive Era* (University Press of Mississippi 1989). Example: In 1912 in Kansas, TR and Taft got a combined total of 52.35% of the vote; Wilson only got 39.30%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election Republican Arthur Capper (with no Progressive opponent) meanwhile got only 46.5% of the vote for governor--losing to his Democratic opponent, George H. Hodges, who got 46.6%. https://books.google.com/books?id=ksBiaAS8jXoC&pg=PA79
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...lose-the-1912-elections.342514/#post-10256703
As I posted here a few years ago:
***
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. If the Bull Moose vote had gone for Taft over Wilson by *five to one*, Wilson would still have more votes than Taft....
One piece of evidence, incidentally, that neither Taft not TR (but *especially* not Taft) could have gotten nearly as many votes as the combined TR-Taft vote of OTL is that in a number of states, TR and Taft supporters *did* support "fusion" candidates for governor--and such candidates invariably did worse than the combined Taft and TR vote in the state. David Sarasohn has pointed this out in *The Party of Reform: Democrats in the Progressive Era* (University Press of Mississippi 1989). Example: In 1912 in Kansas, TR and Taft got a combined total of 52.35% of the vote; Wilson only got 39.30%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election Republican Arthur Capper (with no Progressive opponent) meanwhile got only 46.5% of the vote for governor--losing to his Democratic opponent, George H. Hodges, who got 46.6%. https://books.google.com/books?id=ksBiaAS8jXoC&pg=PA79
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...lose-the-1912-elections.342514/#post-10256703
Last edited:
It's also worth noting that had Roosevelt stayed out of the 1912 election, LaFollette could have gone third party instead. He wouldn't take as much support as TR did in OTL, but I think he'd take enough progressive Republicans to give Wilson a comfortable electoral college victory.
I was thinking of that, too, but I wonder if La Follette would still have had his breakdown of February 1912, which might leave him in a poor condition to continue the campaign against Taft or to mount a credible third party campaign.
It would have been a good strategy had there been no WW1. However, if TR was anything like as bellicose as OTL that would probably kill his chances in 1916. He would need to "cool it" in a big way.
Whether or not he does, many progressives would still be clamoring for Roosevelt and wishing he had run instead.
No doubt, but as Taft (and probably even TR) would still have lost even in a straight fight, the point is of little significance.
I disagree with the consensus. Incumbent presidents running for re-election tend to win, and the election of 1912 was in the middle of a strong Republican era. As it happens, Hoover's loss in 1932 was the only time since the Civil war that an incumbent president was defeated WITHOUT a strong third party candidate, data that goes somewhat against the conventional wisdom. Taft was not in as bad shape in 1912 as Hoover would be.
Checking the results, just giving Wilson a third of Roosevelt's votes gets Wilson to 51.2% of the nationwide popular vote, more than enough for him to win and the electoral college breakdown shouldn't be necessary. Giving Wilson one fourth of the Bull Moose total puts Wilson's national popular vote percentage at 48.7%, which is probably still enough. But there is an issue that, aside from Wilson's own re-election in 1916, no Democratic presidential candidate in the twentieth century broke 45% of the nationwide popular vote until FDR's landslide in 1932, suggesitng there was a hard ceiling for Democratic support.
Debs, the Socialst candidate, got just under 6% of the nationwide popular vote, and Charlin,, the Prohibitionist, got 1.4%. I think both of them would have gotten some of the votes that went to Rossevelt, so I suspect we are looking at a Wilson plurality in the nationwide popular vote.
In the electoal college, giving Taft his two states, all the Rossevelt states, and any state where Wilson got under 405 of the popular vote gets Taft to 2012 electoral votes, which would not have been enough. The election would have come down to New York again. Taft would definitely need all these states plus New York, with 45 electoral votes and where Wilson got 41.3%, plus either Ohio or Wisconsin to get him the 266 electoral votes needed.
