1928: FDR instead of Al Smith

[darklordoftech]

What if FDR was nominated in 1928 instead of Al Smith?

[Lechasseur]

FDR hadn't been elected to a major office yet, and the country was doing pretty good at the time, so I'd imagine he'd do better in the South than Smith but otherwise the result would have been pretty similar.

[The Govanah Jake]

He wouldn't be a catholic so he wouldn't do as bad in the south and his position as a New Yorker Smith could increase his performance in the North and maybe New York flips but overall Hoover still wins decisively. 1932 was his year.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Democrats nominates a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, out of any office since 2020. While he was a VP nominee back then, the ticket lost in an unprecedented landslide? Before being elected Governor, FDR had worse electoral resume than John W. Davis in 1924: two elections two the state Senate.

Alternatively FDR would have to be elected Governor or perhaps Senator no later than 1924. And then he'd still lose to Hoover. Hoover was simply unbeatable in '28.

[Mr. Smith]

Hoover only got so far in '28 because Smith was Catholic.

But both FDR and Smith were much better at actually being on the trail than Hoover ever was. Without the Proto-Atwater strategy, there's no way FDR loses by nearly so much.

However since 1928 was still an economic boom year attributed to Coolidge and FDR's record is still lacking....

Hoover/Curtis 300 EV, 52% pv
FDR/McAdoo 231 EV, 46% pv

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

With such a relatively narrow loss in a strongly Republican year, FDR would still be in a strong position to run again in 1932, unlike poor Smith who tried but with such a landslide loss on his record...

[darklordoftech]

I didn't realize that FDR wasn't Governor until 1928. I saw a photo from the 1924 Democratic Convention in which FDR represents New York's delegates, so I thought FDR was already Governor of New York in 1924.

I wonder if anyone could have beat Hoover in 1928 considering that after FDR and Truman, the same party has never held the White House for more than 8 years with the exception of Reagan and HW.

[Kingpoleon]

284: Franklin D. Roosevelt/George L. Berry - 49.1%
247: Herbert Hoover/Charles Curtis - 47.2%

[Lechasseur]

I didn't realize that FDR wasn't Governor until 1928. I saw a photo from the 1924 Democratic Convention in which FDR represents New York's delegates, so I thought FDR was already Governor of New York in 1924.

I wonder if anyone could have beat Hoover in 1928 considering that after FDR and Truman, the same party has never held the White House for more than 8 years with the exception of Reagan and HW.

Roosevelt was elected Governor of New York in 1928, as Al Smith vacated the position to run for president.

Hoover was probably unbeatable in 1928, which is different from 1988 where the Democrats could have won with the right candidate.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Hoover narrowly wins

[SamTilden2020]

Hoover still wins, with less of a margain due to FDR not being catholic (where smith was).

[Kingpoleon]

284: Franklin D. Roosevelt/George L. Berry - 49.1%
247: Herbert Hoover/Charles Curtis - 47.2%

After this, I think Frank Landon wins the Presidency in 1932. Landon probably does very well, and is re-elected. In 1940, I imagine a Democratic elder statesman, such as Charles W. Bryan, would face off against Hiram Johnson/Thomas Dewey.

[Lord Admirale]

Still loses, but probably carries the ex-CSA and New York.

350-181

[Agonized-Statism]

Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover (R-CA) / Senator Charles Curtis (R-KS) ✓
Fmr. Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Roosevelt (D-NY) / Senator Joseph Robinson (D-AR)