If Al Smith had beat Hoover in 1932...How would the parties look...

[William Poole]

This is a interesting question. If Smith had won id assuem the GOP would run a progressive candidate and start up the new deal.

[badgate]

I sincerely doubt the Republicans would have created the new deal.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I sincerely doubt the Republicans would have created the new deal.

Well maybe not as expansive, but there'd likely be something like it. Recall that Hoover did start a number of the New Deal policies, and there were famed progressives like William E. Borah still running for the party's nomination (and almost winning) as of 1936.

[badgate]

^I just think, if anything, it would've been a much more watered down approach. GOP senators called social security "the lash of the dictator," according to an episode of The West Wing that I saw once.

Would the New Deal have even been necessary if the Great Depression began under different leadership?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

^I just think, if anything, it would've been a much more watered down approach. GOP senators called social security "the lash of the dictator," according to an episode of The West Wing that I saw once.

Would the New Deal have even been necessary if the Great Depression began under different leadership?

It may not have even happened in the way we know it today under Smith's policies. I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but from my limited knowledge, things may have gone very differently with Smith in control.

[badgate]

Well, one positive is we may have been spared Douglas MacArthur.

[Mister Mets]

Smith probably would have been remembered as a president on par with Ulysses S Grant. He would have a few contenders, but the general consensus would be that he was not quite up to the challenges at a historic time. He'd be FDR without the communication skills, and political savvy.

My guess is that Tom Dewey would have won his first bid for Governor in 1938 and the presidency in 1940. His main accomplishment as Governor was increasing state efficiency, so that might have been something to define the Republican party, with Democrats the party of big government and Republicans the party as smart government. He started out as a non-interventionist, although his positions on that changed.

[MATTROSE94]

One scenario that I always found interesting is what if Al Smith defeated Herbert Hoover in 1928 beacuse of the prospects of the Great Depression occuring under his watch. I know that the Republicans would have made solid gains in the 1930 midterms and almost certaintly won the Presidency in 1932, but I do not know who the Republicans would have nominated to run against Al Smith in 1932.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Don't you mean if Smith had beaten Hoover in 1928?  Republicans would portray Democrats as the party of the rich (which they are), and as a result of this excellent propaganda, would be the majority party from 1932 to the present.  In other words, the same as what happened in real life, only with the roles of the two parties reversed.  A perfect and classic example of how a party (in this case, the Democrats) is often better off by losing an election.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Don't you mean if Smith had beaten Hoover in 1928?  Republicans would portray Democrats as the party of the rich (which they are), and as a result of this excellent propaganda, would be the majority party from 1932 to the present.  In other words, the same as what happened in real life, only with the roles of the two parties reversed.  A perfect and classic example of how a party (in this case, the Democrats) is often better off by losing an election.

...

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Don't you mean if Smith had beaten Hoover in 1928?  Republicans would portray Democrats as the party of the rich (which they are), and as a result of this excellent propaganda, would be the majority party from 1932 to the present.  In other words, the same as what happened in real life, only with the roles of the two parties reversed.  A perfect and classic example of how a party (in this case, the Democrats) is often better off by losing an election.

...

Most wealthy suburbanites outside the South, Minnesota, and Orange County, CA, vote Democrat because of social issues.  In 2004, nine of the top ten biggest campaign donors gave to liberal or Democrat-affiliated organizations.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Don't you mean if Smith had beaten Hoover in 1928?  Republicans would portray Democrats as the party of the rich (which they are), and as a result of this excellent propaganda, would be the majority party from 1932 to the present.  In other words, the same as what happened in real life, only with the roles of the two parties reversed.  A perfect and classic example of how a party (in this case, the Democrats) is often better off by losing an election.

...

Most wealthy suburbanites outside the South, Minnesota, and Orange County, CA, vote Democrat because of social issues.  In 2004, nine of the top ten biggest campaign donors gave to liberal or Democrat-affiliated organizations.

If you take out the South, West, and Midwest, rich people voted Democratic? Also, 2004 was a very different animal than 2012:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Don't you mean if Smith had beaten Hoover in 1928?  Republicans would portray Democrats as the party of the rich (which they are), and as a result of this excellent propaganda, would be the majority party from 1932 to the present.  In other words, the same as what happened in real life, only with the roles of the two parties reversed.  A perfect and classic example of how a party (in this case, the Democrats) is often better off by losing an election.

...

Most wealthy suburbanites outside the South, Minnesota, and Orange County, CA, vote Democrat because of social issues.  In 2004, nine of the top ten biggest campaign donors gave to liberal or Democrat-affiliated organizations.

