StarDestroyer.Net BBS

To start with, I am putting this in OT instead of History as I think it follows a less strict look at history. However if it needs to be moved then so be it.

Basically the purpose of this thread is to lay down a convincing and historically possible method for Theodore Roosevelt to win the 1912 Elections. Now then, there was a thread on this some time back HERE however it did not get very far largely as it started with a “Rar, Roosevelt wins the election!” post and went into what happens after that. As stated, my hopeful purpose for this thread is to establish HOW he may win. Currently as far as I can see, the two most plausible methods are either:

A: Taft withdrawals/has medical issues before or during the Republican convention in Chicago that forces the Republican party to accept Roosevelt as their candidate leading to a more unified election against Wilson.

Or

B: After the Republican Bull Moose split; a series of events may need to take place to ensure a Roosevelt victory. Taft would still have to drop out, either from medical reasons or another issue. Also toward the end of the election, an Assassination attempt left Roosevelt in the hospital and unable to campaign during the final crucial weeks of the election.

During the original thread, the most agreed upon theory was put forth by “Carson Palmer” which followed the “A” version of things:

CarsonPalmer wrote:Personally, I think this is one of the more interesting AH scenarios, so I'll see if I can try and save this one with a definite scenario.

On June 17, the last day before the Republican Convention in Chicago, William Howard Taft drops dead of a heart attack. As a result, the Roosevelt delegates to the convention from California are seated. Teddy and Elihu Root reconcile, and a Roosevelt-Root ticket is running for president.

The better organized and not-split Republican ticket manages to win New York (45 electoral votes), Arizona (3 electoral votes), all the votes in California (two more electoral votes), Colorado (6 electoral votes), Idaho (4 electoral votes), Illinois (29 electoral votes), Indiana (15 electoral votes), Kansas (10 electoral votes), Kentucky (13 electoral votes), Maine (6 electoral votes), Maryland (8 electoral votes), Massachusetts (18 electoral votes), Missouri (18 electoral votes), Montana (4 electoral votes), Nebraska (8 electoral votes), New Jersey (14 electoral votes and a serious blow to Wilson), New Mexico (3 electoral votes), North Dakota (5 electoral votes), Ohio (24 electoral votes), Rhode Island (4 electoral votes), Utah (4 electoral votes), Vermont (4 electoral votes), and Wisconsin (13 electoral votes) to take the election by a margin of 358-139.

Roosevelt has now swept the Northeast and Midwest, as well as taken most of the West, but made virtually no dent in the South.

This seems the most plausible method for a Roosevelt victory, however a “B” victory would seem to ensure a stable third party in America, making the “Progressive” party of Roosevelt a truly Liberal wing, the Democrats becoming over time the centrist party, and the Republicans, who may split between the GOP, the Dems, and the Progressives.

In truth however, the primary reason why I am looking for a plausible method of Roosevelt winning the election is mostly to see Woodrow Wilson does NOT become President.

So comments and additional theories as well as historical information are welcome and encouraged.

One of the other options we kicked around at the end of that thread, and I had to re-read to recall that it was GB who offered it, was removing Wilson from the stage or at least sidelining him. If Wilson goes down with a stroke after his nomination but before the election the Democrats probably can't replace him (certainly not if he lives and tricky enough if he dies). Give Taft a heart attack and suddenly Teddy is the only candidate who can stand up and say he will survive all 4 years.

CP and I both gamed out scenarios and his is more optimistic for Roosevelt to win in the case Taft drops dead (I'm still figuring that without the Republican machine Teddy will have difficulties rallying his troops) so I think that a Wilson stroke which becomes public knowledge should probably do the trick.

I don't necessarily agree with this:

however a “B” victory would seem to ensure a stable third party in America, making the “Progressive” party of Roosevelt a truly Liberal wing, the Democrats becoming over time the centrist party, and the Republicans, who may split between the GOP, the Dems, and the Progressives.

I'd be more inclined to think that the Republicans would be the "center" Party, while the Democrats held the Right, as they had in every election up to and including (and beyond) 1912 -- Wilson was probably the least "progressive" of the three major candidates that year.

