I've been reading up on the 1932 DNC to research for a timeline I'm hoping to write at some point, and I was surprised by how close FDR's coalition came to fracturing during the voting. For instance, shortly before the third ballot, the Mississippi and Arkansas delegations seemed to be at risk of breaking away from FDR, a defection that most of his allies didn't think his campaign could survive. From what I've read, his support at the convention was actually quite fragile; James Farley believed that it could hold for at most, five ballots before fracturing. It seems like one of the biggest reasons for FDR's nomination was Al Smith refusing to withdraw after the third ballot, when FDR seemed to be losing momentum.
Smith being the unofficial leader of the anti-FDR forces was a big factor in keeping the southern and western delegations united behind Roosevelt, most accounts I've seen suggest that if Smith had withdrawn after the third ballot and attempted to unite the anti-FDR forces behind a compromise candidate, FDR's support would have collapsed relatively quickly. What if one of the FDR campaign's numerous brushes with death in Chicago had actually comes to pass. Say Smith's ego doesn't get the better of him and he realizes that withdrawing is the best way to stop Roosevelt's nomination. Or that the Mississippi delegation flips to former Secretary of War Newton D. Baker? Gov. Conner of Mississippi was on the verge of making the switch, it took a lot of last-minute cajoling from Sen. Pat Harrison to talk him out of it.
From what I've read the most likely compromise candidate was the aforementioned Newton Baker. But Baker isn't without his own flaws, for one, his record as a corporate lawyer would be offputting to a lot of progressives. More importantly, Baker was a committed internationalist and the most prominent supporter of American participation in the League of Nations (although he had walked back on this somewhat by 1932). This would have deeply alienated both Irish and German-Americans, but also the deeply isolationist western states. William Randolph Hearst in particular absolutely loathed Baker, the main reason he eventually got on board with FDR IOTL was fear that a prolonged deadlock could lead to a Baker nomination.
Would Baker have eventually been able to pull it out? My guess is yes, if for no other reason than to avoid a repeat of 1924. Despite Hearst's kicking and screaming, the Depression is still a thing, and Baker is elected the 32nd President of the United States. How does Baker's presidency fare? He had largely turned against the New Deal by 1934 or so (but not to the point of joining the American Liberty League) so I imagine he'd be more conservative than FDR on most domestic issues. Foreign policy is where I feel he'd differ most from FDR; he was an internationalist before it was cool and even if he can't get America into the League he'd still be determined to end isolationism ASAP. Maybe the London Economic Conference ends up succeeding, IDK. IMO Baker doesn't run for reelection in 1936, his health was starting to decline by then (he died in 1937) and never really wanted to be president anyway.
How would losing the nomination in 1932 impact FDR's political career? I highly doubt he just gives up on politics altogether: how close he came in '32 would probably be motivation enough to go for it again in 1936. OTOH, some of his allies may be reluctant to support him after his candidacy went up in smoke in 1932, so victory in 1936 isn't necessarily assured. In the event that he does get the nomination, how does this alt-Roosevelt presidency differ from OTL, other than just starting four years later?
Smith being the unofficial leader of the anti-FDR forces was a big factor in keeping the southern and western delegations united behind Roosevelt, most accounts I've seen suggest that if Smith had withdrawn after the third ballot and attempted to unite the anti-FDR forces behind a compromise candidate, FDR's support would have collapsed relatively quickly. What if one of the FDR campaign's numerous brushes with death in Chicago had actually comes to pass. Say Smith's ego doesn't get the better of him and he realizes that withdrawing is the best way to stop Roosevelt's nomination. Or that the Mississippi delegation flips to former Secretary of War Newton D. Baker? Gov. Conner of Mississippi was on the verge of making the switch, it took a lot of last-minute cajoling from Sen. Pat Harrison to talk him out of it.
From what I've read the most likely compromise candidate was the aforementioned Newton Baker. But Baker isn't without his own flaws, for one, his record as a corporate lawyer would be offputting to a lot of progressives. More importantly, Baker was a committed internationalist and the most prominent supporter of American participation in the League of Nations (although he had walked back on this somewhat by 1932). This would have deeply alienated both Irish and German-Americans, but also the deeply isolationist western states. William Randolph Hearst in particular absolutely loathed Baker, the main reason he eventually got on board with FDR IOTL was fear that a prolonged deadlock could lead to a Baker nomination.
Would Baker have eventually been able to pull it out? My guess is yes, if for no other reason than to avoid a repeat of 1924. Despite Hearst's kicking and screaming, the Depression is still a thing, and Baker is elected the 32nd President of the United States. How does Baker's presidency fare? He had largely turned against the New Deal by 1934 or so (but not to the point of joining the American Liberty League) so I imagine he'd be more conservative than FDR on most domestic issues. Foreign policy is where I feel he'd differ most from FDR; he was an internationalist before it was cool and even if he can't get America into the League he'd still be determined to end isolationism ASAP. Maybe the London Economic Conference ends up succeeding, IDK. IMO Baker doesn't run for reelection in 1936, his health was starting to decline by then (he died in 1937) and never really wanted to be president anyway.
How would losing the nomination in 1932 impact FDR's political career? I highly doubt he just gives up on politics altogether: how close he came in '32 would probably be motivation enough to go for it again in 1936. OTOH, some of his allies may be reluctant to support him after his candidacy went up in smoke in 1932, so victory in 1936 isn't necessarily assured. In the event that he does get the nomination, how does this alt-Roosevelt presidency differ from OTL, other than just starting four years later?