Election 2020 Think 1932

[judeling]

1932 campaign

Roosevelt's campaign for president was necessarily cautious. His opponent, President Herbert Hoover, was so unpopular that FDR's main strategy was not to commit any gaffes that might take the public's attention away from Hoover's inadequacies and the nation's troubles. FDR traveled around the country attacking Hoover and promising better days ahead, but often without referring to any specific programs or policies. Roosevelt was so genial—and his prescriptions for the country so bland—that some commentators questioned his capabilities and his grasp of the serious challenges confronting the United States.

People rightly see FDR are a progressive champion. But he did not run his campaign that way and it probably wasn't his base orientation. Circumstances led to the progressive gains.
It should also be noted that the New Deal was criticized from the left as not going nearly far enough.

[sandensea]

1. Cheeto: Like Herbert Hoover - but without the integrity or good intentions

[Polybius]

2. The 1932 election was much more like the 1992 election

Bush was Hover, Clinton was FDR. In 1932 conservatives felt Hover betrayed their idol Calvin Coolidge. In 1992 conservatives felt the same way about Bush compared to Ronald Reagan.

[judeling]

4. Bush was not Hoover

The active dislike was absent with Bush. 1992 was a generational shift. Aided by Bush not being Reagan enough.

[Polybius]

8. For some reason that I can't explain, Bush's approval rating dropped into the high 20's/early 30's

Don't get me wrong, he was terrible, but it certainly was a shock that his approval was that awful. Trump has never been at Bush's lowest point, and he's way worse.

Hover has a similar popularity problem. Like Bush, he was trusted at first, then tanked. Conservatives couldn't stand both by 1932 and 1992. It was my first election and I will never forget it.

[betsuni]

3. I just read this:

"The majority of those Americans who bothered to vote in 1932 declared themselves opposed to President Hoover. His opponent seemed like a pleasant man who had campaigned by making only the usual vague promises. Rumors circulated that he was crippled and some sort of an aristocrat, but anyone would be better than the pinched president whose cheerful assurances had become a joke.

"Yet Americans were happily surprised when they listened on their radio to Franklin Roosevelt's inaugural speech. He seemed different not only from Mr. Hoover but from all conventional politicians. His voice was strong, his language direct and clear, and he seemed to know what he was talking about. He declared that the basic values and institutions of the nation were intact, that America was still as vibrant as ever. ... This President absolutely committed to freedom, including free enterprise, was no closet ideologue dreaming of radical alternatives to the traditional American way. His 'ideology' consisted of his own imprecise and conventional values, which he held out as a model for the nation to follow. ... Determined to use government to help the needy and keep the nation steady, he stole the thunder from true believers on both the left and the right, who demanded more fundamental change than he could stomach.

"Frances Perkins, the Secretary of Labor and an old friend of the President, summed it up: 'Roosevelt took the status quo in our economic system as much for granted as his family.' His plan was to save capitalism from the stupidity and greed of its star players."

From "The Good Life"

[judeling]

5. Thanks I haven't read that.

But I am reminded that Social Security was for Widows and Orphans.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. FDR actually ran on cutting the deficit and ridiculed Hoover for it.

He was smart. He knew he had to win. Once he did, then he created the New Deal. But the New Deal was not part of his initial campaign.

[judeling]

7. Yes and He sold the New Deal as Moderate

After he closed the banks and with the mandate he had, he used the political capital to enact what he saw as stop gap temporary solutions.