1920: Wilson Vs. Harding

[TaylorFillmore]

Woodrow Wilson does not suffer his stroke and is convinced through his beliefs that he must bring the United States into the League of Nations. Does he manage do win the nomination or do Democrats believe that anyone is better than him.

[Jerseyrules]

Even without the stigma surrounding his stroke (which although there were murmurs it didn't really contribute much to his downfall), Wilson was incredibly unpopular by 1920.  Additionally, Harding essentially grounded his campaign on opposition to Wilson and a return to pre-war Isolationism.  And what better way to do that than by running against the man himself?  I think that Wilson might have been able to get enough support for a third term if he campaigned aggressively among the party bosses; IIRC even while incapacitated by his stroke he secured around 70 votes on the first ballot.  But there's probably no way he gets the nomination if he doesn't secure it on the first ballot.  And when it comes time for the general, he and congressional Democrats probably suffer a shellacking worse than OTL.  Even among members of his own party, by 1920 his support had likely dwindled to lower than Bush's support among Republicans in otl 2008.  But a Wilson victory in 1920 would be the upset of the century

[TaylorFillmore]

Sounds about right. Agreed that Wilson's only chance of the nomination would be to storm through on the 1st ballot. If there was any chance of deadlock the party bosses would not put up too much of a fight for Wilson. I don't think Cox was there strongest candidate , I guess it was similar to 1928 when Smith was nominee, they knew they were going to lose so why not give it to a second tier candidate.

[JRH1234]

Even without the stigma surrounding his stroke (which although there were murmurs it didn't really contribute much to his downfall), Wilson was incredibly unpopular by 1920.  Additionally, Harding essentially grounded his campaign on opposition to Wilson and a return to pre-war Isolationism.  And what better way to do that than by running against the man himself?  I think that Wilson might have been able to get enough support for a third term if he campaigned aggressively among the party bosses; IIRC even while incapacitated by his stroke he secured around 70 votes on the first ballot.  But there's probably no way he gets the nomination if he doesn't secure it on the first ballot.  And when it comes time for the general, he and congressional Democrats probably suffer a shellacking worse than OTL.  Even among members of his own party, by 1920 his support had likely dwindled to lower than Bush's support among Republicans in otl 2008.  But a Wilson victory in 1920 would be the upset of the century

You have a point, but my understanding is that Wilson's stroke impaired his judgment considerably, which led to him being so bull-headed on the League of Nations.  Most of the League's opponents were not against membership per se, they were against the provision that would have required the U.S. to intervene in a foreign war if the League determined one of the nations was a clear aggressor.  It was Wilson who insisted that the League be voted down if the Republicans insisted on leaving out that provision.  Absent his stroke, he might have been more level headed and agreed to a compromise.

On the other hand, the Sedition Act of 1918, which led to Eugene Debs's imprisonment, was not popular with a large segment of the population.  And while I've read a few sources arguing that his racial views were more nuanced than we've been led to believe (he did not actually praise the movie "Birth of a Nation"), his views on the issue were still not so popular in the North.  But absent Wilson's stroke, the Democrats probably fair much better in 1920, although they still lose.

[President Johnson]

Harding still wins, but not as big as in real life. However, Wilson is handily defeated:

Senator Warren G. Harding/Governor Calvin Coolidge - 345 EV. 54.3%
President Woodrow Wilson/Governor James M. Cox - 186 EV. 43.5%

[TaylorFillmore]

Sounds about right, Wilson as somebody else mentioned would have pulled the upset of the century had he won.

[MIKESOWELL]

Wilson wins nomination & Harding wins general election by 55-45 nationwide

      I think Wilson would do far worse in the popular vote than this.

[Jerseyrules]

Harding still wins, but not as big as in real life. However, Wilson is handily defeated:

Senator Warren G. Harding/Governor Calvin Coolidge - 345 EV. 54.3%
President Woodrow Wilson/Governor James M. Cox - 186 EV. 43.5%

Interesting map; assuming your scenario, it sounds about right.  But why the anomaly in Washington state?

[President Johnson]

Harding still wins, but not as big as in real life. However, Wilson is handily defeated:

Senator Warren G. Harding/Governor Calvin Coolidge - 345 EV. 54.3%
President Woodrow Wilson/Governor James M. Cox - 186 EV. 43.5%

Interesting map; assuming your scenario, it sounds about right.  But why the anomaly in Washington state?

I gave this state to Wilson because Harding carried it by a relatively close margin in real life. However, might be that he would have beaten Wilson in that state. The margin of victory is, however, still comfortable for the republican ticket.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Harding still wins, but not as big as in real life. However, Wilson is handily defeated:

Senator Warren G. Harding/Governor Calvin Coolidge - 345 EV. 54.3%
President Woodrow Wilson/Governor James M. Cox - 186 EV. 43.5%

Interesting map; assuming your scenario, it sounds about right.  But why the anomaly in Washington state?

I gave this state to Wilson because Harding carried it by a relatively close margin in real life. However, might be that he would have beaten Wilson in that state. The margin of victory is, however, still comfortable for the republican ticket.

Harding while only getting 56% of the vote carried Washington by a huge margin, due to the fact that the other candidates (Wilson and Christiansen) split the vote nearly evenly in the state (with a little left over for Debs). Wilson didn't even get a quarter of the vote.

I suspect that Wilson would do even worse than Cox.  Cox at least had the record as a successful governor, while Wilson's presidency was not seen as successful at this point.

I think the map looks more like this:

[Jerseyrules]

Harding still wins, but not as big as in real life. However, Wilson is handily defeated:

Senator Warren G. Harding/Governor Calvin Coolidge - 345 EV. 54.3%
President Woodrow Wilson/Governor James M. Cox - 186 EV. 43.5%

Interesting map; assuming your scenario, it sounds about right.  But why the anomaly in Washington state?

I gave this state to Wilson because Harding carried it by a relatively close margin in real life. However, might be that he would have beaten Wilson in that state. The margin of victory is, however, still comfortable for the republican ticket.

Harding while only getting 56% of the vote carried Washington by a huge margin, due to the fact that the other candidates (Wilson and Christiansen) split the vote nearly evenly in the state (with a little left over for Debs). Wilson didn't even get a quarter of the vote.

I suspect that Wilson would do even worse than Cox.  Cox at least had the record as a successful governor, while Wilson's presidency was not seen as successful at this point.

I think the map looks more like this:

I can see this easily also - the situation in 1920 was untenable.  You have anarchist attacks on Wall Street, the failure of the League (which could be butterflied by Wilson's stroke), and Harding essentially ignored Cox, running his campaign in opposition to Wilson.  If he were to actually face Wilson in the general election, I suspect that he'd be able to hit this message home even harder.  Not to mention the whole third term taboo