Without World War I could Wilson have won a third term?

I just can't see Wilson breaking Washington precedent without hellish good reason. And even if he decide run third term, it would be pretty much of uphill fighting. Firstly him should assure other Democrats why him should run third term instead someone else Democrat. And even if the party agrees, he would face much accusation and tainting campaign being disrespectful towards Washington and they might even blame him being powerhungry despot, perhaps comparing him to Julius Caesar.

Wilson had the ego, the hubris and the blindness of conviction to attempt it. But I agree, he still needs a push, the tradition was a strong barrier, but in his heart Wilson would not simply let a tradition stop him if he found a reason that moved him.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Wilson had the ego, the hubris and the blindness of conviction to attempt it. But I agree, he still needs a push, the tradition was a strong barrier, but in his heart Wilson would not simply let a tradition stop him if he found a reason that moved him.
But by 1920, the Republican Party had largely healed the rift between Progressives and Conservatives, which would make it damn near impossible for Wilson to win. They only way breaking the tradition doesn't hurt Wilson, is if TR is the nominee for the GOP. And even then, Roosevelt can argue that his first term really wasn't his term. That he was meerly serving out President McKinley's term. Wilson won't have even that fig leaf to hide behind
 
I believe that without a crisis such as World War 1 then its very unlikely that Wilson would have won a third term. He had some sway and some gravitas but nothing near the same amount as TR or FDR. That's just my two cents on the topic though.
 
Yes and no. Because he didn't discriminate against others based on their race or hate those of another skin color. He also personally didn't believe in segregation. While he did believe that the white race was superior to other races, he didn't believe it was "because we're white." He also thought that the other races could advance to the same level as the white race, and that individual members of those races already had. So like I said, it was still white supremacism, but without the racism. Or maybe it would be better to say, it wouldn't have been considered racism at the time.

Never said it wasn't. He was very much America First. But unlike a lot of politicians today, he wasn't anti-imigration. He just believed that if you chose to immigrate to the United States, then you should be expected to become American. And that if you did, you should be treated no differently than any other American.
You're putting lipstick on a pig. Theodore Roosevelt was more than happy to have immigrants from Western Europe. Even politicians today generally aren't opposed to immigration. I've seen no indication that he thought the immigration rules of his time were too strict. Today, the idea that European civilization was more advanced for reasons unrelated to racism or racial exploitation is controversial. We're talking about a president who in office largely turned his back, as McKinley had arguably also done, on the defining legacy of his party from Reconstruction to that period; advancing the cause in the public sphere of racial equality. Personal sentiments then as now don't matter as much as the policies advanced, and you've basically posted the equivalent of "he has black friends, so he's not racist".
 
Top