1940: Garner/Ickes (D) vs. Ford/Lindburgh (R)

[Scam of God]

Franklin Roosevelt, following the tradition established by George Washington, steps down after his second term, but not before delivering a speech warning the nation of the perils of international fascism. After ascertaining that Garner will support his New Deal economic policies, he delivers the nomination to the Texan, but forces him to accept his go-to man on the ticket. Roosevelt will be campaigning heavily for the Democratic ticket.

On the Republican side, famed industrialist Henry Ford enters and easily wins the Republican nomination contest, and selects aviator Charles Lindburgh as his running mate. The pair are backed by radio demagogue Charles Coughlin, whom Ford briefly considered for running mate. They run on an isolationist, staunchly conservative platform.

Discuss with maps.

[PBrunsel]

This is an interesting scenario. The questions comes down to whether or not American's want another European war. I see the answer to this as, "No." By 1940 the United States was in a recession (coming off of the heels of a depression) and the last thing anyone wanted was an overseas war to cause them further sacrafice and higher taxes. In RL, FDR was able to win reelection through the power of incumbency in a crisis and a joke Republican opponent named Wendell Wilkie (a man of great honor and compassion, but not presidential timber). If you subtract these two issues, 1940 would be a Republican election due to new economic problems and an isolationist nation turning to Ford and Lindbergh. Of course, the Ford slogan would be "Vote for Ford, or Vote for War."

Henry Ford/Charles Lindbergh (R): 346 EV; 53.5% of the PV
John N. Garner/Harold Ickes (D): 185 EV; 46.0% of the PV
Others (Socialist, Worker's, etc.): 0 EV; 0.5% of the PV

[Governor PiT]

Wow, that is one of the best hypothetical (R) tickets ever.

[Landslide Lyndon]

This is an interesting scenario. The questions comes down to whether or not American's want another European war. I see the answer to this as, "No." By 1940 the United States was in a recession (coming off of the heels of a depression) and the last thing anyone wanted was an overseas war to cause them further sacrafice and higher taxes. In RL, FDR was able to win reelection through the power of incumbency in a crisis and a joke Republican opponent named Wendell Wilkie (a man of great honor and compassion, but not presidential timber). If you subtract these two issues, 1940 would be a Republican election due to new economic problems and an isolationist nation turning to Ford and Lindbergh. Of course, the Ford slogan would be "Vote for Ford, or Vote for War."

Henry Ford/Charles Lindbergh (R): 346 EV; 53.5% of the PV
John N. Garner/Harold Ickes (D): 185 EV; 46.0% of the PV
Others (Socialist, Worker's, etc.): 0 EV; 0.5% of the PV

Why would the the Conservative ticket win liberal states while lossing conservative states? Was the South very pro-War?

Have you heard of the Solid South, Yellow Dog Democrats, Reconstruction?
You know, stuff like that.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The stupid, blind isolationists win, 278-253:

[Scam of God]

Ba-dump.

[rebeltarian]

Riding on the wave of Roosevelt, Garner/Ickes would have been a solid ticket that could hold the new deal coalition together, but Ford/Lindburgh is an isolationist Republican dream ticket.

Ford 286 ev, 51% pv
Garner 245 ev, 48% pv