1940 John Nance Garner Vs Wendell Wilkie

[Lincoln Republican]

In 1940, President Franklin D Roovsevelt decides not to break tradition, and announces he will not be seeking a third term.

Vice President John Nance Garner of Texas wins the Democratic nomination on the first ballot, and chooses experienced Washington Governor Clarence Martin for Vice President.

The Republicans nominate New York businessman Wendell Wilkie for President and experienced Oregon Senator and Senate Minority Leader Charles McNary for Vice President.

Without FDR running again, how does this election turn out?

Maps?

[gorkay]

This is an interesting one. The only problem I have with it is that, with Garner running instead of Roosevelt, I'm not so sure the Republicans would have picked Willkie. But if they had, it would have posed quite a problem for liberals and other New Deal loyalists. I suppose a lot would have depended on the type of campaign Garner ran, and FDR's attitude towards him, because Garner was pretty conservative. If he had run true to his inclinations, he would have held little appeal for liberals, and some of them might have defected to the more moderate Willkie. I can even see the possibility that, if Garner ran on an anti-New-Deal platform, a liberal third-party candidate with some sort of New Deal cachet would have run. (Henry Wallace?) That would likely have doomed the Democrats, because without FDR running, I would expect the election to be closer than it was IRL. On the other hand, if Garner had embraced the New Deal and run on a more liberal platform, and with the blessing of FDR, he probably would have won-- though still by not as large a margin as FDR did.

I don't know anything about Clarence Martin. Was he more of a liberal, a moderate, or a conservative? Was he a New Deal supporter? No matter what type of platform Garner ran on, I would expect him to pick a running mate who was more liberal and more of a New Deal enthusiast than he was. Again, the name Henry Wallace springs to mind, especially since one of the reasons FDR picked him was Democratic nervousness (well-founded, as it turned out) about the farm belt.

[gorkay]

BTW, your scenario reminds me of something else I've always wondered about. I've read a lot about FDR and his presidency but I've never come across an adequate answer as to why he didn't do more during his first two terms to groom a successor. There seems to be conflicting opinion about this, and FDR himself never explained it to my knowledge. (Maybe he would have gone into it in the memoirs that he didn't live to write.) Was he thinking of running for additional terms all along? Was he just too busy with his other duties to tend to this? Was he waiting for an obvious candidate to emerge, and none did? Or could he just not find anybody he had enough confidence in? I wonder what some of the other posters' opinions might be about this.

Ironic that both Roosevelts had similar problems with this. TR, who also had a vice-president who was his ideological opposite, had a lot of trouble deciding whether to anoint Taft or Elihu Root as his successor. He really favored Root and thought he would make the better President, but didn't think he would be a good candidate because of his age, his Wall Street connections, and his intellectualism. He went for Taft more or less by default, and because Taft's brother and wife were pushing for him so hard (Taft himself was indifferent and would have preferred a seat on the Supreme Court). Of course, the choice came back to burn TR later.

Wonder if the same thing would have happened to FDR had he put his trust in Garner? There's another good alternative scenario for you: Garner runs in 1940 with Roosevelt's support and approval and wins the election; but, once in office, his conservative inclinations come to the fore and he starts to dismantle the New Deal. FDR then comes back to challenge him for the Democratic nomination in 1944. (How would the war figure into it?)

[Lincoln Republican]

Governor Martin believed in strict frugality in government spending, while at the same time he oversaw large economic projects such as the Grand Coulee Dam to put people to work during the Great Depression.  (Wiki)

He therefore believed in creating employment for the unemployed at the time, a key element of the New Deal.

Actually, another thought I had was that if Garner was the nominee, that he may have shrewdly picked a staunch FDR loyalist as his running mate, such as Secretary of Commerce Harry Lloyd Hopkins, absolutely trusted by Roosevelt, and an architect of the New Deal.  This would have gone a long way in keeping the New Dealers in the Democratic coalition.   

If Garner was elected President in 1940, I highly doubt that FDR would have come back in 1944 to challenge an incumbent President for the nomination, given that FDR was a dying man in 1944.