Checking the results, just giving Wilson a third of Roosevelt's votes gets Wilson to 51.2% of the nationwide popular vote, more than enough for him to win and the electoral college breakdown shouldn't be necessary. Giving Wilson one fourth of the Bull Moose total puts Wilson's national popular vote percentage at 48.7%, which is probably still enough. But there is an issue that, aside from Wilson's own re-election in 1916, no Democratic presidential candidate in the twentieth century broke 45% of the nationwide popular vote until FDR's landslide in 1932, suggesitng there was a hard ceiling for Democratic support.
Debs, the Socialst candidate, got just under 6% of the nationwide popular vote, and Charlin,, the Prohibitionist, got 1.4%. I think both of them would have gotten some of the votes that went to Rossevelt, so I suspect we are looking at a Wilson plurality in the nationwide popular vote.
In the electoal college, giving Taft his two states, all the Rossevelt states, and any state where Wilson got under 405 of the popular vote gets Taft to 2012 electoral votes, which would not have been enough. The election would have come down to New York again. Taft would definitely need all these states plus New York, with 45 electoral votes and where Wilson got 41.3%, plus either Ohio or Wisconsin to get him the 266 electoral votes needed.
Fair point about Hoover, but by 1910 the Democrats had taken back the House and the GOP was running out of steam after nearly 16 years in power. The GOP was already divided before Roosevelt entered the race and Taft had lost too much support to win re-election. Without TR, Taft still loses but much more narrowly.
I disagree. If Roosevelt can portray himself as a unity candidate in 1916, having not been tainted by the 1912 fiasco, then that is a significant boon to his chances that year.
Thomas1195
Banned
Only to get booted in 1920. Whoever won the 1916 election would have lost in 1920. The post-war mess is still there. And even if Teddy managed to retain much of his popularity, he could not run again ITTL.
(1) There was nothing unusual in incumbent presidents--including some more popular than Taft--losing their bids for re-election. Cleveland lost in 1888 (granted, "only" in the Electoral College). Harrison lost in 1892. (Harrison's loss in 1892 can be blamed on the Populists only if you assume the Weaver voters would have overwhelmingly backed Harrison. This is very dubious; Weaver voters were dissatisfied with the status quo and had certainly contributed to the Democratic landslide of 1890. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections) There are also presidents who might well have lost if they had been nominated for a second term, such as Arthur in 1884. In fact, after Lincoln, every president except Grant who sought a second consecutive term was defeated (either for nomination or in the general election) until McKinley.
(2) 1912 was not "in the middle of a strong Republican era." It was between two strong Republican eras: that of 1894 to 1910 and that of 1918 to 1930. There were already signs of the waning of Republican domination in 1908, disguised by Bryan's defeat (the Democrats gaining five seats in the House on top of the 32 they had gained in 1906; the election of Judson Harmon as governor of Ohio and Thomas Marshall as governor of Indiana). 1910 definitely marked a turning point: the Democrats gained control of the House and won the governorships of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts. This was clearly a repudiation of Taft (although Republicans close to TR, like Henry Stimson, also lost), and there was no indication that things were getting better for Taft in 1911. Indeed, as The Nation noted in its January 11, 1912 issue, much of the anti-Taft sentiment in the GOP was simply due to a feeling that Taft could not win:
"Taft 'cannot be elected.' This feeling is undoubtedly the true reason why many Republicans have faintly hoped that he would withdraw from the field. But as he has now definitely and even defiantly refused to withdraw, the real question before the party is: 'If Taft cannot be elected, can any Republican?' More specifically, the question is whether any Republican can be elected over Taft's dead body. It is confidently said that Roosevelt could be elected, but could he? Could he, that is, if he first had to go out and make open war upon Taft, with all the imputations of false friendship and desperate ambitions upon his head, with his party torn asunder in the process, and with countless Republican enemies eager to pay off old spites? Under those circumstances, it would not be a cool judgment that maintained he could win." https://books.google.com/books?id=jWE5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA27
Likewise William Allen White wrote in 1911 that "Wall Street sees that Taft cannot win. Wall Street fears Wilson. Big business will dump Taft mercilessly. It seems to fear that Taft's weakness means the success of La Follette..." https://books.google.com/books?id=H3ZNAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA249
(3) One other point relates to the Debs vote (which you mentioned): one reason it was so large is that many voters thought it was "safe" to vote Socialist because the "reactionary" candidate Taft (not that Taft was really a reactionary but we are talking about perceptions here) had no chance of winning and the election was bound to be won by a "progressive" candidate, either Wilson or TR. If it was a two-way Wilson versus Taft race, many of them would vote for Wilson--as indeed they were to do in 1916.
