|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2020, 03:04:16 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Where is my Freistaat Preußen avatar?, Apocrypha)
  FDR vs. Robert Taft 1940 with no WWII
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: FDR vs. Robert Taft 1940 with no WWII  (Read 3525 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 13, 2010, 09:54:25 pm »

I think FDR narrowly wins.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2010, 10:12:05 pm »



FDR-315 EV
Taft-216 EV
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2010, 10:12:46 pm »

Probably something like that. ^^^
Logged
CatoMinor
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,013
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2010, 10:15:55 pm »


Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2010, 10:33:05 pm »


EV & PV please?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2010, 11:01:11 pm »


283-248
Logged
hawkeye59
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,542
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2010, 11:02:04 pm »

Do you have any idea how popular FDR was in 1940?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2010, 11:04:42 pm »


The question didn't ask how popular FDR was in the 1940, it laid out a specific scenario.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2010, 11:07:15 pm »


The question didn't ask how popular FDR was in the 1940, it laid out a specific scenario.

What is your reasoning for FDR losing in 1940 without WWII? I think FDR would narrowly win, since I think most people will trust him over the GOP when it comes to the economy and since most people still remembered Hoover's inept management of the stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression. Also, the unemployment rate was decreasing in 1940 and GOP was growing at a rate of 8% a year (I believe). Finally, FDR could blame the GOP for the Recession of 1937-1938, since he could say that he followed their advice to reduce govt. spending and the economy only became worse as a result.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,174
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2010, 11:49:32 pm »

No WW II means that the economy will be worse than it was in our 1940 because of less war spending by ourselves and the Allies.  It also means that the no third term sentiment will be stronger.  It will be close and whether FDR wins will depend on whether a serious Democratic hopeful makes a big issue out of the "no third term" issue in the run up to the convention in hopes forcing FDR to step aside as was the custom.  Indeed, absent WW II it is far from certain that FDR would have had the gall to try for a third term.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2010, 12:05:10 am »

No WW II means that the economy will be worse than it was in our 1940 because of less war spending by ourselves and the Allies.  It also means that the no third term sentiment will be stronger.  It will be close and whether FDR wins will depend on whether a serious Democratic hopeful makes a big issue out of the "no third term" issue in the run up to the convention in hopes forcing FDR to step aside as was the custom.  Indeed, absent WW II it is far from certain that FDR would have had the gall to try for a third term.

FDR could have used the Great Depression as an excuse to run for a third term without WWII. I think that FDR could have controlled the party machinery well enough to prevent any serious Democratic opponent from emerging if he decided to seek a third term. Also, FDR could have just spent money on other sectors of the economy if there would have been no WWII--especially on infastructure and more social programs. Finally, I think that FDR will win a third term without WWII for the reasons I listed in one of the posts above. The election would probably be somewhat close, but I think FDR will pull out a victory in the end.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2010, 12:07:06 am »

Without war, the economy would have been in worse shape than when FDR took office.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2010, 12:09:41 am »

Without war, the economy would have been in worse shape than when FDR took office.

I seriously doubt that. Even in 1938 (during the recession), unemployment was 19%, in contrast to 25% when FDR first took office. I think that unemployment in the U.S. would be about 15-16% in 1940 without WWII, a percentage about the same/slightly higher than in RL. FDR could just increase govt. spending again on other sectors of the economy and thus unemployment would just continue its downward trend (that was interrupted by the Recession of 1938).
Logged
CatoMinor
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,013
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2010, 12:14:44 am »

52%-48% IL, NJ, CA, & NY being the closest.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2010, 12:17:44 am »


What's the EV, though? I'm too lazy to count it myself.  I'm guessing about 300-330 EV's for FDR?
Logged
CatoMinor
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,013
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2010, 12:22:12 am »

355-176
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2010, 12:22:59 am »


Thank you.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,174
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2010, 12:33:03 am »
« Edited: February 14, 2010, 01:01:43 am by True Federalist »



D: 51.5% PV: 225 EV
R: 48.0% PV: 241 EV
CT, MA, NH & PA: Too close to call: 65 EV

FDR will win the popular vote handily, but winning the solid South by large margins doesn't translate into extra electoral votes.

Edit: On reflection, Connecticut belongs in the tossup category.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2010, 12:39:37 am »
« Edited: February 14, 2010, 01:15:43 am by Рошамбо »



D: 51.5% PV: 225 EV
R: 48.0% PV: 249 EV
MA, NH & PA: Too close to call: 57 EV

New Hampshire doesn't matter but either Massachusetts or Pennsylvania would give Taft the victory.  FDR will win the popular vote handily, but winning the solid South by large margins doesn't translate into extra electoral votes.

I think FDR would win Connecticut, New York, Missouri, and Wyoming. As for the tossup states, I think FDR would win MA and PA while Taft would win NH.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,174
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2010, 01:10:07 am »

FDR only won New York by 3.56% in 1940.  Only Wisconsin and Illinois were weaker for him than New York of the States he won.  In anything like a close election, the Empire State would have gone solidly into the Republican column.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2010, 01:15:16 am »
« Edited: February 14, 2010, 01:20:29 am by Рошамбо »

FDR only won New York by 3.56% in 1940.  Only Wisconsin and Illinois were weaker for him than New York of the States he won.  In anything like a close election, the Empire State would have gone solidly into the Republican column.