Knowing this, it was not really until 1944 that FDR started thinking seriously about who should succeed him in the Presidency, and therefore Wallace was dropped from the ticket in 1944 and replaced by Truman.   

[gorkay]

My speculation about a possible Roosevelt run in 1944 also speculated that, since he wouldn't have been subjected to the rigors of the Presidency for the years 1941-1945, four of the most trying ones in U.S. history, his health may have been better in '44.

Harry Hopkins would have been an intriguing choice for V-P. He wasn't really a politician, although that would not necessarily disqualify him. He was known for his bluntness, which would have made him an interesting candidate. Another possibility would have been James Farley, who actually broke with FDR in 1940 and made a token run for the nomination, but who was a member of Roosevelt's inner circle before that.

I was always under the impression that FDR dropped Wallace in 1944 more for political reasons than anything else. In fact, some accounts claim that he didn't really care who his running mate was, was too busy with the war to devote much time and attention to it, and left the whole matter up to the uppermost members of the Democratic National Committee. I always thought that might be something of an exaggeration, though, since FDR was known for making all the important decisions himself, but making others think they were the ones who made them. At any rate, it worked out well.

[Lincoln Republican]

To clarify my previous statement about Wallace being dropped and replaced by Truman, the issue of Roosevelt's health was of great concern to many in the party, and party conservatives found Wallace far too liberal for their liking.  Party leaders urged Roosevelt to drop Wallace and replace him with the more moderate Truman.

Roosevelt liked Wallace and knew little about Truman, and reluctantly agreed to accept Truman.

The Vice Presidential nomination was voted on by the convention, which ended up choosing Truman. 

Personally, I believe Truman to be a poor President.  There were far better potential Vice Presidential  candidates than Truman available at the time.

[Lincoln Republican]

Anyway, anybody wish to comment on how a Garner/Wilkie election in 1940 turns out?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think Garner would have won.  FDR was very popular, and that would have carried over to Garner.

Garner wins 301-230

[gorkay]

Garner would have won, provided there was no strong third-party effort to muddy the waters. Willkie's inexperience in politics would have hurt him, as it did IRL, despite his other virtues as a candidate, and voters were pretty still satisfied with the New Deal, even in 1940. The war would also have been an issue, as it was IRL, and voters would have had more confidence in Garner's capabilities as a possible wartime President than Willkie's. The lack of anti-third-term sentiment would also have helped Garner.

The only thing that could have kept him from winning, as I stated before, was if he had run an overtly anti-New-Deal campaign. This would have cost him the support of New Deal Democrats and possibly have invited a third-party run from a liberal Dem. Garner probably would have been too smart to do this, though, even if his sentiments leaned that way. What he would have done once he got elected is another matter.

Tammany Hall, I concur with your statement about the circumstances of the Truman-Wallace race for VP in '44 with two exceptions. One, I'm not so sure that FDR's health problems were known even by Democratic party insiders at the time (although you may know something about this that I don't). Two-- and this is just a matter of opinion-- I don't think Truman was a poor President.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

BUMP

Wendell L. Willkie/Charles McNary (R): 322 EV
John Nance Garner/Clarence Martin (D): 209 EV

A Willkie victory in 1940 over Garner might look like as stated above. Though I have my own doubts about my own map that I produced with tender loving care.

Numerous Democrats were scared that Wendell Willkie would have won the White House in 1940, no matter who the Democratic Party nominated in 1940. However thanks to the events in Europe in May 1940, President Roosevelt decided to run for an unprecedented third term in 1940 and the rest is history. Thus I believe if this scenario was to occur in 1940, I believe that Wendell Willkie would have defeated Vice President John Nance Garner to succeed President Roosevelt in the White House as 33rd President of the United States.

Sure Garner might have been Roosevelt's Vice President for two terms, but considering the animosity that built up between the two men upon President Roosevelt's Court Packing agenda announced in 1938, I cannot see Roosevelt supporting his Vice President. I could imagine Roosevelt supporting his Vice President in public but in private Wendell Willkie.