I did some research based on the statistics at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_presidential_election what would happen if TR's vote had gone 70% for Taft, 20% for Wilson, and 10% not voting or voting for Debs. That's a 3.5-1 advantage for Taft--something I think is way more than Taft would actually get. Nevertheless, this would result in Wilson's carrying such key states as New York, New Jersey, Indiana, Taft's own state of Ohio, and Wisconsin as well as the South and border states of course. This would be enough for a clear Electoral College majority.
 
So it seems like a foregone conclusion that, barring a disaster on the part of the Democrats, Taft was going to lose. What would Roosevelt's chances be against Wilson in 1916 in this ATL?
 
So it seems like a foregone conclusion that, barring a disaster on the part of the Democrats, Taft was going to lose. What would Roosevelt's chances be against Wilson in 1916 in this ATL?

So it seems like a foregone conclusion that, barring a disaster on the part of the Democrats, Taft was going to lose. What would Roosevelt's chances be against Wilson in 1916 in this ATL?

Depends if he can curb his tongue about the European War. If he takes a line anything like as bellicose as OTL, then he'll have a job getting even nominated, never mind elected. But OTL he wasn't a serious contender for 1916. Had he been, he might have controlled himself a lot more.
 
Depends if he can curb his tongue about the European War. If he takes a line anything like as bellicose as OTL, then he'll have a job getting even nominated, never mind elected. But OTL he wasn't a serious contender for 1916. Had he been, he might have controlled himself a lot more.

If Roosevelt can argue that he will keep America out of the war through greater preparedness, as cousin Franklin did in 1940, then he could win. But only if he avoids antagonizing immigrants and is able to keep the GOP fully united behind him.
 
Top