1944: Roosevelt decides not to run?

[LBJ Revivalist]

Anyone want to draw up an alternate timeline wherein FDR, weary of the weight of running the country, with numerous illnesses weakening him greatly, decides not to run for re-election in 1944.

For one
-Who would the Democratic Party likely have nominated?
-Would the GOP still have nominated Dewey?
-How would the national election have gone?
-The end of the war?
-And finally, would FDR's reputation be any different had he not run in '44? No Yalta, for one.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1. That one is difficult, giving the fact FDR never had a clear heir. However, I'd say whoever is his personal favorite, including some longshots, like Claude Pepper.
2. Probably. Dewey was already their strongest possible candidate in 1944, and without FDR in face, why wouldn't they nominate him?
3. Democratic victory, with popular wartime President throwing his support behind a nominee. Less solid than FDR's.
4. Same as RL.

[Mechaman]

1. That's one is difficult, giving the fact FDR never had a clear heir. However, I'd say whoever is his personal favorite, including some longshots, like Claude Pepper.
2. Probably. Dewey was already their strongest possible candidate in 1944, and without FDR in face, why wouldn't they nominate him?
3. Democratic victory, with popular wartime President throwing his support behind a nominee. Less solid than FDR's.
4. Same as RL.

This.

FDR refused to run as president in 1940 if Wallace wasn't on the ticket, so it wouldn't surprise me if he would be a stubborn mule and refuse to campaign without Wallace running for president.  Either way that would greatly benefit Republicans.
Thomas Dewey, whatever you may say about him, wasn't just another boring "me-too" Republican like Landan and Willkie, the guy could actually campaign.  He ran in the 1940 National Convention IN HIS LATE THIRTIES, any man who is making a serious attempt at being a party nominee in his late thirties isn't some boring rug, he's pretty serious business.  Of course the Republicans will probably still nominate him.
Yeah, it would pretty much be similar to 1988 when Reagan campaigned for Bush, except it would be FDR campaigning for (most likely) Wallace or (if the two made up) even James Farley.  It doesn't matter if the nominee is a left wing moonbat or a party machine Irish Catholic guy if he is a Democrat and FDR is campaigning for him in the middle of World War II he will probably win it even against Republican Sexgod.
I really don't see the War in Europe being that much different.  The Soviets would still beat us to Berlin, V-day, blah blah blah.  Japan would be interesting and I wonder if a Wallace Administration would pursue negotiations more with the Japanese government and if we wouldn't misinterpret the Japanese intention that ultimately lead to Hiroshima.  If he is successful could that have possibly lead to a world where there are no stockpiles of nuclear weapons if Wallace and his government saw the destructive possibilities of the weapon and ordered it's destruction?  Would Wallace's good nature towards Russia bring about an earlier instigation of McCarthy like witch hunts against suspected "commies" in the US government and in Hollywood?  So many different ways this could go.
As for FDR's legacy?  Pretty much the same in real life if he dies around the same time he did in real life.  His death, so soon after leaving office, would probably generate a very similar reaction as it did IRL.  Irregardless of who succeeds him FDR had a place in history as one of the most popular presidents in history.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

1. That's one is difficult, giving the fact FDR never had a clear heir. However, I'd say whoever is his personal favorite, including some longshots, like Claude Pepper.
2. Probably. Dewey was already their strongest possible candidate in 1944, and without FDR in face, why wouldn't they nominate him?
3. Democratic victory, with popular wartime President throwing his support behind a nominee. Less solid than FDR's.
4. Same as RL.

This.

FDR refused to run as president in 1940 if Wallace wasn't on the ticket, so it wouldn't surprise me if he would be a stubborn mule and refuse to campaign without Wallace running for president.  Either way that would greatly benefit Republicans.
Thomas Dewey, whatever you may say about him, wasn't just another boring "me-too" Republican like Landan and Willkie, the guy could actually campaign.  He ran in the 1940 National Convention IN HIS LATE THIRTIES, any man who is making a serious attempt at being a party nominee in his late thirties isn't some boring rug, he's pretty serious business.  Of course the Republicans will probably still nominate him.
Yeah, it would pretty much be similar to 1988 when Reagan campaigned for Bush, except it would be FDR campaigning for (most likely) Wallace or (if the two made up) even James Farley.  It doesn't matter if the nominee is a left wing moonbat or a party machine Irish Catholic guy if he is a Democrat and FDR is campaigning for him in the middle of World War II he will probably win it even against Republican Sexgod.
I really don't see the War in Europe being that much different.  The Soviets would still beat us to Berlin, V-day, blah blah blah.  Japan would be interesting and I wonder if a Wallace Administration would pursue negotiations more with the Japanese government and if we wouldn't misinterpret the Japanese intention that ultimately lead to Hiroshima.  If he is successful could that have possibly lead to a world where there are no stockpiles of nuclear weapons if Wallace and his government saw the destructive possibilities of the weapon and ordered it's destruction?  Would Wallace's good nature towards Russia bring about an earlier instigation of McCarthy like witch hunts against suspected "commies" in the US government and in Hollywood?  So many different ways this could go.
As for FDR's legacy?  Pretty much the same in real life if he dies around the same time he did in real life.  His death, so soon after leaving office, would probably generate a very similar reaction as it did IRL.  Irregardless of who succeeds him FDR had a place in history as one of the most popular presidents in history.

