If the Depression happened on Al Smith's watch...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Suppose that Al Smith had defeated Hoover and the stock market crashed on his watch. What would have happened in terms of power and party realignment?

Smith (for reasons that are not entirely clear to me but I believe was mostly out of personal animosity) became a staunch anti-New Dealer and firm critic of FDR, so I don't know for sure how he would have responded to it; if his approach would have been more similar to FDR's or Hoover's.

All I think can be reasonably ascertained is that Smith would have lost the same way Hoover did and the GOP would have regained full control of government by 1932. But what happens then? Assuming Smith tried to govern in a more FDR-like fashion, the Republicans would presumably re-embrace the policies and philosophy of Coolidge.

Even though it was Coolidge's policies that helped lead to the Depression down the road. So one might further speculate that Smith's hypothetical Republican successor would have lost, and the government would have completely flipped again to the Democrats after 1936.

The only alternative, I believe, would be that the liberal/moderate faction of the GOP retakes control from the Coolidge loyalists and starts governing more based on Theodore Roosevelt's Square Deal... which gives us the New Deal anyway.

And should that be the case, where does that leave the Democrats in the short and long term?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My understanding is certainly that Smith's criticism of the New Deal was motivated largely by his personal resentment of FDR. There may have been an ideological component as well; I do not claim to be a Smith expert.

The one significant likely divergence between Smith and Hoover that presents itself in terms of their response to the early stages of the Depression, is Smith as a Democrat would be far less likely to sign Smoot-Hawley, which if present-day economists are to be believed might somewhat soften the blow of the '29 Crash. Beyond that, I don't know how likely it is that Smith would put in place an ATL New Deal-style public works program. Certainly he would have done something —even Hoover didn't sit on his *ss for four years, of course. Taking it all in stride, I think it's at least reasonable to conclude the effects of the Depression might have been slightly less catastrophic than IOTL.

Now "slightly less catastrophic" when you are talking about the worst economic disaster in American history is still very, very bad, and I would put the odds of Smith winning reelection in 1932 as being very low. So it all depends on who the GOP nominates in 1932, whether a died-in-the-wool conservative or a progressive willing to entertain some New Deal-style reforms. It's very possible Hoover himself is the nominee, especially as he can say "I told you so" regarding the correct choice in '28. Teddy Roosevelt Jr. is interesting to think about, but unless he won the governorship ITTL I don't see him as a realistic candidate.

Whoever the new Republican president is, they are going to implement some kind of relief program: probably not as ambitious as the actual New Deal, of course, but maybe along those lines. It's worth noting that the New Deal did enjoy some support from Western progressive Republicans: if our GOP incumbent does try anything more radical, support for his agenda almost certainly starts with them. I'm not really qualified to say what the relative or absolute performance of this GOP "New Deal" would be, except that it probably involved a hefty tariff and that only spells bad news.

So in 1936, if the economy is in a similar or worse position than IOTL, it's any man's game. A President Hoover I think would have a hard time getting reelected in this environment for the same reasons he lost in 1932; from the left, you could either see FDR (or an FDR-like figure) gain the Democratic nomination—more likely than not imo—or perhaps a third party headed by Huey Long. In the latter case it would be interesting to see how the two major parties react, either trying to co-opt parts of Long's message or disavowing it entirely.

Depending on who in particular is in the White House, Smith winning in '28 and losing to a Republican in '32 could have implications for WWII if the Republican in question is of an isolationist bent —as indeed many were (Borah, Taft, Vandenberg). If the GOP manages to hang on to power through the war, they almost certainly lose to a Democrat in '48: who exactly I'm not sure. There is also the question of the Black vote and civil rights: IOTL of course the New Deal was pivotal in bringing African American voters into the Democratic party and beginning the Southern slide toward the Republicans; if instead it is a Republican in the White House in the 30s and 40s, that process might be delayed considerably by a fair-minded Republican president, or alternately accelerated by someone committed to the "lily-white" strategy of the 20s. In either case, I doubt Black voters are as reliably a Democratic bloc as IOTL by 1948.

Overall, a really fascinating hypothetical —looking forward to seeing what others have to add!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Henry Ford wins in 1932 on a nativist, isolationist, and economically interventionist (though not “left-wing”) platform. Darkness devours the decade.

[Samof94]

Henry Ford wins in 1932 on a nativist, isolationist, and economically interventionist (though not “left-wing”) platform. Darkness devours the decade.

That is unlikely.  Al Smith’s Catholicism would be a 1932 talking point.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I think it partially depends on what caused Smith to win...it wasn't a remotely close election.

[Agonized-Statism]

It would be almost impossible to get Smith elected in the first place, but ironically, I could see Hoover taking Roosevelt's role by running and winning in 1932 on a progressive platform. Said Republican progressive probably couldn't manage an alt-New Deal Coalition as effectively or as long as the Democrats- for one, they wouldn't have a Solid South. World War II happens and Republican administrations carry the US through, Democrats make the changes necessary to win again, and the map balances out again around 1948. There definitely won't be any Kennedys and probably not a Biden if superstition lasts that long.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It would be almost impossible to get Smith elected in the first place, but ironically, I could see Hoover taking Roosevelt's role by running and winning in 1932 on a progressive platform. Said Republican progressive probably couldn't manage an alt-New Deal Coalition as effectively or as long as the Democrats- for one, they wouldn't have a Solid South. World War II happens and Republican administrations carry the US through, Democrats make the changes necessary to win again, and the map balances out again around 1948. There definitely won't be any Kennedys and probably not a Biden if superstition lasts that long.

Are you suggesting the United States will never elect a Catholic president, less than a year after having done just that?

[Agonized-Statism]

Are you suggesting the United States will never elect a Catholic president, less than a year after having done just that?

"Never" is a strong word and kind of a strawman, but if the first and presumably narrowly elected Catholic president fails in a big way in this alternate history (don't get why you're randomly bringing last year's real world election in), that would unleash long-lasting anti-Catholic sentiment.