Who would the 1932 Democratic presidential nominee be if FDR had lost his bid for governor of New York?

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

FDR's efforts as governor of New York to address the Depression were crucial in establishing him as the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1932. But his first election to that office in 1928 was extremely narrow, he defeated the Republican nominee by just 25,000 votes, or 0.6%. So what if he had lost this election?

IOTL the three major Democratic presidential candidates were Roosevelt, former New York Governor Al Smith, and House Speaker John Nance Garner. At first, I assumed that Smith would get the nomination, he came in second IOTL, but per Wikipedia he actually had very little interest in another presidential campaign after his landslide defeat in 1928, the main reason he ran in 32 was resentment towards Roosevelt. So without FDR in the governor's mansion, I doubt Smith runs. As for John Nance Garner, by all accounts he was perfectly happy as Speaker and had basically no interest in the presidency. To the extent his "campaign" existed it was a vehicle for anti-Roosevelt Democratic leaders to win delegates in an attempt to stop his nomination at the convention.

In short, without FDR winning in 1928, not only would he not be a presidential candidate in 1932, his two main rivals probably wouldn't be as well. Who are some other potential Democrats who might throw their hats in the ring? With the Depression a Democratic victory in 1932 is pretty much guaranteed, so I imagine a lot of people would run, probably leading to a divided convention that would take lots of negotiating in smoke-filled rooms to hammer out. Whoever wins will take the reins of power in one of the biggest crossroads in American history.

 

[Incognitia]

FDR's efforts as governor of New York to address the Depression were crucial in establishing him as the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1932. But his first election to that office in 1928 was extremely narrow, he defeated the Republican nominee by just 25,000 votes, or 0.6%. So what if he had lost this election?

IOTL the three major Democratic presidential candidates were Roosevelt, former New York Governor Al Smith, and House Speaker John Nance Garner. At first, I assumed that Smith would get the nomination, he came in second IOTL, but per Wikipedia he actually had very little interest in another presidential campaign after his landslide defeat in 1928, the main reason he ran in 32 was resentment towards Roosevelt. So without FDR in the governor's mansion, I doubt Smith runs. As for John Nance Garner, by all accounts he was perfectly happy as Speaker and had basically no interest in the presidency. To the extent his "campaign" existed it was a vehicle for anti-Roosevelt Democratic leaders to win delegates in an attempt to stop his nomination at the convention.

In short, without FDR winning in 1928, not only would he not be a presidential candidate in 1932, his two main rivals probably wouldn't be as well. Who are some other potential Democrats who might throw their hats in the ring? With the Depression a Democratic victory in 1932 is pretty much guaranteed, so I imagine a lot of people would run, probably leading to a divided convention that would take lots of negotiating in smoke-filled rooms to hammer out. Whoever wins will take the reins of power in one of the biggest crossroads in American history.

If nobody else is interested, why doesn't Roosevelt still go for it? Albeit as less of a front runner without four years as governor.

 

[Time Enough]

William McAdoo I believe was proposing an another run at it, there’s also William H. Murray though I very much doubt he would get it.

 

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

If nobody else is interested, why doesn't Roosevelt still go for it? Albeit as less of a front runner without four years as governor.

Given that he had no interest in running for governor until being persuaded by state Democratic leaders who thought he was the only person who could win only to lose, I doubt he would be very interested in running for president, especially since he'd probably be facing a very crowded field and the most political experience he had was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson, plus the running mate of James Cox in his disastrous 1920 campaign against Harding. From what I've read, his relief programs as governor were instrumental in building his national political profile. Granted, he was still somewhat politically active in the 20s before being elected governor and even started establishing political contacts in the South, and I can see him being an important broker at the convention, but without his experience as governor I just don't see him having a viable path to the presidency in 1932.

 

[raharris1973]

1932 was going to be a Democratic year, so alternate Democratic nominees, and the implications of their domestic and foreign policy priorities, is an endlessly fascinating discussion.

Would any and all plausible Democratic candidates have been FDR clones in all recognizable aspects of policy and politics, even if not in terms of personal style and appearance?

