Roosevelt chooses not to run for a third term in 1940. Who are the candidates, and who wins?

[dsp19]

As we all know, FDR was the first president to successfully run for a third term when he defeated Wendell Willkie in 1940. What happens if he chose to respect tradition and not run for a third term? I imagine that James Farley (postmaster general and an FDR favorite) and John Nance Garner (Roosevelt's VP) definitely run, with Henry Wallace possibly in the picture. For the Republicans, Willkie won the nomination IRL, but with an open seat election, does the GOP go with a more established candidate, like Robert Taft (senator from Ohio) or Arthur Vandenburg (senator from Michigan)? Does Charles Lindbergh throw his hat into the ring as an explicitly isolationist candidate? Does Thomas Dewey gain traction because he's from NY?

Would love to see some electoral college maps and potential VP picks for each ticket

 

[dsp19]

I'll put up a hypothetical election map from US Election Atlas, with Democrats in red and Republicans in blue. James Farley wins the Democratic nomination because FDR endorses him. He picks Alben Barkley from Kentucky as his VP. Taft leads the Republican nomination battle until his isolationist sentiments catch up with him, and 38 year old Thomas Dewey wins the Republican nomination. In a compromise, Taft is picked as Dewey's VP.

FARLEY/BARKLEY: 311 EV, 50.8% PV
DEWEY/TAFT: 220 EV, 48.2% EV

 

[bguy]

Well on the Democrat side Gallup did a series of polls in 1939 and 1940 asking Democrats who they wanted as their candidate if FDR did not run for a third term.

As of the June 1940 poll (the last poll in the series), Cordell Hull was in the lead with 47% of the vote. (His next closest competitor was John Garner with 23%).

Hull's support had also increased dramatically over the course of 1940. In the December 1939 poll he was only at 8% (compared to Garner's 58% and McNutt's 17%), and in the February 1940 poll, Hull was still trailing Garner with 25% of the vote to Garner's 40%. I assume the dramatic rise in support for Hull was due to Democratic voters wanting a candidate with foreign policy experience given the deteriorating international situation.

http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1940.htm

Thus I think the Democratic presidential candidate would most likely be Cordell Hull (who FDR would certainly prefer to Garner). As for his veep, since Hull is from the south, he would probably need a northern to give the ticket geographic balance and as such James Farley would make a lot of sense.

On the Republican side, it probably depends on events in Europe. If World War 2 has been avoided or is going significantly better for the Allies than IOTL then the candidate is probably Thomas Dewey who IOTL dominated the early Republican primaries and ran the strongest against Hull in a Gallup poll. (The May 1940 poll of a Hull-Dewey matchup had Hull at 51% and Dewey at 49%). However, if events in Europe play out similarly to OTL (with France falling right as the GOP convention begins) then I imagine there would be the same reluctance to nominate "a 38 year old kid whose foreign experience was limited to a bicycle tour of France fifteen years before" that derailed Dewey's OTL run, and so Wilkie probably still gets the nomination. (Taft and Vandenberg being unacceptable alternatives due to their isolationism.)

Regardless of whether the GOP presidential candidate is Dewey or Wilkie, Charles McNary still makes a lot of sense for their veep since both Dewey and Wilkie are Washington outsiders and weak on farm issues, and thus McNary, a senator with nearly 30 years experience, who is an expert on farm policy, will fill in a lot of gaps in their resumes.

 

[David T]

A post of mine from last year:

***
It is arguable that after FDR, Hull would have been the Democrats' strongest candidate in 1940. But he did have some disadvantages: (1) age (he would be 70 by Election Day 1940); (2) FDR had mixed feelings about him--he appreciated that Hull would carry on FDR's internationalist foreign policy but was less certain about Hull's attitude toward the New Deal; and (3) perhaps most important, Hull (though he didn't like the idea of a third term) was reluctant to run, publicly disclaimed any interest in the position, did not seek to accumulate delegates (unlike Farley) and discouraged (though he did not prevent) supporters from advancing his name.

Still, if FDR had made it definite that he wasn't running, Hull might have been a more active candidate, and may have been the Democrats' best chance--Farley, Wallace, McNutt, Garner, Wheeler, and others all had arguably greater disadvantages. See https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-for-jim-farley-in-1940.336202/#post-10006880 on Farley's (IMO unconvincing) attempt to argue that his Catholicism would not be an electoral handicap. Jesse H. Jones is another interesting possibility: see my posts at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/president-jesse-h-jones.377119/#post-11770397 and
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/president-jesse-h-jones.377119/#post-11783094 (A Jones candidacy would have been contingent on Garner not running--according to Farley, Garner did not really want to run, and did so only as a protest against the third term.)

Incidentally, Hull if elected would be the last POTUS born in a log cabin: https://tnstateparks.com/parks/info/cordell-hull-birthplace

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

When does Roosevelt announce his retirement?

OTL, he said nothing, but left the question open. Only Garner and Farley dared to campaign openly. Neither roused any enthusiasm, and the convention ignored them, nominating Roosevelt by acclamation.

If Roosevelt announces in say March, several other figures will jump in the race. Sen. Burton Wheeler was interested; I've never found anyone else known to be so.

Henry Wallace is right out. He was a Republican until becoming Roosevelt's Sec of Agriculture, had never run for any office, and was accepted as VP nominee only because Roosevelt insisted.

Cordell Hull is problematic: 69 years old, a Southerner and therefore a white supremacist, and responsible for the denial of entry to the Jewish refugees on SS St. Louis. If he is nominated, there could be a third-party protest ticket. More likely, this baggage blocks his nomination.

 

[Do I Look Worried?]

Cordell Hull is problematic…. therefore a white supremacist, and responsible for the denial of entry to the Jewish refugees on SS St. Louis. If he is nominated, there could be a third-party protest ticket. More likely, this baggage blocks his nomination.

I think you might be back projecting post Shoah and post MLK social attitudes into 1940?

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

I think you might be back projecting post Shoah and post MLK social attitudes into 1940?

The SS St Louis affair would damage Hull with Jews, an important Democrat constituency. Hull's southern heritage would damage him with black voters, who had only recently moved over from "the Party of Lincoln". In 1944, city "bosses" such as Kelly of Chicago and Flynn of the Bronx opposed James Byrnes as replacement for Wallace on the ticket because they feared he would alienate blacks.

 

[ric350]

If Roosevelt doesn’t run, is Lead Lease stillborn? I believe that in early ‘41 LL polled relatively well, but in this POD does LL never get that far?

ric350

 

[dsp19]

If Roosevelt doesn’t run, is Lead Lease stillborn? I believe that in early ‘41 LL polled relatively well, but in this POD does LL never get that far?

ric350

It depends on who wins the 1940 election, If it's Farley or Cordell Hull, we likely see Lend Lease. Willkie definitely gives it the go-ahead for Britain, bucking the Republican isolationists. Dewey might do a limited Lend Lease, much smaller than OTL. Taft won't do it; Vandenberg most likely won't do it