1940: John Nance Garner (D) vs. Robert A. Taft (R)

[Robespierre's Jaw]

How would the 1940 Presidential Election turn out if these were the tickets?

Democratic

Vice President John Nance Garner of Texas
Senator Millard Tydings of Maryland

Republican

Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio
Senator Styles Bridges of New Hampshire

Who would win in this 1940 scenario? Discuss with maps.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No huge difference; Garner wins 370-161

[PBrunsel]

This is an intersting scenario. With neither candidate supporting enrty into World War II, we know that the biggest loser is Churchill. Cactus Jack Garner was not the most popular Democrat, especially due to his opposition to the New Deal, civil rights and his general disdain for Roosevelt. I see this as a Taft win, as Mr. Republican has his base and he was not tied to a president who was seen as a war mongerer by American mothers. Senator Taft has America Firts behind him and a solidifed GOP base.

Robert Taft/Styles Bridges (R): 286 EV; 49% of the PV
John Garner/Milliard Tydings (D): 245 EV; 48% of the PV
Norman Thomas/Darlington Hoopes (S): 0 EV; 3% of the PV

A strogn turn out for the Socialists cost Garner two states: Illinois and Massachusettes. However, President-elect Taft is handed a strong Democratic Congress.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I agree with PBrunsel, the only reason FDR won was incumbency and a weak opposition.  With a candidate who does not support FDR completely for the Dems, and a real difference from the GOP, it seems like a GOP win

[Lief 🗽]

No matter who wins, America and the world lose.