Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 21, 2014, 03:13:13 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Bacon King, Dallasfan65)
| | | |-+  FDR vs. Robert Taft 1940 with no WWII
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: FDR vs. Robert Taft 1940 with no WWII  (Read 1794 times)
Warner for President '16
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30698
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2010, 12:50:16 pm »
Ignore

People are selling Taft too high.  He had no charisma, and had no national profile at the time; he'd barely do better than Wilkie.
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29043
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2010, 01:03:11 pm »
Ignore

I think NY would belong in the toss-up column at best if there is a 3% swing to the Republicans from RL, since FDR won New York by 3.6% in 1940 and 3.6-3=0.6%. So it is still possible FDR would have won New York even if the GOP wouldhave won 48% of the popular vote.

You're counting swing two different ways.  If you're going to count the GOP national swing as 3.2% if they improve from 44.8% to 48.0% nationally then they only need a 1.8% swing to reach a tossup in New York using the same method.  If there was a uniform swing of 3.2% then the GOP would win New York 51.2% to 48.4%.

Note, I don't use uniform swing, but a somewhat different method of figuring out swings for these hypotheticals that assumes that States with large margins are less affected by swing than close States, so for example, I figured that NY swung by 3.6% for my prediction while in Virginia the swing was only 2.4% and in South Carolina it was only 0.3% bringing the GOP from 4.4% in the Iodine State to 4.7% for 1940.

People are selling Taft too high.  He had no charisma, and had no national profile at the time; he'd barely do better than Wilkie.

It's not the change in candidate, but the lack of a war that mainly affects the outcome.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2010, 01:47:09 pm »
Ignore

I think NY would belong in the toss-up column at best if there is a 3% swing to the Republicans from RL, since FDR won New York by 3.6% in 1940 and 3.6-3=0.6%. So it is still possible FDR would have won New York even if the GOP wouldhave won 48% of the popular vote.

You're counting swing two different ways.  If you're going to count the GOP national swing as 3.2% if they improve from 44.8% to 48.0% nationally then they only need a 1.8% swing to reach a tossup in New York using the same method.  If there was a uniform swing of 3.2% then the GOP would win New York 51.2% to 48.4%.

Note, I don't use uniform swing, but a somewhat different method of figuring out swings for these hypotheticals that assumes that States with large margins are less affected by swing than close States, so for example, I figured that NY swung by 3.6% for my prediction while in Virginia the swing was only 2.4% and in South Carolina it was only 0.3% bringing the GOP from 4.4% in the Iodine State to 4.7% for 1940.

People are selling Taft too high.  He had no charisma, and had no national profile at the time; he'd barely do better than Wilkie.

It's not the change in candidate, but the lack of a war that mainly affects the outcome.

Sorry about miscalculating the swing. You're right. However, I still wouldn't guarantee a Taft victory in NY. Finally, even if there would have been no WWII, I think it would have been easy for FDR to tie Taft to Hoover, and considering unemployment was still very high in 1940, it might have very well worked.
Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29043
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2010, 05:35:07 pm »
Ignore

I think it would have been easy for FDR to tie Taft to Hoover, and considering unemployment was still very high in 1940, it might have very well worked.

Quite the reverse. if the recession of 1937-8 extends into 1940 because of no war, it will hurt the Democrats, and not just because of voters deciding to give the Republicans a second chance.  FDR could also bleed votes to the minor parties of the left as well.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
Sewer
SpaceCommunistMutant
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7527
View Profile
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2010, 05:41:20 pm »
Ignore

LaGuardia was Mayor

LaGuardia was not the same kind of Republican as Taft.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: February 14, 2010, 06:30:21 pm »
Ignore

LaGuardia was Mayor

LaGuardia was not the same kind of Republican as Taft.

Agreed.
Logged

James L. Buckley
Rookie
*
Posts: 28


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 14, 2010, 09:57:56 pm »
Ignore

Robert Taft would probably narrowly win, but frankly, I could see a narrow victory for either side. If there is no World War II, then there is no Extra War Manufacturing going on, and the economy will take a turn for the worse, and that little recession from 1937-1938, extends into the 40's, which hurts Roosevelt. Plus, with no war and a worse economy, FDR will have a hard time explaining why he is running for a Third Term, and he'll face widespread opposition even from his Democratic Party.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: February 14, 2010, 10:11:38 pm »
Ignore

Robert Taft would probably narrowly win, but frankly, I could see a narrow victory for either side. If there is no World War II, then there is no Extra War Manufacturing going on, and the economy will take a turn for the worse, and that little recession from 1937-1938, extends into the 40's, which hurts Roosevelt. Plus, with no war and a worse economy, FDR will have a hard time explaining why he is running for a Third Term, and he'll face widespread opposition even from his Democratic Party.

I think that FDR could have pushed through some govt. spending on infastructure and industry (after the Recession of 1937-1938) if there would have been no WWII. I think that most Democrats and some Northeastern Republicans would have supported that kind of govt. spending. That would have probably allowed the economy to recover as in RL and for FDR to narrowly win a third term.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines