1912 the most consequential election in world history

[zorkpolitics]

In 1912 The Republicans failed to nominate Roosevelt and opened the path for Wilson when Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican coalition.

How would another Roosevelt term have changed history?

Internationally Roosevelt was the most respected world leader, already he had won a Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Russo-Japanese war in 1905.  If Roosevelt had been President in 1914 he would have almost surely of intervened at the start of WWI.  By force of will he would have brokered a compromise and prevented a war that neither England nor Germany wanted (remember the ruling families were cousins).
Without the Russian-German conflict in WWI, the Czars retain power and the Bolsheviks never come to power: no Lenin, no Stalin, no 30 million soviets killed from purges and famines. 
Without WWI, Europe continues their evolution towards parliamentary rule, 9 million are not killed in WWI.
Without Versailles, no rise of German Nationalism, no Hitler, no 6 million Jews killed.
No Hitler in power, no WWII in Europe, 50 million people are not killed.
The Japanese still wage war, there is still Pearl harbor, but the US and the British Empire defeat Japan sooner.
Atomic Bombs are not developed until the 1960's, none are used against Japan.
Israel does not become Zionist state, and the Middle East does not become the fulcrum of western-Islamist conflict.  Palestinian terrorism, Al Qaeda, and Islamist terrorism does not become a major problem, no 9/11.
Technology and cultural changes unfolds more slowly:  no cold war to push innovation, Jet travel is delayed for decades, we never go to the moon, the first person in space occurs in the 1980's not 1960's.  Without integration in the military during WWII, civil rights are delayed and much more limited.   GDP growth is half what it has been since WWII.
European colonialism lasts longer and the third world doe snot become a surrogate conflict between the Soviets and the West.
As the century ends personal computers are just beginning to appear, but there is no Internet, no green revolution, famines have killed millions in Africa, Asia and South America.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As much as I despise Wilson, having someone else in the White House would not have led to the prevention of World War I.  However, I doubt Teddy would have engaged in the sham neutrality that Wilson did.  That likely would have led to a shorter World War I, but there still would have been considerable horror on the battlefields of Europe.

The most immediate change outside the United States from having Roosevelt win in 1912 is that the United States would have backed Victoriano Huerta during the Mexican Revolution, or at least not opposed him which would have amounted to much the same thing.  (Huerta had taken power in Mexico during the final days of the lame duck Taft administration in part with the assistance of our ambassador there.  President Wilson repudiated Ambassador Wilson's actions when he took office.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Out damn reductionist!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Without the Russian-German conflict in WWI, the Czars retain power and the Bolsheviks never come to power: no Lenin, no Stalin, no 30 million soviets killed from purges and famines. 

I'm not convinced by your reasoning. I doubt Tsarist rule would last very long. Rather, you'd have a model of February Revolution succeeding, maybe later.

[zorkpolitics]

Without the Russian-German conflict in WWI, the Czars retain power and the Bolsheviks never come to power: no Lenin, no Stalin, no 30 million soviets killed from purges and famines. 

I'm not convinced by your reasoning. I doubt Tsarist rule would last very long. Rather, you'd have a model of February Revolution succeeding, maybe later.

Of course we'll never know, but the Tsarist rule was really pushed over the edge by the war, of course given the craziness of the royal family, they very well may not have lasted much longer.  But I don't see Lenin being inevitable...

[memphis]

I tend to dislike what-if scenarios but Teddy was itching to join WWI. The man loved a good fight. Joining WWI early would have meant many more American casualties.

[WillK]

... By force of will he would have brokered a compromise and prevented a war that neither England nor Germany wanted ...

This is where you lost me.  I just dont see that as possible or likely for Roosevelt. 

[Mechaman]

... By force of will he would have brokered a compromise and prevented a war that neither England nor Germany wanted ...

This is where you lost me.  I just dont see that as possible or likely for Roosevelt. 

Ditto.
His post 1912 statements on anti-war protestors seem to be pretty evident of his stance on the war.

[ag]

As of 1914 US is almost irrelevant for European politics. Force of will here isn't enough: you need actual force of muscle, and US didn't have much on the ground. The only thing US could have done (and, eventually, did) that would have consequences was joining the war on one side. Attempting to broker peace? A president of Brazil would have had the same chance of doing it.

I would agree w/ other posters here, though, that US may have joined the war in 1914 or 1915 had Roosevelt been president. That would have had serious consequences, of course. Though, what sort of consequences is harder to predict.

[Mechaman]

As of 1914 US is almost irrelevant for European politics. Force of will here isn't enough: you need actual force of muscle, and US didn't have much on the ground. The only thing US could have done (and, eventually, did) that would have consequences was joining the war on one side. Attempting to broker peace? A president of Brazil would have had the same chance of doing it.

I would agree w/ other posters here, though, that US may have joined the war in 1914 or 1915 had Roosevelt been president. That would have had serious consequences, of course. Though, what sort of consequences is harder to predict.

Very true.
Anyone who thinks that Roosevelt would've kept the US out of World War I obviously forget that Theodore Roosevelt was Theodore Roosevelt.  If Roosevelt did act like he did IRL in regards to being "100% American" it would be interesting to see Bizzarro 1920.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well one thing is almost certain.  Roosevelt would have lived longer.  His death in 1920 was in large part due to the malaria he contracted during the 1913–1914 South American Expedition.  He still might end up being assassinated or whatnot, but he wouldn't have died so soon because of poor health.

[Mikestone8]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that 1912 was the most consequential Democratic Convention in history?

Given the split in the Republican party, whomever the Democrats nominated was virtually certain to win. So the real alternative to Wilson was not Roosevelt but Champ Clark.

This could be interesting on a number of points. First off, Clark supported the limiting of Presidents to a single six-year term. An amendment to that effect poassed the Senate in Feb 1913, but never came to a vote in the House due to intervention by President-elect Wilson - despite its being part of the Democratic platform on which he had just been elected.

Obviously Clark will not do that, and as Speaker may well pilot it through the House, where passage is certain anyway, as is ratification. So he is President till March 1919. He can't be re-elected but as he dies in 1921 that doesn't matter too much.

On domestic policy, he is probably not much different from Wilson. Both were from the party's progressice wing. Abroad, he seems to have been distinctly isolationist, and determined to keep out of World War I. It's not absolutely certain that he could once unrestricted After him, the next elections are 1918, 1924, 1930, 1936 - - - Interesting to speculate on the winners

[nevadacrab]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the GOP was in the White House in 1929, would public anger be intense enough to win the presidency for the Dems in 1930? If not, would six more years of depression destablize the U.S.?

[Mikestone8]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the GOP was in the White House in 1929, would public anger be intense enough to win the presidency for the Dems in 1930? If not, would six more years of depression destablize the U.S.?

Possibly if it's Hoover, but if he has already been POTUS, perhaps elected in 1924, The Reps may choose a more liberal candidate.

However, iirc the economy looked up a bit toward 1936, so things may be looking more hopeful.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the GOP was in the White House in 1929, would public anger be intense enough to win the presidency for the Dems in 1930? If not, would six more years of depression destablize the U.S.?

Its important to remember that it wasn't 1930 when the public turned on the GOP over the Depression.  Losses occured, but nowhere on the scale that would occur in 32, 34, and 36. This is largely because, the issues that dominated in 1930 were the Tariff, and the first signs of public disatisfaction with prohibition. Thus its possible for the GOP to win the election in 1930 even if the they had been elected in 24 and were incumbents. Also, if they lost, the Democrats may have taken blame for the sharp downtown in 31 and 32 and thus lost in 36.