CmdrWilkens wrote:One of the other options we kicked around at the end of that thread, and I had to re-read to recall that it was GB who offered it, was removing Wilson from the stage or at least sidelining him. If Wilson goes down with a stroke after his nomination but before the election the Democrats probably can't replace him (certainly not if he lives and tricky enough if he dies). Give Taft a heart attack and suddenly Teddy is the only candidate who can stand up and say he will survive all 4 years.

CP and I both gamed out scenarios and his is more optimistic for Roosevelt to win in the case Taft drops dead (I'm still figuring that without the Republican machine Teddy will have difficulties rallying his troops) so I think that a Wilson stroke which becomes public knowledge should probably do the trick.

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it becomes to easy to think "Just give so and so a heart attack" to change things around.

Removing Wilson without removing Taft might actually lead to a Taft victory. Wilson was by far the most conservative and many of his supporters may end up voting for the more moderate Taft rather then the progressive Roosevelt.

Removing Taft, as mentioned above, would be a more stable method for victory as it gives us fewer unknowns to contemplate.

Of course removing BOTH would just look damned suspicious. Having first Taft drop out from a heart attack, and then Wilson would probably raise more then a few eyebrows.

That said when/if Roosevelt DOES win, it would be interesting to see how he would run the early 20th century different especially during WWI and events leading up to the Great Depression.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:The trouble with this line of thinking is that it becomes to easy to think "Just give so and so a heart attack" to change things around.

Removing Wilson without removing Taft might actually lead to a Taft victory. Wilson was by far the most conservative and many of his supporters may end up voting for the more moderate Taft rather then the progressive Roosevelt.

Removing Taft, as mentioned above, would be a more stable method for victory as it gives us fewer unknowns to contemplate.

Of course removing BOTH would just look damned suspicious. Having first Taft drop out from a heart attack, and then Wilson would probably raise more then a few eyebrows.

That said when/if Roosevelt DOES win, it would be interesting to see how he would run the early 20th century different especially during WWI and events leading up to the Great Depression.

Taking Taft out, and this is assuming we get past the conventions and Teddy runs on the Bull Moose platform, you still have Sherman as his VP taking top billing on the ticket. Sherman was pretty damn popular both in the party and in general so he would, by himself, probably run a campaign closely matching The Republican party machine will stick to its candidate and push hard. Even granted that Sherman will likely still keel over just prior to the election the Republican machine will NOT suddenly be running to support Teddy. I mentioned it in the prior thread but I'll quote it here:

With no Republican contender actually alive when everyone goes to the polls it would be likely that Conservative Republicans will flee to Wilson (paticularly in the South Wilson's margin should grow enourmous) however moderate Republicans would likely stick with Roosevelt even running under the "Bull Moose"/Progressive designation. Doing a VERY rough bit of work outside of home states (NJ, NY, IN, and CA) I have split Taft's vote total as 60% Roosevelt, 30% Wilson, 10% vote for the dead guy/stay home. In NJ and IN Taft's vote gets split 60% Wilson, 30% Roosevelt, 10% stay home, in NY and CA Taft's vote gets split 70% Roosevelt, 20% Wilson, 10% stay home.

Under these sets of assumption Wilson still carries 351 total EVs of which 291 are by at least 5% (note I preserved the CA 2/11 split since I'm completely unsure how things might change THAT).

The run I did with those numbers basically drops the Republicans to also-rans with nobody at the top of the ticket (a likely event if Taft drops and the Sherman dies as he did in real life) and gives Teddy the majority of the vote, but not the entirety, in states which leaned moderate or progressive while running up Wilson's numbers with Conservative Republicans. In other words...so long as there is a Republican candidate not named Teddy Roosevelt then TR will not win the 1912 election...he MUST carry the nominating convention OR Wilson needs to be dropped from the scene.

Taking Wilson out by stroke, or even perhaps publicly disclosing his previous one, should give TR and edge by depressing Democratic turnout and keeping conservative Republicans at home (instead of party switching). If we don't take that route then Teddy must do something to win the nominating convention...and that means either Taft dropping out prior to the convention OR Roosevelt buying off Root somehow (and that I'm not so sure about yet).

Thanks for all of that CW, that’s a great summary of a lot of what I've been thinking about. You put it down in words much better then I could have. Re-reading the original thread and then going over what you added, it defiantly looks like depressing the Democratic vote in conjunction with a unified Republican party is the safest route to a Roosevelt win.