In short, the idea that Taft could not win a two-way race was widespread at the time, and was very likely correct. You may be right that Taft was not as unpopular in 1911-12 as Hoover was in 1932 but you don't have to lose by eighteen points to be defeated. Big midterm defeats for the party in power, like those of 1890 and 1894, usually meant trouble for the party in the next presidential election, and there is no reason to think 1912 would be different, at least if Taft were the Republican candidate.
Last edited:
David T makes good points. My argument is that incumbent presidents have lost much less often than people think, and actually 1888-92 itself is a good example, a plurality of voters in fact wanted to re-elect Cleveland, and when there was an electoral reversal they just confirmed their decision in the 1892 rematch. Incumbent presidential defeats in American politics usually involve developments such as this, or a collapsing economy, and to a remarkable degree there is often a strong third party challenge as well.
I'm not sure about how the dynamics of a third party challenge and an incumbent losing works, though probably the third party race is a result, and not a cause of incumbent weakness. I expect that if there is no Bull Moose run and Taft goes down to defeat, you would have a larger than usual third party vote. The OTL 6% for Debs its itself a greater than usual third party share of the vote, so the pattern would hold if that was just repeated ITTL, especially as the Socialist Party was well organized by third party standards. I think the likeliest result is a Wilson victory, but with a plurality. Tilden in 1876 was the only Democratic presidential candidate to get a popular vote majority between 1852 and 1932, and there is an obvious explanation for this in the lingering effects of the Civil War.
I also think the effects of mid-term election losses on the presidential party are over-stated, though I am probably missing how much more important Congress was before World War 2. After World War 2, there are several instances of presidents shrugging off mid-term losses, including fairly large ones in 1946, 1994, and 2010, with more minor examples in 1954 and 1982.
I'm not sure about how the dynamics of a third party challenge and an incumbent losing works, though probably the third party race is a result, and not a cause of incumbent weakness. I expect that if there is no Bull Moose run and Taft goes down to defeat, you would have a larger than usual third party vote. The OTL 6% for Debs its itself a greater than usual third party share of the vote, so the pattern would hold if that was just repeated ITTL, especially as the Socialist Party was well organized by third party standards. I think the likeliest result is a Wilson victory, but with a plurality. Tilden in 1876 was the only Democratic presidential candidate to get a popular vote majority between 1852 and 1932, and there is an obvious explanation for this in the lingering effects of the Civil War.
I also think the effects of mid-term election losses on the presidential party are over-stated, though I am probably missing how much more important Congress was before World War 2. After World War 2, there are several instances of presidents shrugging off mid-term losses, including fairly large ones in 1946, 1994, and 2010, with more minor examples in 1954 and 1982.
Prior to World War II, though, these midterm landslide losses were almost always predictive of trouble for the party that was defeated. 1842, 1846, 1854 (yes, the Democrats won against divided opposition in 1856, but 1854 marked the end of the Democrats as the majority party in the North) 1858, 1890, 1894, 1910, 1930. 1874 is an apparent exception but of course Tilden won the popular vote by three points and Hayes' Electoral College victory in FL and LA can certainly be questioned. 1922 might be seen as another exception, but after the Democrats' horrendous losses in 1920 (after already substantial losses in 1918) a comeback was to be expected. The same is true of the Republicans in 1914 (especially with the collapse of the Progressive Party) and 1938. (And 1914, 1922, and 1938 were all recession/depression years--which 1910 was not.)
