Zangara kills FDR, can the Republicans win in 1936?

Had Zangara taken out FDR, could the Republicans have won in 1936 against a Democratic Party split between the more conservative John Nance Garner and a potential Populist Candidate put forward via the union party?
 
Borah probably becomes the Republican nominee. Without Roosevelt pushing the moderates and conservatives to the Republican party, the Republican party changes to be more 'radical' and Borah would probably do even better in the primaries, probably picking up Illinois and South Dakota. Coming into the convention, Landon would still have the upper hand, but the Stop-Landon movement led by Knox, Borah and Vandenberg would be a lot more forceful and probably overcome party machinery.

Borah definitely wins because he can separate himself from Hoover and a union party candidate, most likely Wheeler ITTL IMO, just splits the democrat vote more.

Borah would die in 1940, so whoever his VP would be becomes the nominee in 1940. Perhaps Pearl Harbor and the US joining the war never happen due to Borah being isolationist and if his successor is too.
 

Puzzle

Donor
My normal assumption about such things is that the electorate would want to give the same party another chance, but Garner will have had a full term. Zangara was some flavor of anti-capitalist, so there might be another Red Scare. Anti-immigrant feelings would probably increase as well.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Had Zangara taken out FDR, could the Republicans have won in 1936 against a Democratic Party split between the more conservative John Nance Garner and a potential Populist Candidate put forward via the union party?
No, the economy would have rebounded by 1936 somewhat even if the new deal didn't happen. And it's too easy to attack Republicans as the party which caused the depression. As long as the incumbent president gets credit for a recovering economy it's pretty hard for him to lose.
 
John Garner was a moderate progressive so most likely he would have won in a landslide in 1936, though not as big as Roosevelt's (the Union Party candidate might have broken 5% of the vote, and the GOP ticket might win New Hampshire and perhaps Pennsylvania and Kansas but that's it).
 
I've been guilty of this and I understand I've been wrong, but here's the thing about these "No New Deal Dystopias" - they always assume the conservative plan was to sit down and do nothing. Thing is, by 1932 "sitting down and doing nothing" wasn't acceptable. The conservative plan was to slash spending even more, decrease the size of the government even more and liquidate government assets (which even Hoover had opposed, over the wishes of his cabinet). Would it had made the depression worse? Yes. Is it "sitting down and doing nothing"? No.
 
Top