I'd probably agree with this.

As for FDR's "heir", he pretty much shunned Jim Farley in 1940, and Cordell Hull would be too damn old by 1944. So I'd agree Wallace would likely be it.

[nevadacrab]

"FDR refused to run as president in 1940 if Wallace wasn't on the ticket, so it wouldn't surprise me if he would be a stubborn mule and refuse to campaign without Wallace running for president."

By 1944 Wallace was distrusted by most Democrats, seen as too close to the Soviets. FDR was persuaded to drop Wallace from the ticket in favor of Truman. The Dem leadership knew there was a significant chance that Roosevelt could die in office.
So if FDR stepped down, Wallace would have little chance of being the nominee. I can see FDR washing his hands of the whole mess and benignly watching the convention come to a consensus. FDR was a good enough party man to support whoever they chose, although his enthusiasm level could vary.
I can also see Truman being a compromise candidate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

1. That's one is difficult, giving the fact FDR never had a clear heir. However, I'd say whoever is his personal favorite, including some longshots, like Claude Pepper.
2. Probably. Dewey was already their strongest possible candidate in 1944, and without FDR in face, why wouldn't they nominate him?
3. Democratic victory, with popular wartime President throwing his support behind a nominee. Less solid than FDR's.
4. Same as RL.

This.

FDR refused to run as president in 1940 if Wallace wasn't on the ticket, so it wouldn't surprise me if he would be a stubborn mule and refuse to campaign without Wallace running for president.  Either way that would greatly benefit Republicans.
Thomas Dewey, whatever you may say about him, wasn't just another boring "me-too" Republican like Landan and Willkie, the guy could actually campaign.  He ran in the 1940 National Convention IN HIS LATE THIRTIES, any man who is making a serious attempt at being a party nominee in his late thirties isn't some boring rug, he's pretty serious business.  Of course the Republicans will probably still nominate him.
Yeah, it would pretty much be similar to 1988 when Reagan campaigned for Bush, except it would be FDR campaigning for (most likely) Wallace or (if the two made up) even James Farley.  It doesn't matter if the nominee is a left wing moonbat or a party machine Irish Catholic guy if he is a Democrat and FDR is campaigning for him in the middle of World War II he will probably win it even against Republican Sexgod.
I really don't see the War in Europe being that much different.  The Soviets would still beat us to Berlin, V-day, blah blah blah.  Japan would be interesting and I wonder if a Wallace Administration would pursue negotiations more with the Japanese government and if we wouldn't misinterpret the Japanese intention that ultimately lead to Hiroshima.  If he is successful could that have possibly lead to a world where there are no stockpiles of nuclear weapons if Wallace and his government saw the destructive possibilities of the weapon and ordered it's destruction?  Would Wallace's good nature towards Russia bring about an earlier instigation of McCarthy like witch hunts against suspected "commies" in the US government and in Hollywood?  So many different ways this could go.
As for FDR's legacy?  Pretty much the same in real life if he dies around the same time he did in real life.  His death, so soon after leaving office, would probably generate a very similar reaction as it did IRL.  Irregardless of who succeeds him FDR had a place in history as one of the most popular presidents in history.

I'd probably agree with this.

As for FDR's "heir", he pretty much shunned Jim Farley in 1940, and Cordell Hull would be too damn old by 1944. So I'd agree Wallace would likely be it.

At one point, FDR actually mentioned that he'd be happy if someone like Robert La Follette, Jr. would be his successor.

But, giving "Young Bob" longtime isolationism and simple fact he wasn't a Democrat, that would be unlikely.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd actually like to see a timeline on this, and would do it myself if I didn't have too many projects already going on.

[ClassicElectionEnthusiast]

I'd probably agree with this.

As for FDR's "heir", he pretty much shunned Jim Farley in 1940, and Cordell Hull would be too damn old by 1944. So I'd agree Wallace would likely be it.

First, this was something I had been thinking about doing a thread for before seeing this one.

As for Secretary of State Hull, good point mentioning his age being a negative. Also, Hull had health problems of his own with sarcoidosis.

