1932: John Nance Garner vs Herbert Hoover

[Workers' Friend]

FDR doesn't run, and Garner wins the nomination.

Democrat: Speaker of House John Nance Garner/FDR
Republican: Hebert Hoover/Charles Curtis

Can Garner win by promising the things FDR did? Or are people too paranoid to picka Southerner, despite Hoover's awful Depression?

[Lief]

Pretty sure any Democrat would have beaten Hoover. And it's not like FDR ran on some radical leftist platform anyway; his only campaign promise was balancing the budget.

[Workers' Friend]

I see, so if Garner promised the same thing, he'd kick Hoover in the pansers? (using Old Timey term there)

[Robespierre's Jaw]

There's no doubt that Garner would defeat President Hoover in 1932, had he indeed been the Democratic nominee instead of Governor Roosevelt. However, President Hoover probably would have performed much better in the North thus narrowing the margin of Garner's victory.

[Workers' Friend]

There's no doubt that Garner would defeat President Hoover in 1932, had he indeed been the Democratic nominee instead of Governor Roosevelt. However, President Hoover probably would have performed much better in the North thus narrowing the margin of Garner's victory.

Yeah, would Garner do better in reelection, if things went like under our FDR?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

By 1936 the US was still Deep in the Depression granted it had improved slightly(Unemployment going from 25% to 15 or 16%) but it was still a Depression and without the Charismatic FDR it is possible that Landon or maybe someone else could have beaten Garner in 1936. It is also possible that Garner could have lost the nomination to someone on the left.
The Depression was a monster and it could have eaten any politican for Breakfast and spit them out for lunch. Indeed that almost happened to FDR in 1940. Had that election been about the economy then Wilkie would have won. The economic gains that FDR had achieved were lost in 1937-38, Plus Roosevelts attempt to pack the Court, and breaking the three term precendent together would have been enough to send him packing. With the growing threat of Hitler and the Japanese Americans though it seemed best to stick with a strong leader then to choose an unknown in uncertain times.

[Workers' Friend]

By 1936 the US was still Deep in the Depression granted it had improved slightly(Unemployment going from 25% to 15 or 16%) but it was still a Depression and without the Charismatic FDR it is possible that Landon or maybe someone else could have beaten Garner in 1936. It is also possible that Garner could have lost the nomination to someone on the left.
The Depression was a monster and it could have eaten any politican for Breakfast and spit them out for lunch. Indeed that almost happened to FDR in 1940. Had that election been about the economy then Wilkie would have won. The economic gains that FDR had achieved were lost in 1937-38, Plus Roosevelts attempt to pack the Court, and breaking the three term precendent together would have been enough to send him packing. With the growing threat of Hitler and the Japanese Americans though it seemed best to stick with a strong leader then to choose an unknown in uncertain times.

Hm... I see

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Instead of Roosevelt 472 Hoover 59

Garner                 430
Hoover                 101



Because of the enormity of the economic crisis, with the nation thrown into a depression while Hoover was President, any credible Democrat, such as Garner, wins in a landslide, in this case, only somewhat smaller than the FDR landslide.

[Senator Ben]

Garner, 276-255:

[Bo]

Garner wins.