If you take out the South, West, and Midwest, rich people voted Democratic? Also, 2004 was a very different animal than 2012:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

There's a fundamental problem with exit polls like that.  Most of the "wealthy" only make a few hundred thousand dollars or so a year, and they lean Republican.  Once you get up higher (like the "millionaires and billionaires" that the President so demonizes), then the numbers are likely to be overwhelmingly Democrat.  But there are too few of those people to get an accurate result in exit polls, the numbers get skewed in favor of the GOP.  Rich people in the Midwest clearly vote Democratic (Minnesota notwithstanding), as evidenced by the results out of Oakland County, MI, and the Chicago suburbs over the past 16-20 years.  The Collar Counties may still lean Republican, but the margins are dramatically smaller than what they were prior to 1992.  The same pattern holds true for Virginia, Florida, Colorado, the West Coast (aside from Orange County, CA) and the Northeast.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

Over 200K voted 52-46 for Obama in 2008. Given that Obama did only marginally worse with the under 30K and better with the 30-50K, I suspect they voted for Romney in 2012, albeit narrowly.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

Over 200K voted 52-46 for Obama in 2008. Given that Obama did only marginally worse with the under 30K and better with the 30-50K, I suspect they voted for Romney in 2012, albeit narrowly.

Yeah, but if you get into the $5M, $10M, etc. range, the numbers would probably dramatically shift toward Democrats.  But there aren't enough of them to give an accurate sample, so the numbers get skewed toward Republicans.  And remember that where those people live probably affects those numbers a lot too.

[MATTROSE94]

Don't you mean if Smith had beaten Hoover in 1928?  Republicans would portray Democrats as the party of the rich (which they are), and as a result of this excellent propaganda, would be the majority party from 1932 to the present.  In other words, the same as what happened in real life, only with the roles of the two parties reversed.  A perfect and classic example of how a party (in this case, the Democrats) is often better off by losing an election.

Yes, that is what I meant. Do you think the Republicans would have nominated Hoover again in 1932 to run against Smith, or would they have picked someone else like William Borah, Frank Lowden or even Theodore Roosevelt Jr?

[Mister Mets]

Inspired by the list of alternate presidents.

32. Al Smith (D-NY)/ John Nance Garner (D-NY): 1933-1941

Tom Dewey does 1.5% better in his 1938 gubernatorial bid, and wins that.

33. Tom Dewey (R-NY)/ Frank Knox (R-IL): 1941-1949
34. Dwight Eisenhower (R-TX)/ Earl Warren (R-CA): 1949-1957
35: Lyndon Johnson (D-TX)/ John F Kennedy (D-MA): 1957-1963

36: John F Kennedy (D-MA)/ Vacant: 1962-1965
John F Kennedy (D-MA)/ Hubert Humphrey (D-MN): 1965-1973

37: Ronald Reagan (R-CA)/ James Buckley (C-NY): 1973-1981
38: James Buckley (R-NY)/ Bob Dole (R-KS): 1981-1985
39: Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)/ Ed Koch (D-NY): 1985-1993
40: Jack Kemp (R-NY)/ Nancy Kassenbaum (R-KS): 1993-2001
41:Mark Warner (D-VA)/ Bill Richardson (D-NM): 2001-2009
42:John McCain (R-AZ)/ Charlie Crist (R-FL): 2009-2013
43: Barack Obama (D-IL)/ : Tim Kaine (D-VA) 2013+

Losing tickets...
1936: John W Davis (R-WV)/ Alf Landon (R-KS)
1940: John Nance Garner (D-TX)/ James Farley (D-NY)
1944: Alben W Barkley (D-KY)/ George Howard Earle III (D-PA)
1948: Harry Truman (D-MO)/ Scott Lucas (D-IL)
1952: Frank Laushte (D-OH)/ Francis Meyers (D-PA)
1956: Earl Warren (R-CA)/ Christian Herter (R-MA)
1960: Nelson Rockefeller (D-NY)/ Richard Nixon (R-CA)
1964: Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)/ Paul Fino (R-NY)
1968: George Romney (R-MI)/ Thomas Cuchel (R-CA)
1972: Hubert Humphrey (D-MN)/ Jimmy Carter (D-GA)
1976: Jerry Brown (D-CA)/ Adlai Stevenson III (D-IL)
1980: Ted Kennedy (D-MA)/ John Glenn (D-OH)/
1984: James Buckley (R-NY)/ Bob Dole (R-KS)
1988: Bob Dole (R-KS)/ Dan Quayle (R-IN)
1992: Joe Biden (D-DE)/ Al Gore (D-TN)
1996: Jesse Jackson (D-IL)/ Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
2000: Tommy Thompson (R-WI)/ Bill Frist (R-TN)
2004: George Allen (R-VA)/ Rick Perry (R-TX)
2008: Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)/ Evan Bayh (D-IN)
2012: Jon Cornyn (R-TX)/ Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)