FDR vs. Robert Taft 1940 with no WWII

[Senator Ben]

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.

[True Federalist]

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.

[Bo]

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.

[True Federalist]

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.

[Sewer]

LaGuardia was Mayor

LaGuardia was not the same kind of Republican as Taft.

[Bo]

LaGuardia was Mayor

LaGuardia was not the same kind of Republican as Taft.

Agreed.

[James L. Buckley]

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.

[Bo]

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.