Was FDR the "edge case" of maximum plausible domestic reform in pro-labor, pro-regulatory spheres, and introduction of economic planning?

Was he the maximum plausible supporter of shifting from protectionism to reciprocal tariff reductions and freer trade? What about international financial cooperation?

Did he pursue the maximum plausible policy alternatives on US rearmament, collective security, and support to victims of aggression?

Would all possible Democratic alternatives done "less" on these matters, or about the same?

Could any alternative candidate/nominee elected in 32 and sworn in, in 33 have flubbed so badly they could have made themselves a one-termer, and somehow permitted the GOP to make an unprecedented popular and electoral vote comeback, to majority support in the '36 election? It would have taken a lot of work to flub so badly and hand the GOP a shot at majority support in '36, considering in OTL they only carried two states. Alternatively, could the flubbing have led to unprecedenting electoral win in '36 of a third party without any national prominence as of '32?

 

[marktaha]

Did read once that Newton Baker most likely.

 

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

1932 was going to be a Democratic year, so alternate Democratic nominees, and the implications of their domestic and foreign policy priorities, is an endlessly fascinating discussion.

Would any and all plausible Democratic candidates have been FDR clones in all recognizable aspects of policy and politics, even if not in terms of personal style and appearance?

Was FDR the "edge case" of maximum plausible domestic reform in pro-labor, pro-regulatory spheres, and introduction of economic planning?

Was he the maximum plausible supporter of shifting from protectionism to reciprocal tariff reductions and freer trade? What about international financial cooperation?

Did he pursue the maximum plausible policy alternatives on US rearmament, collective security, and support to victims of aggression?

Would all possible Democratic alternatives done "less" on these matters, or about the same?

Could any alternative candidate/nominee elected in 32 and sworn in, in 33 have flubbed so badly they could have made themselves a one-termer, and somehow permitted the GOP to make an unprecedented popular and electoral vote comeback, to majority support in the '36 election? It would have taken a lot of work to flub so badly and hand the GOP a shot at majority support in '36, considering in OTL they only carried two states. Alternatively, could the flubbing have led to unprecedenting electoral win in '36 of a third party without any national prominence as of '32?

IMO FDR's presidency was probably the most successful a progressive president realistically could have been barring a literal revolution. Obviously it all comes down to who is elected but my guess is that the person elected would have still have done substantial relief programs, but wouldn't have done anything like the Second New Deal. I can still see the Depression creating a national political realignment but it would probably be more of an evolution of the previous party system rather than a complete reshifting of coalitions like OTL. More importantly, the mass movement of progressives into the Democratic Party probably wouldn't happen or at least not on the level of OTL. Many Democratic leaders (including the aforementioned Garner and Smith) came to dislike Roosevelt for turning the Democratic Party into a "New Deal party" dominated by progressive intellectuals and organized labor at the expense of traditional party bosses. These rifts really started emerging in FDR's second term with the Second New Deal and especially after the 1938 midterms that brought the Conservative Coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats to power.

Whoever becomes president instead of FDR would probably be more of a "party man" who would mostly work within the Democratic Party instead of transforming it and handing administration to party loyalists regardless of ideology (From what I've read a lot of Democrats who were initially pro-New Deal later turned against FDR because as loyal Democrats they expected to be rewarded with patronage but FDR often snubbed them in favor of New Dealers chosen for ideological, rather than party loyalty). This would be especially true with a divided convention; they would have to reward a lot of people for their support. Basically, their first term will probably be at least somewhat similar to FDR's and they probably win reelection in 1936, most Americans will still see the GOP as the party of the Depression. However, if there's a conservative enough Democrat at the helm I can see a leftist/progressive third-party candidate running and doing very well, possibly on the level of Roosevelt 1912 or La Follette 1924 IOTL. Beyond 1936 it's hard to say without figuring out exactly who would replace FDR but I'm assuming that they don't seek a third term.

I imagine that American foreign policy would be very different. From what I know FDR was crucial turning the US into a major player on the international stage, and this probably wouldn't happen without him. This isn't to say that the US would just stay isolationist forever, I feel like when World War II breaks out America would be dragged in eventually, but I feel like interventionism will be the exception rather than the rule. Then again, IDK much about foreign policy so take what I said with a grain of salt.

 

[Thande]

I always thought this was a very interesting WI and it's quite hard what to predict what might happen - probably nothing good for the US or the world!

 

[Comisario]

Albert Ritchie, Governor of Maryland, would almost certainly be a strong contender. Strong conservative, a wet on Prohibition, would have serve for 12 years as Governor at that point.

 

[Callan]

I think one of the biggest and most underdiscussed domestic butterflies of a "no FDR" scenario is there being no Black Cabinet - which is one of the big factors that set the Democrats on course to be the pro-civil rights party. That alone has enormous consequences for the next forty years of American social history and the civil rights movement.

 

[Time Enough]

Albert Ritchie, Governor of Maryland, would almost certainly be a strong contender. Strong conservative, a wet on Prohibition, would have serve for 12 years as Governor at that point.

I’ve used Albert Ritchie a few times, he seems like someone who could get elected in 32’ but suffers from a mediocre response to the Great Depression and probably would have to deal with some kind of Left Wing Populist ticket in 1936.

 

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

I think one of the biggest and most underdiscussed domestic butterflies of a "no FDR" scenario is there being no Black Cabinet - which is one of the big factors that set the Democrats on course to be the pro-civil rights party. That alone has enormous consequences for the next forty years of American social history and the civil rights movement.

Yeah, that was something I was wondering about. I've been meaning to read the book Farewell to the Party of Lincoln for awhile, I started it awhile back but never finished it. It talks in-depth about how the New Deal converted African-Americans from a strongly Republican to a democratic-leaning voting bloc. Interestingly the movement of black voters away from the GOP to some extent predated FDR, a lot of black leaders were dissatisfied with the GOP's general indifference to them. Most black voters still lived in the South and were disenfranchised by Jim Crow, while the northern black population, which really started growing with the Great Migration, overwhelmingly voted for Republican political machines that gave them little to nothing in return. IIRC some black leaders actually endorsed Al Smith in 1928 out of frustration with the GOP and bc Tammany Hall was unique among the big city machines in that it often gave African-Americans a share of patronage and whatnot.

I would assume that a more conservative Democratic president would do much less for African-Americans than FDR, who ofc had glaring shortcomings in regards to civil rights. With the Depression hitting their communities especially hard and with neither major party willing to do much if anything, I wonder if civil rights leaders would take a more militant turn and potentially even try to mount third-party/independent candidacies in areas with large black populations. Though again, this is just half-memories from a book I never finished so again, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.

I’ve used Albert Ritchie a few times, he seems like someone who could get elected in 32’ but suffers from a mediocre response to the Great Depression and probably would have to deal with some kind of Left Wing Populist ticket in 1936.

Interesting, I'll need to look more into him. The other name I've heard floated is Newton Baker, Wilson's Secretary of War and mayor of Cleveland. Apparently he was a strong Georgist, which could have major implications going forward. I feel like a more conservative Democratic administration would definitely result in a strong left-wing populist candidacy in 1936, possibly getting as high as 15-20% of the vote. Maybe Huey Long isn't assassinated and runs like he planned, idk. Regardless, I feel like 1936 would still be a Democratic victory, even if whoever's in office makes some blunders and makes a lot of enemies on the left most voters will still see Republicans as the party of the Depression and be unwilling to return them to power so soon. Obviously a lot depends on who the major nominees are, but I feel like the lingering association with the Depression would limit Republicans to around 40% of the vote, which would make a Republican victory impossible unless the Democrats are split completely in half a la the GOP in 1912.

 

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

I always thought this was a very interesting WI and it's quite hard what to predict what might happen - probably nothing good for the US or the world!

Yeah one of the big hassles with trying to figure out how things would go is that no FDR completely changes the dynamics of the 1932 Democratic nomination and means that whoever is nominated will probably end up being someone who's completely unknown IOTL, and you then have to figure out how they would govern during one of the most important crossroads in American history. I know very little about the state of the Democratic Party during the Depression but before FDR became the clear favorite for the nomination. Are there any big-name Democrats who might have run but didn't IOTL bc they saw Roosevelt's nomination as inevitable?

