1940: Garner vs. Willkie

[President Johnson]

1940: President Roosevelt decides not to seek a third term. Meanwhile, his Vice President John Nance Garner, a Texas conservative, receives the Democratic nomination; narrowly defeating Henry Wallace at the DNC. He picks James Farley as his running mate. The Republicans nominate lawyer and businessman Wendell Willkie for president and Oregon Senator Charles McNary for vice president.
(I know, as the sitting president, FDR would likely have blocked Garner's nomination, but in this scenario Garner receives it anyway).

Garner runs on a moderate to conservative platform. Willkie states that he wants to keep most New Deal programs while making them more efficient. President Roosevelt does not officialy endorse his Vice President, who was opoosed to most New Deal programs. Actually, FDRs positions in domestic and foreign policies are more close to the liberal Republican Willkie.

So what's going to happen in November? Is the charismatic Willkie beating Garner, who has not earned the popular FDR's support?

[RogueBeaver]

No idea. Ideological crossover on both sides looks easy, and Willkie is a political noob. My guess is the Dems can win by demonizing the Pubs on economic issues among jittery Northerners. Willkie had no idea what he was doing and had hardly any professionals on his team. So I'd say a Garner victory, but a Pub House since LBJ won't be at the DCCC in this scenario.

[Mechaman]

No idea. Ideological crossover on both sides looks easy, and Willkie is a political noob. My guess is the Dems can win by demonizing the Pubs on economic issues among jittery Northerners. Willkie had no idea what he was doing and had hardly any professionals on his team. So I'd say a Garner victory, but a Pub House since LBJ won't be at the DCCC in this scenario.

Yeah, this pretty much.

Garner being the nominee is not going to end the New Deal coalition over night.  If anything I imagine the Democratic strategists, even many of the liberal ones, will simply pull out the Me-Too! Card on Willkie and imply that while Garner might be "conservative" he is still not a Republican.

\peoplewerehacks

[President Johnson]

In my opinion, Willkie would have three advantages in this election: First; Garner is, if at all, lukewarm endorsed by FDR. Garner broke with his boss in 1937. He was never, like FDR's other vice presidents Henry Wallace and Harry S. Truman, a staunch supporter of the New Deal. The only reason he was elected, was the ticket balance for 1932 and 1936. Second; As a liberal Republican ans former Democrat, Willkie would appear more to progressives, farmers and african-americans and third; like FDR he was a charismatic figure. I'm sure a lot of former FDR voters would switch to Willkie in this scenario (as a Democrat, I would also have voted for Willkie in such an election; in real life I would have voted against him only because of FDR).

Willkie's biggest problem: Distance himself from the "Hoover-Republicans" and big business which represented the depression back in those days. Meanwhile he has to appease the conservtives sourrounding Robert Taft.

[RogueBeaver]

Is that a disadvantage, considering the rightward shift since 1937? Willkie was charismatic on paper but his speechifying was bad. Dems had a great time mocking his Elwood speech. I don't see how a GOP without any national organization to speak of, running an astroturfed stuffed shirt noob, wins. Finally Willkie was incapable of ideological balance, since he was entirely with the Pub left and couldn't hide it.

[Sir Mohamed]

Difficult the answer, but given the facts that Garner disliked the New Deal while Willkie supported most programs, I give the victory in this scenario to Willkie, who was, as President Johnson pointed out, a very charismatic figure. He had a lot more in common with Roosevelt than Garner.

Garner only performs well in the South in my scenario while Willkie wins with coalition of liberals, farmers and other New Deal supporters.

Wendell Willkie/Charles McNary: 338 EV. (51.5%)
John Nance Garner/James Farley: 193 EV. (47.8%)

I like this scenario. If Willkie had served out his term, he would have been reelected in 1944 in a landslide after guided the United States successfully throughout World War 2.

[RogueBeaver]

Willkie and McNary died in 1944, and given presidential stress they'd almost certainly die earlier. So their SOS becomes POTUS and a ginormous clusterfyck for both parties without obvious frontrunners.

[Sir Mohamed]

Willkie and McNary died in 1944, and given presidential stress they'd almost certainly die earlier. So their SOS becomes POTUS and a ginormous clusterfyck for both parties without obvious frontrunners.

That's correct. Therefore I wrote "If Willkie had served out...". But maybe he would have been more careful about his health. Willkie was a few years younger than FDR as far as I know.

[RogueBeaver]

The potential for Willkie FP disasters is also quite high. He knows nothing about foreign policy and by the end of his life believed in World Federalist insanity. Lend-Lease could be gone. Conservative coalition will make him a domestic figurehead.

[Sir Mohamed]

I read his book One World; so I wouldn't say he didn't know very much about foreign policy. I am convinced that he would have been a good president. Not as good as FDR, but certainly not poor.
Dewey was fore sure not more experienced on foreign policy as a state governor and a man who was ten years younger than Willkie. Just imagine a 42-year old man with almost no experience in foreign affairs would have represented America in Yalta and Potsdam (in the case of a 1944 victory) against Stalin, who had a great appetite to subjugate a substanical part of Europe.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This would have been close.  Both candidates are promising to reform the New Deal while keeping popular programs like Social Security.  A Southern Democrat/Irish Catholic helps the Republicans in much of the North. WI and MN are narrowly retained by Garner thanks to his less interventionist foreign policy. Norman Thomas has a decent third party showing.

Garner/Farley        49.5%   284
Willkie/McNary      48.9%    247
Thomas/Kreuger     1.1%

[Mechaman]

This would have been close.  Both candidates are promising to reform the New Deal while keeping popular programs like Social Security.  A Southern Democrat/Irish Catholic helps the Republicans in much of the North. WI and MN are narrowly retained by Garner thanks to his less interventionist foreign policy. Norman Thomas has a decent third party showing.

Garner/Farley        49.5%   284
Willkie/McNary      48.9%    247
Thomas/Kreuger     1.1%

How the shell does Farley being Irish Catholic damage the party in the North?  Have you forgotten that much of the support the New Deal got was from urban Irish Catholic bosses who capitalized on support for the New Deal to build up the future Democratic bases in those states (contrary to popular myth, by the 1930s FDR was not anti-machine, especially in regard to Chicago)?  If anything Farley helps the Democrats maintain many of their new voters from the 1930s due to his reputation as one of the masterminds of the Coalition.

He wasn't exactly in sympatico with Garner.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This would have been close.  Both candidates are promising to reform the New Deal while keeping popular programs like Social Security.  A Southern Democrat/Irish Catholic helps the Republicans in much of the North. WI and MN are narrowly retained by Garner thanks to his less interventionist foreign policy. Norman Thomas has a decent third party showing.

Garner/Farley        49.5%   284
Willkie/McNary      48.9%    247
Thomas/Kreuger     1.1%

How the shell does Farley being Irish Catholic damage the party in the North?  Have you forgotten that much of the support the New Deal got was from urban Irish Catholic bosses who capitalized on support for the New Deal to build up the future Democratic bases in those states (contrary to popular myth, by the 1930s FDR was not anti-machine, especially in regard to Chicago)?  If anything Farley helps the Democrats maintain many of their new voters from the 1930s due to his reputation as one of the masterminds of the Coalition.

He wasn't exactly in sympatico with Garner.

FDR was not anti-machine but his appeal went far beyond the demographics that the urban machine could appeal to.  Urban bosses enabled statewide success only where they could combine their base with support outside urban areas. The North was much more rural then - would having someone like Farley on the ticket help in these areas?  Even if Farley himself would be an advantage, it would be due to his skill and his ethnic identity would be something to overcome.