Could Roosevelt have won in 1912? And what would be the effects?

In 1912 Ted Roosevelt run for the progressive party for the presidency, but he lost since this splitted the republican vote

my two questions are:

1- Can Ted Roosevelt win in 1912 for the progressive party?

2- If he did win, could the progressive party replace the republican party?

3- How would his third term looks like?
 
I don't know that the Progressives would outright replace the Republicans. The latter probably would have just become the default conservative party a little early. And maybe the Democrats would have become a more moderate, centrist party sitting in between the other two?
 
As I posted here a few months ago:

***
It is really hard to see how TR could win the presidency as a third party candidate. (I could certainly see him winning if he got the GOP nomination.) He just did not get enough support from Democrats. Remember, Bryan's showing in 1908 was considered very poor, yet he only lost to Taft by 51.6-43.0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1908 This means that all a Democrat had to do was hold on to *most* of the core Democratic vote to win, with the normal GOP vote divided between Taft and TR. (For that matter, the Democrats had won control of the House against a *united* Republican Party in 1910!) In fact, I think TR's OTL showing, though far behind Wilson in both popular and electoral votes, was better than it would have been had he not been shot:

"By October, the Bull Moose party showed signs of following the traditional route of American third parties, of proving less potent in November than in August. Three weeks before the election, however, the party received a figurative and almost literal shot in the arm, when a would-be assassin wounded its candidate during a Milwaukee speech. Roosevelt, with his unfailing sense of the dramatic, finished the speech before going off for a two-week stay in the hospital. In an election already decided, his gallantry doubtless reaped a large sympathy vote. 'This shooting will help TR directly by stopping his talking,' assessed Brandeis. 'There seemed to be very strong evidence of an ebbing tide before.' In a probably exaggerated estimate, one Democrat suggesting that the assailant, 'instead of murdering the intrepid Teddy...shot about a million votes into him.'" David Sarasohn, *The Party of Reform: Democrats in the Progressive Era*, p. 148. See my discussion at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/ZuaG52rwI8c/56xafvBi20QJ

The only thing I can think of that could elect TR would be some terrible last-minute scandal uncovered regarding Wilson or whoever the Democrats nominated. But if TR won because of that, his victory would probably be considered a fluke, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress would see little need to change their party affiliations. (Presumably there would be more than the 13 congressmen elected as Progressives in OTL, but probably not very many more. Observers at the time noted that the Progressive vote had "an 'inverted pyramid aspect.' It is largest at the top and 'tapers down very fast.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=FJ5FAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA997 This is not *totally* fair--two Progressive candidates for governor, Albert J. Beveridge in Indiana and Oscar Straus in New York, won more votes than TR in their states--but in general the Progressives did lag behind TR in down-ballot races.)

***

I might have added that it is in interesting to compare that with the early Republican party: they had already elected a Speaker of the House *before* their first presidential nomination in 1856.
 
It is impossible? Or "just" very hard? What if Woodrow Wilson dies in a accident or something?

Death or scandal hitting the Wilson campaign - or the Taft campaign, thus preventing the vote splitting that occurred in real life - does seem like the only way Roosevelt could have won.
 
It is impossible? Or "just" very hard? What if Woodrow Wilson dies in a accident or something?

My guess is that if Wilson died of an accident the Democratic National Committee would name Marshall as a last-minute replacement (the way the RNC named Butler as a replacement for Vice-President Sherman after the latter's death) and since Marshall was satisfactory for the core Democratic vote, he would probably still win, though not by Wilson's OTL margin.
 

Wallet

Banned
Taft was in horrible shape during his presidency. If he dies, a lot of his votes will go to Roosevelt.
 
Taft was in horrible shape during his presidency. If he dies, a lot of his votes will go to Roosevelt.

Don't bank on it.

The results in California, where Taft was not on the ballot, are very revealing. Democratic HoR candidates received about 178,000 votes, but Wilson polled 283,000, in a statistical dead heat with TR. Those additional 105,000 may not all have been Taft supporters, but it is hard to see what else the majority of them could have been.

Anyway, wouldn't the Republican regulars just name another candidate, possibly Sec of State Philander Knox?
 
I don't think it's possible for TR to win as the Progressive candidate. In fact, no third party candidate has ever won (I don't think you might be able to stretch a point and say that Lincoln in 1860 was) to my knowledge. Patch up the TR / Taft rift or somehow prevent it and you have a different story: then I think that a more-or-less united GOP would be sufficient to put TR over the top. IOTL, there was a rapprochement but it was years after the election. Perhaps a solicitous enquiry after Nellie Taft's post-stroke health might do the trick in this timeline.

Then, with TR at the top of the ticket and someone acceptable to conservatives as his running mate (Hadley of Missouri?), I'd venture a guess that TR wins, albeit not by a landslide. You'd probably have one of the more intellectual campaigns, given that both men had a reasonable grasp of the issues and a facility with words. Then the stage is set for TR's action in the face of the events of Sarajevo...
 
I don't think it's possible for TR to win as the Progressive candidate. In fact, no third party candidate has ever won (I don't think you might be able to stretch a point and say that Lincoln in 1860 was) to my knowledge.

"The Republicans were a third party in 1860" is not just a stretch, it's nonsense. They had already shown themselves to be the main party of opposition of the Democrats in 1856, when Fremont easily came ahead of Fillmore. In fact, one can question whether the Republicans were *ever* really a third party, because by the time they were fully formed as a national party (1856), the Whigs were pretty much dead and it was only a question of which party would replace them as the leading opponents of the Democrats--the Republicans or the Americans (Know Nothings)--a question, which, as I indicated, the 1856 election pretty decisively answered.
 

trajen777

Banned
So was Andrew Jackson who founded the Democrat party -- any way the best bet is he is allowed into the Reb convention and is nominated -- most likely he would have been. Or he comes to an agreement with Taft -- Tart really wanted to be a supreme court Justice not pres.
 
Top