TBH if I end up writing this as a full timeline my top choices for Democratic nominee are Newton Baker or Albert Ritchie. McAdoo might be an interesting choice too, maybe without FDR he decides to throw his hat in the ring again instead of running for Senate. Though given he died in 1941 after retiring from the Senate in 1938 IOTL I feel like there's a decent chance he doesn't run for a second term and if he does, the stresses of the presidency bring his death forward a few years. In which case the question of who the VP nominee is becomes crucial, especially with WWII on the horizon. Heck, Ritchie died in 1936 and Baker in 1937 IOTL, which complicates things further.

Basically if I actually do this it'll all come down to whoever I can find the most information on.

 

[Comisario]

If you’ll permit me, I will link to David T’s idea for McAdoo in ‘32 over at the Other Place: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/mcadoo-in-32.298820/#post-8447629.

It’s a very good case he lays out for the alternative to FDR not being an Eastern conservative wet but actually a Western progressive dry.

 

[marktaha]

IMO FDR's presidency was probably the most successful a progressive president realistically could have been barring a literal revolution. Obviously it all comes down to who is elected but my guess is that the person elected would have still have done substantial relief programs, but wouldn't have done anything like the Second New Deal. I can still see the Depression creating a national political realignment but it would probably be more of an evolution of the previous party system rather than a complete reshifting of coalitions like OTL. More importantly, the mass movement of progressives into the Democratic Party probably wouldn't happen or at least not on the level of OTL. Many Democratic leaders (including the aforementioned Garner and Smith) came to dislike Roosevelt for turning the Democratic Party into a "New Deal party" dominated by progressive intellectuals and organized labor at the expense of traditional party bosses. These rifts really started emerging in FDR's second term with the Second New Deal and especially after the 1938 midterms that brought the Conservative Coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats to power.

Whoever becomes president instead of FDR would probably be more of a "party man" who would mostly work within the Democratic Party instead of transforming it and handing administration to party loyalists regardless of ideology (From what I've read a lot of Democrats who were initially pro-New Deal later turned against FDR because as loyal Democrats they expected to be rewarded with patronage but FDR often snubbed them in favor of New Dealers chosen for ideological, rather than party loyalty). This would be especially true with a divided convention; they would have to reward a lot of people for their support. Basically, their first term will probably be at least somewhat similar to FDR's and they probably win reelection in 1936, most Americans will still see the GOP as the party of the Depression. However, if there's a conservative enough Democrat at the helm I can see a leftist/progressive third-party candidate running and doing very well, possibly on the level of Roosevelt 1912 or La Follette 1924 IOTL. Beyond 1936 it's hard to say without figuring out exactly who would replace FDR but I'm assuming that they don't seek a third term.

I imagine that American foreign policy would be very different. From what I know FDR was crucial turning the US into a major player on the international stage, and this probably wouldn't happen without him. This isn't to say that the US would just stay isolationist forever, I feel like when World War II breaks out America would be dragged in eventually, but I feel like interventionism will be the exception rather than the rule. Then again, IDK much about foreign policy so take what I said with a grain of salt.

One idea,that's always intrigued me - what of Zangara had shot Roosevelt and Weiss had missed Huey Long?

 

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

One idea,that's always intrigued me - what of Zangara had shot Roosevelt and Weiss had missed Huey Long?

That's also an idea that's interested me. The attempt on Roosevelt's life was February 15, 1933, and FDR wouldn't be inaugurated until March 4. However, both Roosevelt and Garner had already been formally elected by the Electoral College, so Garner would become president on March 4. My guess is that Garner's first term is relatively similar to FDR's, they were mostly in agreement on the First New Deal. One significant difference I can see is that IIRC Garner was against Roosevelt's decision to recognize the USSR and later said that it was the worst decision of his entire presidency.

By 1936 Garner would start getting flak from progressives/left-wingers who don't think his relief efforts go far enough. Unlike FDR however, Garner will be much less willing to support their ideas, so in all likelihood there won't be anything like the Second New Deal. If Long survives he mounts a challenge to Garner at the convention and later a third-party presidential bid. Ultimately Garner almost certainly wins reelection, again, the GOP was still very much seen as the party of the Depression and I don't think Long would get enough support to split the vote.