In any event, in pre-World War II days when the party that lost badly in the midterms won in the presidential election two years later, there was always some development to explain it. For example, an obvious reason for the difference between 1922 and 1924 was the return of prosperity. (Also Coolidge's Yankee-man-of-stern-integrity image as compared with Harding's…) If 1938 did not herald a GOP return to the White House in 1940, there is an obvious reason in World War II. If the GOP managed to win the White House in 1876--even in a victory with asterisks--it was because in Hayes they had a candidate who could appeal to Liberal Republicans. But I just don't see anything that happened in the two years after 1910 that would make Taft more popular in 1912 than he had been in 1910.
William Howard Taft would win the election Republicans probably hold maybe 12 to 18 more seats in the Congress and in the Senate Republicans have a slim majority at most two senators
Jud Harmon or Thomas R. Marshall will most likely be the Democratic nominee for president in 1916
Theodore Roosevelt running for president in 1916 would be an interesting because he would be Pro getting into the war in Europe even if he secured the Republican nomination I don't think he would have enough votes to win the election
I also don't see the Republicans taking back the Congress as greatly as they did in 1914 and building on their gains and 1916 I can see them in the majority but not as prominent
at this point the American people are looking to do a political switch and President Taft would most likely have ruined any chance of Republican winning the election 1920 election I don't know it really depends on how the Democrats handle the aftermath of the war and also the fact that the Republicans still have the legacy of Lincoln on their side I think it's anyone's game.
Jud Harmon or Thomas R. Marshall will most likely be the Democratic nominee for president in 1916
Theodore Roosevelt running for president in 1916 would be an interesting because he would be Pro getting into the war in Europe even if he secured the Republican nomination I don't think he would have enough votes to win the election
I also don't see the Republicans taking back the Congress as greatly as they did in 1914 and building on their gains and 1916 I can see them in the majority but not as prominent
at this point the American people are looking to do a political switch and President Taft would most likely have ruined any chance of Republican winning the election 1920 election I don't know it really depends on how the Democrats handle the aftermath of the war and also the fact that the Republicans still have the legacy of Lincoln on their side I think it's anyone's game.
Three contrary views (apart from the ones I have already quoted):
(1) The Independent (which supported Taft's re-election): "The fates were against him from the first, for the Democratic tide had not ebbed, and the secession of Theodore Roosevelt only made sure what was before scarcely doubtful." https://books.google.com/books?id=o3k7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA108
(2) The Nation: "It scarcely needed the open split in his party to accentuate the general belief that the chances are enormously against his being elected in November." https://books.google.com/books?id=ZBw4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA627
(3) The New York Times: "Had kind fortune spared Mr. Taft the disaster of the Roosevelt assault and bolt, the result would have been the same." https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1912/11/06/100555523.pdf
The Independent was correct that the Democratic tide had not ebbed; as David Sarasohn writes (The Party of Reform: Democrats in the Progressive Era, p. 149): "the few elections held in 1911 saw new Democratic gains."
I just don't see why, even in the absence of a TR challenge, Taft would be any stronger in 1912 than he was in 1910, when his party lost disastrously before the TR split. If nothing else, the La Follette challenge would weaken him, whether La Follette ran as a third party candidate or not.
I actually rather like Taft, and his administration had some real accomplishments; but it is useless to ignore how unpopular he was and how inept he could be as a politician. (For one thing--though this was hardly his most important problem--he was gaffe-prone, explaining that he was a man of peace but he would fight hard if necessary because "Even a rat in a corner will fight." https://books.google.com/books?id=_mabsSXXhKEC&pg=PA187)
Last edited:
Not to mention the two elections before *that*.
They suffered heavy losses in the 1914 midterms, and still more in 1916, despite hanging on to the Presidency. The latter election reduced them to bare parity with the Republicans, and they were able to organise the House only with the support of minor party candidates. So 1920 was their *fourth* successive defeat in Congressional races, leaving them with only a handful of seats outside the Solid South, and iirc, even half of *those* were from the Border States. They almost literally had no further to sink, and it would have been amazing had they not seen a recovery in 1922.
Though of course, had a fourth of the Bull Moose voters really switched to Wilson, at least as many more would have abstained. This is what hit the Democrats in 1904 when, despite Bryan dutifully campaigning for Alton Parker, his supporters "went fishing" in droves. Hence TR's landslide, though his popular vote, when allowance is made for population increase, differed little from McKinley's in 1900.
