TR vs. Wilson Rematch, 1920

[Jerseyrules]

Let's say Wilson doesn't suffer his stroke while campaigning for the League.  Meanwhile Teddy doesn't suffer from his otl health issues.

Wilson is able to twist the arms of delegates and use his position as incumbent President to control the convention, narrowly securing renomination to a third term on the first ballot.

Meanwhile, TR is able to use his popularity to gain the Republican nomination after riding a wave of victories in the primaries and reaching out to party regulars to finally heal the wounds from his "betrayal" in 1912 (as much as possible at least).

Discuss + maps would be appreciated

[Mr. Smith]

Something like

this

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

At the Democratic convention, Thomas Marshall declines renomination for VP, and Gov. Cox of Ohio is selected in his place.  Wilson campaigns on joining the League and rebuilding after the war. Wilson's approvals are low, with a sour economy and a nation wanting to turn towards home. Roosevelt remains popular, and the conservatives in his party are generally willing to back him once he presents Harding as his preferred choice for running mate. Some see both major party candidates as too interested in foreign adventure, which helps the minor third party candidates (esp. Christensen) - but not enough and not where Wilson would need it to win any states outside the South, and the result is a 2:1 ratio in the popular vote in favor of TR.

Theodore Roosevelt (R-NY)/ Warren Harding (R-OH)  60.8% 417
Woodrow Wilson (D-NJ)/ James Cox (D-OH)              31.1% 114
Eugene Debs (S-IN)/ Seymour Stedman (S-IL)           3.4%
Parley Christensen (FL-IL)/ Max Hayes (FL-OH)           2.5%     
others                                                                      2.2%

[TNF]

A dead raccoon would beat Wilson in 1920

[Jerseyrules]

A dead raccoon would beat Wilson in 1920

Pretty much, although the lack of whisper campaigns about his wife running the show post-stroke (stroke being butterflied) might allow him to at least maintain a core of supporters within his own party.

What would be TR's position on the League of Nations?

[heatmaster]

My guess is that T.R. was from the interventionist side of American politics...you "carry a big stick" approach to diplomacy,  didn't he bring an end to the Russo-Japanese war with the Portsmouth conference of 1905? Also he was a strong advocate of U.S. involvement in the First world war - after the Lusitania; so I hardly think that T.R. was an isolationist by any stretch. I do believe he would have supported the League of Nations,  but only on a qualified basis.

[heatmaster]

I believe Warren Harding would have still died in this ATL; T.R. would have run in 1924 and he would have chosen Charles Dawes as occurred in RL. There would have been no LaFollette running that year and T.R. would have done better than Coolidge would have, holding Oklahoma and Tennessee as well as Wisconsin and picking up Virginia and North Carolina.

[MATTROSE94]

At the Democratic convention, Thomas Marshall declines renomination for VP, and Gov. Cox of Ohio is selected in his place.  Wilson campaigns on joining the League and rebuilding after the war. Wilson's approvals are low, with a sour economy and a nation wanting to turn towards home. Roosevelt remains popular, and the conservatives in his party are generally willing to back him once he presents Harding as his preferred choice for running mate. Some see both major party candidates as too interested in foreign adventure, which helps the minor third party candidates (esp. Christensen) - but not enough and not where Wilson would need it to win any states outside the South, and the result is a 2:1 ratio in the popular vote in favor of TR.

Theodore Roosevelt (R-NY)/ Warren Harding (R-OH)  60.8% 417
Woodrow Wilson (D-NJ)/ James Cox (D-OH)              31.1% 114
Eugene Debs (S-IN)/ Seymour Stedman (S-IL)           3.4%
Parley Christensen (FL-IL)/ Max Hayes (FL-OH)           2.5%     
others                                                                      2.2%

Pretty much this^ There was really no way that Woodrow Wilson would have won if he ran in 1920.

[President Johnson]

Pretty much like the scenario above. Wilson would probably have been unable to campaign after he suffered a massive stroke in 1919.

Btw; TR would have won in 1912 as the GOP nominee, while Taft had lost.

Here's my 1920 estimate:

Former President Theodore Roosevelt/Senator Warren G. Harding: 393 EV. - 59.01%
President Woodrow Wilson/Governor James M. Cox: 138 EV. - 39.78%

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A dead raccoon would beat Wilson in 1920

Pretty much, although the lack of whisper campaigns about his wife running the show post-stroke (stroke being butterflied) might allow him to at least maintain a core of supporters within his own party.

What would be TR's position on the League of Nations?

TR lived long enough that he had a position on the League as the proposals were taking shape. He had proposed an international peacemaking league several years earlier, so he was a fan of it in the abstract, but he was an ardent opponent of what he was seeing.  The League united both hawks and doves in the Republican party in opposition: hawks because it might restrict America from acting in what it saw as it's national interest and imperil the Monroe Doctrine, and doves because it could force America to fight an unwanted war if the League called for it. Also it didn't hurt that it was being supported by a Democratic President and opposing it happened to be a political winner.

It's funny how people tend to look back at who opposed the League and automatically assume they must have been "isolationists" (ex. Henry Cabot Lodge, who was one of the greatest proponents of imperialism the Senate has ever seen).

[Mechaman]

A dead raccoon rapist would beat any Democrat in 1920

Fixed.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

What's interesting about 1920 is that the Democrats basically got their BEST candidate and still went down in flames. Of course, back then, in the absence of television and/or debates, the qualities of the individual candidates probably didn't count for much.

[President Johnson]

What's interesting about 1920 is that the Democrats basically got their BEST candidate and still went down in flames. Of course, back then, in the absence of television and/or debates, the qualities of the individual candidates probably didn't count for much.

Sometimes the basic circumstances decide an election; the candidate only matters how big you're winning or losing. For example in 1964; no Republican would have won against LBJ, or no Democrat would have won against Nixon in 1972. Wendell Willkie was also a great candidate (as a devoted Democrat I would have voted for him unless FDR is the Democratic nominee), but also lost by a wide margin.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

What's interesting about 1920 is that the Democrats basically got their BEST candidate and still went down in flames. Of course, back then, in the absence of television and/or debates, the qualities of the individual candidates probably didn't count for much.

Sometimes the basic circumstances decide an election; the candidate only matters how big you're winning or losing. For example in 1964; no Republican would have won against LBJ, or no Democrat would have won against Nixon in 1972. Wendell Willkie was also a great candidate (as a devoted Democrat I would have voted for him unless FDR is the Democratic nominee), but also lost by a wide margin.

I realize that, but what I'm saying is that Cox was probably their best candidate yet still lost by a '64/'72-style landslide (well in the popular vote...maybe not electoral vote). It's hard to imagine another Democrat doing any worse (Kentucky was the only close Cox state), but I can't think of who would've done better either.