 

[InsertCoolUsernameHere]

If you’ll permit me, I will link to David T’s idea for McAdoo in ‘32 over at the Other Place: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/mcadoo-in-32.298820/#post-8447629.

It’s a very good case he lays out for the alternative to FDR not being an Eastern conservative wet but actually a Western progressive dry.

This was a very interesting read, would be interested as to how McAdoo would differ from OTL FDR. Who are some potential VP picks?

 

[marktaha]

That's also an idea that's interested me. The attempt on Roosevelt's life was February 15, 1933, and FDR wouldn't be inaugurated until March 4. However, both Roosevelt and Garner had already been formally elected by the Electoral College, so Garner would become president on March 4. My guess is that Garner's first term is relatively similar to FDR's, they were mostly in agreement on the First New Deal. One significant difference I can see is that IIRC Garner was against Roosevelt's decision to recognize the USSR and later said that it was the worst decision of his entire presidency.

By 1936 Garner would start getting flak from progressives/left-wingers who don't think his relief efforts go far enough. Unlike FDR however, Garner will be much less willing to support their ideas, so in all likelihood there won't be anything like the Second New Deal. If Long survives he mounts a challenge to Garner at the convention and later a third-party presidential bid. Ultimately Garner almost certainly wins reelection, again, the GOP was still very much seen as the party of the Depression and I don't think Long would get enough support to split the vote.

Think one difference would be that Garner wouldn't have created new federal agencies but rather left things to local party bosses and the like.

 

[Comisario]

This was a very interesting read, would be interested as to how McAdoo would differ from OTL FDR. Who are some potential VP picks?

Given McAdoo’s Wilsonian idea of what electoral success looks like and his OTL willingness to compromise with conservatives, I can see him wanting to balance the ticket: a conservative from the Northeast, like Owen D. Young, Albert Ritchie (technically Mid-Atlantic), or maybe even Al Smith himself?

 

[zaffre]

Ritchie's been a popular choice going back to Fight and Be Right, but he falls directly into the "well why not" trap of there being a Senator or Governor from X random Democratic state in the South that had a chunk of delegates, why couldn't he get nominated? He would have come into office but been really bad on racial issues and led the party down the path of social conservatism etc. etc.

The 1930s Democratic Party was racist and its entire legislative core was unrepentant white supremacists from the one-party apartheid state that was the 1930s South, but it also drew a very, very careful line around not nominating them. In the 84 years from 1864 to 1948 the Democratic Party had a vast, predominant pool of southern office-holders who got some support at the convention but not coincidentally never got the nod. The closest you get is Governor of New Jersey / Virginian Woodrow Wilson and one-term West Virginia congressman / extremely active New York lawyer when he was nominated John W. Davis. All this while they had dozens of long-serving southern Senators and Governors and a northern bench so thin that they occasionally had to resort to Alton Parker. Albert Ritchie was thrown out of office in 1934 in part because of his mishandling of multiple lynchings, so as a candidate I just don't think he was on the right side of the Mason-Dixon line.

Meanwhile Newton Baker had very few qualifications but was an Ohioan, i.e. was highly qualified, and absent FDR I think he has as good a chance in 1932 as anyone.

Baker also highlights the flaw with this whole FDR "edge-case" premise, which is that all things considered FDR in 1932 was pretty much the exact average of who you would have expected Democrats to nominate. Did most of his prominent opponents in the party criticize him for spending too much and doing too much as President? Sure. FDR criticized Hoover for spending too much and doing too much as President.

The idea that the one politician whose policies evolved towards a massive expansion of Presidential authority to save the economy / the country "happened" to be the sitting President while most prominent critics of his "happened" to vocally oppose executive power for reasons that were deeply philosophically rooted and unchangeable is just not credible.

FDR probably ended up on the very tail end in terms of success - I don't know how else you can describe getting elected twice as many times as George Washington - but I think most politicians in his position would have echoed his political journey and I think he's far closer to being the "average" political consequence of the Great Depression than he is to being an extreme outlier.