Last edited:
Taft actually busted more trusts than TR did; it was Taft who broke up Standard Oil and sued U.S. Steel.
Aphrodite
Banned
Its doubtful that Wilson would have won even if by some miracle he had managed to get 51% of the popular vote. Like all racists in the era, he racked up huge margins in the south that would do no good
Its easy in politics to get to 40-45%, very hard to get over 50. Wilson hardly improves at all over the Democratic vote in 1908 in the North- his entire victory is caused by the split. He's unlikely to get much if anything of the Roosevelt vote- who did quite well among blacks for example. They will either vote for Taft or stay home
Many may have abstained but a lot of Republican voters stayed home once it was obvious that the split would ensure Wilson's election
First of all, this doesn't explain why the Democrats did so well in 1910, before the split.
Second, it doesn't explain why in those states where Republicans and Bull Moosers did unite behind "fusion" candidates for state office in 1912, those candidates did worse than the combined Taft-TR votes in their states. As I noted above: Example: In 1912 in Kansas, TR and Taft got a combined total of 52.35% of the vote; Wilson only got 39.30%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election Republican Arthur Capper (with no Progressive opponent) meanwhile got only 46.5% of the vote for governor--losing to his Democratic opponent, George H. Hodges, who got 46.6%. https://books.google.com/books?id=ksBiaAS8jXoC&pg=PA79
Another example: In Maine, TR and Taft combined got 57.89 percent of the vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_presidential_election Yet the Republican gubernatorial candidate won by only 71,043 to 67,748 (51.2-48.8 ignoring the Socialist) in a race where there was no Progressive candidate. https://books.google.com/books?id=XJ8ZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA628&lpg=PA628
The conclusion seems inescapable to me that Taft and Roosevelt combined did better than any single Republican candidate--certainly the unpopular Taft!--would do alone.
Third, saying that Wilson did no better than Bryan in the North and that therefore his victories there were due solely to the split assumes that no 1908 Bryan voters went for TR. I think that is absurd. TR in 1912 was running on a quite "radical" social justice platform including things like the initiative and the referendum, workers compensation, maximum hours and minimum wages, recall of judicial decisions, etc. which must have appealed to some 1908 Bryan voters. I don't doubt that the majority of TR's support came from 1908 Taft voters but to claim that all did is an obvious exaggeration. In addition, TR doubtless got the support of many voters who had indeed voted for Taft in 1908--but only under the impression that he was a TR-style progressive and who later came to look on him (wrongly) as a "reactionary" and would never vote for him in 1912, even if the only alternative was a Democrat (as they had shown in 1910 when they voted for Democrats or stayed home).
One should remember that in 1912 TR attacked Taft far more violently than he did Wilson--and got many votes precisely as the result of this attack. (In turn, Taft attacked TR's "radicalism" much more stridently than he attacked Wilson.) To assume that all those voters would have supported Taft strains credulity--and is inconsistent with how those voters voted in 1910, how they voted for state offices in 1912 where there was no split, etc. (It also ignores that many of them would vote for Wilson in 1916--not just on the war issue but in opposition to Hughes' economic conservatism which resembled Taft's in 1912--but that's another story.)
As for the black vote, first of all, it was small in 1912: most African Americans lived in the South where they were disfranchised. Second, Wilson actually did better with African American voters than Democrats usually did in those days. With the support of people like W.E.B. DuBois, "Wilson received an unprecedented level of black support for a Democratic presidential candidate winning an estimated five to seven percent of the black vote." http://www.blacksandpresidency.com/woodrowwilson.php
Last edited:
As did many Democrats for (in all probability) the same reason. The certainty of Republican defeat also allowed many Dems to "abstain" another way by casting a vote for Eugene Debs. And in the 1910 midterms there was a Democratic landslide even w/o a GOP split.
He did in 1916, despite TR's endorsement of Hughes. And Taft was far more unpopular in 1912 than Hughes in 1916, by which time the GOP was much recovered, as the Congressional races show.