Also touching on what you said, having Roosevelt win the nomination outright instead via a random Taft heart attack would also create an even more unified party, since the Republicans are not "forced" to go with Taft under that scenario.

Given Wilsons past, I am curious what could be done to create a scandal of some sort to depress votes on his side. I never thought I would be talking about creating a scandal to ruin a 'democratic' presidential nominee, but given the fact Wilson expanded segregation, sat known racists on his councils, started the path of hysterics regarding marijuana and resorted to draconian suppression during his second term, I don't mind getting my hands dirty.

Oh yes, and lets not forget his direct involvement in the treaty of Versailles helped ruin Germany economic and ensure Hitler’s rise to power.

The health concerns on Wilson's side would likely have been sufficient to keep voters away. While losing a President was not unthinkable (McKinley was less than two decades prior at this point) it would be a hard sell to say you could effectively operate as President having already suffered a stroke in an era where medical care was just starting to enter the modern world.

What might have been a much more interesting case study would be Wilson losing the democratic nomination as he very nearly did. If Bryan doesn't turn against Clark then Wilson would be out of the running and you would probably have a lot of progressive enthusiasm for defeating him...his efforts as Speaker made him an arch-nemesis to progressive factions (as well as the Eastern business interests). If we give Clark the (D) nomination and take Taft out of the scene then institutional support would likely swarm back to Teddy and he may be able to carry every Republican leaning state.

Crossroads Inc. wrote: Oh yes, and lets not forget his direct involvement in the treaty of Versailles helped ruin Germany economic and ensure Hitler’s rise to power.

While I too rate Wilson as one of the worst of our Presidents, I think Teddy Roosevelt would have gotten us involved in WW1 as well. He may not have been as Anglophilic as Wilson, but he probably had the Wilhelmine streak of treating war as "good, clean fun." He may have been less likely to attempt authoritarianism than Wilson, but he would probably have favored US entry.

Bottlestein wrote:

Crossroads Inc. wrote: Oh yes, and lets not forget his direct involvement in the treaty of Versailles helped ruin Germany economic and ensure Hitler’s rise to power.

While I too rate Wilson as one of the worst of our Presidents, I think Teddy Roosevelt would have gotten us involved in WW1 as well. He may not have been as Anglophilic as Wilson, but he probably had the Wilhelmine streak of treating war as "good, clean fun." He may have been less likely to attempt authoritarianism than Wilson, but he would probably have favored US entry.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Teddy might very well enter the war early. And starting early may mean ending early. An earlier end to WWI would mean less over all damage as well as less hostility between Germany and the other powers. Also US involvement ensures us a place at the treaty talks.

Roosevelt was a harsh critic of reparations and would be much more realistic about a postwar settlement than Wilson. So reparations are severely reduced after harsh words between TR, Lloyd George and Clemenceau, thus cutting down on German revanchism and the economic depression later.

As I understand it, both TR, Wilson, and a lot of others in politics at that time belonged to a loosely affiliated group that was somewhat akin to the Neoconservative movement, though overall more diverse in the views of its membership. Essentially they took the idea of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny a step further, but how each of them approached it tended to differ. The Roosevelt Corollary / Big Stick ideology seemed to sum up TR's stance on the issue.

While TR did his share of being a prick, he was also pragmatic. Wilson was much more like Reagan and the Shrubs, idealistically determined to spread American democracy by way of good old fashion imperialism.

Crossroads Inc. wrote: That isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Teddy might very well enter the war early. And starting early may mean ending early. An earlier end to WWI would mean less over all damage as well as less hostility between Germany and the other powers. Also US involvement ensures us a place at the treaty talks.

Roosevelt was a harsh critic of reparations and would be much more realistic about a postwar settlement than Wilson. So reparations are severely reduced after harsh words between TR, Lloyd George and Clemenceau, thus cutting down on German revanchism and the economic depression later.

This is a good point. However, how would this WW1 look? I take it you're trying to prevent what happened in Germany 1918 - 1919 since that's when the starvation was really widespread. Does the US give aid after the war? If the US enters in 1914, it can certainly help the shortages in France, but will it start to be a major effect militarily in 1914 itself, or will it take a year?