Yes, but you got to remember that New York was FDR's home state. He probably assumed that he was going to win it against Wilkie, and thus didn't really bother campaigning there. FDR also probably assumed that he would have won without NY. I think that if FDR genuinely thought he might have lost, he would have definietely campaigned in New York and fully energized the state political machine there to go into full force. Wilkie won 44.8% of the popular vote. If Taft would have won 48.0% (like you said), that would still mean FDR would win NY by 0.4%, assuming the nationwide swing to the GOP from RL would be equal in all states. I think that FDR's victory margin in NY would be increased to between 1.0 and 2.0% due to his active campaigning there and the native son effect (FDR was from NY, after all). In fact, I think FDR won NY by a larger margin in 1944 than in 1940 despite the fact that his 1944 opponent (Dewey) was from NY while his 1940 opponent (Wilkie) was not from NY.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,174
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2010, 01:38:50 am »

The early 1940's were a high point of Republican influence in the Empire State.  LaGuardia was Mayor and Dewey would become Governor in 1942.  Tammany Hall was in disarray.

Plus there's the fact that with political polling in its infancy back then, it's doubtful that FDR would have realized he was in particular trouble in New York State until it was too late.

Plus there is the fact that Taft may well have selected the popular Dewey as his running mate.  Dewey did win the most primaries before the election. (Wilkie couldn't pick Dewey because he too was from New York.)  Indeed, absent the war as an issue, Dewey would have been more likely than Taft to win the nomination in 1940 in my opinion, but Taft certainly would have had a legitimate shot.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2010, 01:54:19 am »

The early 1940's were a high point of Republican influence in the Empire State.  LaGuardia was Mayor and Dewey would become Governor in 1942.  Tammany Hall was in disarray.

Plus there's the fact that with political polling in its infancy back then, it's doubtful that FDR would have realized he was in particular trouble in New York State until it was too late.

Plus there is the fact that Taft may well have selected the popular Dewey as his running mate.  Dewey did win the most primaries before the election. (Wilkie couldn't pick Dewey because he too was from New York.)  Indeed, absent the war as an issue, Dewey would have been more likely than Taft to win the nomination in 1940 in my opinion, but Taft certainly would have had a legitimate shot.

Wilkie was from NY? I never knew that. Well anyway, this just demonstrates that if FDR won the state by 4% against a native New Yorker, then he probably would have won it by a larger margin in the same environment against Taft, a non-New Yorker. In regards to polling, it was already pretty advanced after Gallup demonstrated his success in predicting the 1936 election. Even if the national environment would have been slightly more friendly to the GOP, and Taft would have selected Dewey (a New Yorker) as VP, New York would be a tossup at best. But I still think that if Taft wins 48% of the popular vote, FDR would narrowly win NY since he was from there while Taft was not (even if his VP would have been from NY) and since the nationwide swing would not be enough for the GOP to take NY.  As for Dewey winning the nomination in 1940 without WWII, I think that it is a real possibility, and I think it is possible he would have defeated FDR, but I'm not sure how likely it would have been, since Dewey might have had some problems with the Republicans base (even if he would have picked a conservative as his VP).
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,174
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2010, 12:23:19 pm »

Wilkie was born in Indiana, but lived in New York by 1940 as he had made his mark in business. He wasn't a candidate who attracted home state sympathies, nor did he do well in urban areas. In many respects, Wilkie was the Ross Perot of his day. The main reason the GOP coalesced around that ex-Democrat was because out of the major contenders, he was the only one not tarred by the taint of isolationism.

As for polling, there was not yet the phenomenon of the daily tracking poll, and politicians had not yet come to live and die by their poll numbers.

Actually, the main mark against Dewey was his youth as he was only 38.  He'd built up an impressive record of fighting corruption and organized crime.

In any case, we'll have to disagree about whether New York goes in the Republican column in a close 1940 election.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2010, 12:25:54 pm »

Wilkie was born in Indiana, but lived in New York by 1940 as he had made his mark in business. He wasn't a candidate who attracted home state sympathies, nor did he do well in urban areas. In many respects, Wilkie was the Ross Perot of his day. The main reason the GOP coalesced around that ex-Democrat was because out of the major contenders, he was the only one not tarred by the taint of isolationism.

As for polling, there was not yet the phenomenon of the daily tracking poll, and politicians had not yet come to live and die by their poll numbers.

Actually, the main mark against Dewey was his youth as he was only 38.  He'd built up an impressive record of fighting corruption and organized crime.

In any case, we'll have to disagree about whether New York goes in the Republican column in a close 1940 election.

I'm not saying the GOP would not have won NY in 1940 in this scenario--they might have. However, it is by no means a guarantee and I think NY would belong in the toss-up column at best if there is a 3% swing to the Republicans from RL, since FDR won New York by 3.6% in 1940 and 3.6-3=0.6%. So it is still possible FDR would have won New York even if the GOP would have won 48% of the popular vote. It is not a gurantee that he would have, but the possibility certainly cannot be ruled out.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines