Nationally, let's consider Burton K. Wheeler as a dark horse choice, and then your prime choice, Newton D. Baker as the first two to evaluate as alternate Presidents substiuting for, because they present such a contrast in foreign policy.
Wheeler is all good with strict neutrality legislation and what we traditionally call 'isolationism'. The interesting thing is, in his first term, he is not confronted directly by too many things that directly deal with taking on, or avoiding trouble with the Axis. Sino-Japanese situation had a bit of a calming pause. All Hitler did was take power and Rhineland (more France's concern). The main other things were the Italo-Abyssinian war and Spanish Civil War.
Wheeler is happy of course to play the dove on all these.
I think in the Americas, as both a progressive, and an isolationist, FDR's Good Neighbor policy towards Latin America will be *exactly* his style, reducing interventions.
I imagine though he'd have no problem recognizing the USSR as trade and diplomatic thing, not a strategic thing, without having personal ideological objections.
Concrete questions would include how far does he take isolationism? Does he use the Depression emergency as an excuse to cut Navy and Army funding further? (Unlike FDR, he was never an official in that department, and never represented a state with shipyards). Does he support the Ludlow Amendment on a referendum requirement for wars?
Does a desire to avoid overseas entanglements in Europe, and even the Far East, like in China-Japan issues, cause him to work with Congress to legislate a faster track for the independence of the Philippines?
Even if he is full bore isolationist and antimilitarist, nothing should happen to specifically US interests in this time through 1936 that would appear to discredit the approach, so he should be good for reelection in 1936. His isolationism would be more consequential in his second term, when the emerging Axis states are getting bolder. I am not going to play it all out in detail here though.
I picture Wheeler largely doing the New Deal, but with more of a rural populist, farmer/miner angle and less of an urbanist angle.
....so much for Burton K. Wheeler.
Now Newton Baker - he was an internationalist. He of course would be constrained by Congressional and public opinion though, and the priority of domestic emergencies. He was somewhat progressive, but it would be interesting to see if his reform packages somehow incorporate any of his Georgist ideas.
Perhaps his internationalism makes him more committed in his first term than FDR was to multilateral solutions to financial and trade problems, if anything helpful can be done on that basis.
He will chafe at over-restrictive neutrality laws and the Ludlow Amendment campaign. He would be at least as supportive of armed forces spending as FDR, if not more. He's not guaranteed to get out of meddling in Latin America, but may, like FDR, and even late Hoover, think micromanaging the region with Banana Wars is counterproductive.
Even if merchants of death hearings are held and strict neutrality laws are passed over his objections or veto, it is pretty much still within his executive powers to embargo Japan for aggression in China (or breakage of Naval treaties) if he wishes, without reference to Congress. He could be willing to do this, say at the start of his term, while there is still brushfire fighting going on in Manchuria. The main thing likely to prevent it from happening is that in 1933 a Japanese-Chinese truce put fighting, especially in visible cities that got news coverage, largely on ice until 1937, the rest of his first term. But if Baker does an embargo early on, maybe there's no truce and Chinese resistance actually stiffens and increases in 1933 and 1934.
If he doesn't embargo Japan, he could embargo Italy, over Abyssinia, but that's less likely.
Baker could also be more resistant to isolationist pressures over the Spanish Civil War. Selling arms to the Spanish government wouldn't have technically gone against the early 1930s neutrality laws [new laws would need to be invented for that case].
However, an issue by 1936 would be his health. He may not, especially if he appraises his health honestly, run for reelection, so a lot depends on who is nominated as his successor. If brings himself to run and get reelected through sheer will and it conceals or masks his health problems, he'll probably die early into his second term, so his Veep choice will be important.
...so much for Newton Baker...
As for William Gibbs McAdoo, I guess I would just see him policy-wise as an FDR who can walk.
You have to wonder if a more conservative approach to the Depression makes people feel there isn't a recovery -- does the '32 winner also become a one-term president?
Not likely.
Barely. It is *possible* but not *likely* and streches plausibility. The Democrat in 1932, conservative, not conservative, whatever he is, has to not only be seen as ineffective or unresponsive on policy, but also needs to be simply unlucky as well. Fact is FDR took office as the business cycle was bottoming out. He helped people and businesses, but without active external shocks or policy sabotage, market forces were likely to recover some lost ground and enable the first post-Hoover President to use 'at least I'm not Hoover' to beat his Republican challenger.
Republicans have a lot, a lot of stink to overcome, as you acknowledge:
Interestingly, the Republican Party was so broken after the losses in '30, '32, and '34 that it endorsed some New Deal programs, etc, and Hoover did not have a serious path to the nomination given his vehement opposition.
And this?
I wonder if Hoover has more of a chance if a conservative Democrat fails to show any progress on the economic front?
Hoover is the stinkiest of them all in the public mind. Total economic stagnation won't wash it off. If '36 starts looking like a *good* year for the GOP, nominating Hoover would violate the 'don't screw it up' principle.
