Herbert Hoover vs. Franklin Roosevelt, 1936
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 07:59:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  Herbert Hoover vs. Franklin Roosevelt, 1936
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Herbert Hoover vs. Franklin Roosevelt, 1936  (Read 4866 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 16, 2005, 08:18:08 PM »

Let's say Hoover declines to run for president in 1928. The Great Depression gets blamed on some other Republican who wins that year.

In 1936, Hoover would probably be one of the best candidates the Republians could run, right? Who wins? Map?
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2005, 11:03:19 PM »

Hoover may very well have been one of the best candidates the Republicans could field in 1936, achieving success as Secretary of Commerce under Harding and Coolidge, as a mining engineer, as a humanitarian, and as an administrator heading relief efforts to war torn Europe after World War I. 

In 1932, Hoover carried Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Delaware, against the charismatic, popular, Democrat, Governor Franklin Roosevelt of New York.  Hoover carried these states under the most difficult circumstances imaginable for a Republican candidate in 1932, being blamed for the depression.  In 1936, therefore, he may have been able to carry these states.  I have added on to the Hoover column, his home state of Iowa, Kansas, and Massachusetts, all states that were "fairly close" in the actual 1936 election between Roosevelt and Landon.  Hoover may have been able to swing these states over to the Republican side.  The result, still a landslide win for Roosevelt, but a somewhat better showing for the Republicans with Hoover than with Landon.

Roosevelt          443 (Actual 1936 523 Roosevelt/Landon)
Hoover                88 (Actual 1936      8 Roosevelt/Landon)   

Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,419
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2005, 12:23:19 AM »

he'll do better than Landon, but still lose in a landslide, i'd have to think.
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2005, 03:38:13 PM »

Hoover would no longer be as popular as he was in 1920 or 1928, but he'd do considerably well for running against a strong incumbent like Roosevelt.



Franklin Roosevelt/John Gardner: 376

Herbert Hoover/Charles Lindbergh: 155
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2005, 04:39:34 PM »

Hoover would no longer be as popular as he was in 1920 or 1928...

Why not?
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2005, 06:21:03 PM »


He would be tied to the Republican Administrations of Coolidge and Harding and whoever the GOP President was in 1928 (probably Charles Curtis).
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2005, 02:23:20 PM »

Now a Charles Curtis v. Al Smith race would have been quite interesting...(from a mudslinging perspective)

The Injun v. The Papist
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2005, 04:00:43 PM »

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 11 queries.