[Rooney]

The 1944 Republican National Convention still nominates the former NYC DA and New York Governor Thomas Dewey, the man who put Luciano behind bars. Governor Bricker of Ohio is still named as his running-mate in order to appeal to conservatives in the party.

The Democratic National Convention is a free-for-all. The candidates who emerge as the front-runners are Vice-President Henry Wallace (the choice of old New Dealers), presidential assistant Jimmy Byrnes (the overwhelming choice of Southerners), Illinois Senator Scott W. Lucas (supported by the party's leaders) and Governor Paul McNutt (a dark-horse candidate). The convention is reminicent of the 1924 Klanbake in Madison Square Garden. The scorching July weather of Chicago is made worse when ballot after ballot is cast. Byrnes leads on the first three ballots but he lacks support from important northern Unions. When UAW Vice-President Walter Reuther tells Syd Hillman, the head of the CIO PAC, that his union will not endorse a ticker in 1944 is Byrnes is on it the South Carolinians campaign falls apart.

It appeared on ballot four, five and six that Henry Wallace would win. He led by a wide margin against the lesser known opponents. However, DNC Chairman Robert E. Hannegan began to throw his weight against Wallace. The Chicago press was "leaked" info on Wallace's strange realtionship with "guru" and conman Nicholas Roerich. Wallace, who had had all of his small say over the war stripped from him by FDR, flaked away like the red flake he was. By ballot seven he fell behind Senator Scott Lucas.

Senator Lucas, Kentucky Senator Alben W. Barkley or Governor Robert S. Kerr of Oklahoma all were emerging as good "compromise" choices. Senator Harry S Truman, who led a well-publicized but very minimal investigation of war profiteering, was also viewed as a good compromise choice by Midwestern Democrats. Truman, in the end, was viewed as too much of a lightweight and too tainted by Kansas City political bosses to be a good national candidate against the mob busting Dewey. By ballot eight Lucas had taken off as the front-runner. While only a one-term senator, Lucas had a solid reputation with labor and also as a good New Dealer. More left-wing Democrats started up a "Stop Lucas" campaign on the ninth ballot by backing Governor McNutt.McNutt dropped out and endorsed Senator Lucas after the senator had nearly attained a majority of the votes. A last second candidacy of controversial intellectual Rexford Tugwell went no where and Lucas won the presidential nomination on the tenth ballot, taking 1,066 votes to Tugwell's 110. Senator Lucas was paired with Governor Prentice Cooper of Tennessee in order to appease the party's southern constituency.

Following their big wins in 1942, the Republicans felt they could win the White House back in 1944 with Senator Lucas as Democratic nominee and not the fairly popular FDR. President Roosevelt, too sick and focused on the war to campaign, endorsed the Lucas/Cooper ticket. Republicans ran against "12 years of corruption and communism" in the highest offices of the land. Dewey promised that if elected president he would support and secure Social Security and worker's protections but would aim to end "war and peace time regulation which strangles the U.S. economy." Lucas was backed by labor. The AFL/CIO and UAW traveled around the nation to ask voters "Where were you in 1932?" Like his successor, former President Herbert Hoover chose to sit the 1944 contest out but apparently chuckled when he learned of the question.

In the end the New Deal coalition held out for one more race. Strong labor support and successes in the war maintained the odd political quilt of Northern liberals and Southern Democrats. Lucas won labor, African-Americans, Jews, Catholics, farmers and urban professionals. The Democrats also narrowly held the House of Representatives and the Senate, though lost heavily in both Houses. The Republicans licked their wounds and waited for 1946.

Scott W Lucas/Prentice Cooper (D): 270 EV
Thomas E. Dewey/John W. Bricker (R): 261 EV
Others (Socialist, Prohibition, etc.): 0 EV
 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Scott W Lucas/Prentice Cooper (D): 270 EV
Thomas E. Dewey/John W. Bricker (R): 261 EV
Others (Socialist, Prohibition, etc.): 0 EV

Seems about right.

Without FDR on the ticket, New York would be solid Dewey state.

Yeah, it would pretty much be similar to 1988 when Reagan campaigned for Bush, except it would be FDR campaigning for (most likely) Wallace or (if the two made up) even James Farley.  It doesn't matter if the nominee is a left wing moonbat or a party machine Irish Catholic guy if he is a Democrat and FDR is campaigning for him in the middle of World War II he will probably win it even against Republican Sexgod.

An Irish Catholic elected President in 1944 would be an awesome development.

Btw, I'm glad Wallace never became President. Not really because of his overdemonized leanings. The man was a genius Secretary of Agriculture but as a politician, he was quite naive fellow.