Talk:1932 United States presidential election

Electoral picture peculiarity

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

William H. Harvey and James R. Cox candidacies

Today someone edited the results and stated "Liberty Party merged with the Jobless party and Harvey ran as an independent."

No source was given for this information.

The New York Times reported on 8/17/1932 that while the two parties discussed a merger, neither Cox nor Harvey was willing to step aside as the presidential nominee, and that no merger took place. The two parties held separate conventions in St. Louis.

Harvey appeared on the ballot in nine states as the Liberty Party nominee and received certified write-in votes in Michigan. His nine states were all west of the Mississippi River: AR, CA, ID, MT, NM, ND, SD, TX, and WA.

James R. Cox appeared on the ballot in Pennsylvania as the Jobless Party nominee and received certified write-in votes in Virginia.

The results of the election (see either Presidential Elections Since 1789 [1981 version, p. 125] or http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=1949 ) suggest that the information should be restored as it was. Chronicler3 01:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Winner/Runner-Up

I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

How is the chronology of the deal between John Nance Garner and Franklin Roosevelt? Did Garner first decide to withdraw, and then James Farley and Sam Rayburn put together a deal for Garner to be vice president, as this article suggest: http://campaigningforhistory.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/fdrs-rough-road-to-nomination/

"The convention then adjourned until 8 p.m. That afternoon House Speaker Garner, who was in third place, decided to withdraw. 'I think its time to break this thing up,' he told his supporters. Farley and Sam Rayburn, Garner’s manager, put together a deal for the speaker to be nominated as the vice-presidential candidate, and when California was called on the fourth ballot, William McAdoo announced that California and Texas were switching to Roosevelt. Delegation after delegation followed suit, and F.D.R. was nominated 945 to 190 ½ — with Al Smith staying in the fight to the bitter end."

Or did they first offer Garner to be vice president, and then he withdrew, as our article suggests, as well as http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_John_Garner.htm

"To break the impasse, Roosevelt campaign manager James Farley called Garner's campaign manager, Representative Sam Rayburn, to a meeting in Mississippi Senator Pat Harrison's hotel room. They agreed to ask Garner to transfer his delegates to Roosevelt in return for the vice-presidential nomination. Garner reluctantly agreed in order to avoid the type of deadlocked convention that in 1924 had produced the unsatisfying compromise candidacy of John W. Davis and his losing campaign. Garner consoled himself with the thought that the apparently less demanding office 'might be a nice way for me to taper off my career.'"

This is a quite significant difference. Vints (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Poor Description of Election

"In contrast, Hoover was widely blamed for the Great Depression; for more than two years, Hoover had been issuing statements that the worst was over, only to have the economy make further downturns. Along with the anti-sentiment from the deaths of veterans in the Bonus Army incident his chances of a second term were slim to none. Hoover's attempts to campaign in public were a disaster, as he often had objects (especially rotten fruit and vegetables) thrown at him or his vehicle as he rode through city streets. In his addresses, Hoover attacked Roosevelt as a dangerous radical who would only make the Depression worse by raising taxes and increasing the federal debt to pay for expensive welfare and social-relief programs. However, with unemployment at 23.6%,[1][2] Hoover's criticisms of the New Deal plan did nothing more than further lower his popularity with the public and it was said that "Even a vaguely talented dog-catcher could have been elected president against the Republicans...". [3] [3]"

There are several things inaccurate about this paragraph, and the lack of citations is a big problem. When I first read this paragraph I assumed that citations 1 & 2 were on several sentences beforehand, but in fact they merely present the unemployment rate. The idea that Roosevelt attacked Hoover for not supporting expensive welfare and social-relief programs is a myth. The fact that no citation could be found to back this up is what you'd expect. In reality, Hoover was spending like mad, actually increasing massive government intervention and spending as quickly, or even faster than FDR ever would as President. Throughout the 1932 general election, FDR actually criticized Hoover for his over-spending and over-reach of government, and promised to get rid of many of Hoover's programs. It was only after being elected that FDR changed his ideals and fought for larger government. And it was only after World War II that this myth about Hoover being a free-marketer really got going.

One thing that paragraph gets right is that the Bonus Army was what really devastated Hoover's chances and his legacy. He was so unpopular because of that incident that no Americans wanted to hear anything from him or the Republican Party for many years. FDR and the Democrats could re-write history, and it is still paying off to this day, as the New Deal is still falsely remembered as the great intervention that saved the country from the horrors of free market capitalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.165.109 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoover home state

Hoover was from Iowa. Why is its home state California then? The user that made this change in dec08 made some other vandalisms elsewhere.--Dans (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoover was born in Iowa, but his legal residence was California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.177.11 (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Crowds cheering in Roosevelt campaign 1933.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Crowds cheering in Roosevelt campaign 1933.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Point of view?

Call me crazy but:

"President Herbert Hoover's popularity was falling as voters felt he was worsening the depression through his excessive spending and protectionism. Franklin D. Roosevelt criticized Hoover's excessive spending and his protectionist policies; in fact, his running mate John Nance Garner accused Hoover of "leading the country down the path of socialism.""

"After making an airplane trip to the Democratic convention, Roosevelt accepted the nomination in person. In this history-making speech, Roosevelt promised to "abolish useless offices" and "eliminate unnecessary functions of Government," stating that "Government—Federal and State and local—costs too much," and even promised to help facilitate the "restoration of the trade of the world.""

Sounds like this is suffering from a bit of selection bias.. Comment removed by Author RandySpears (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now read Roosevelts acceptance speech of '32. Here's a summary of his declared agenda: eliminating unecessary elements of government, ending prohibition, regulating the securities market, public works to stimulate the economy, regulating and shortening the working day and working week, reforestation and land reform, tariffs on agricultural products, central planning of farming output, refinancing farm mortgages, removing tariffs on industrial products, the human suffering under the Great Depression is the responsibility of the federal government - rather than the states; a responsibility for the public welfare.

Comment removed by Author: Assumed bad faith & uncivil RandySpears (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RandySpears is not crazy but he is very rude when he writes about a "dishonest hack job". Wiki editors are not allowed to interpret the primary sources by themselves, they are supposed to report what the RS say about them. It was FDR's running mate, John Nance Garner, who accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism" FDR for his part criticized business for expanding, saying corporate profits "were eventually invested in unnecessary industrial plants and equipment". The government should be "made solvent" again said FDR. And yes, Reagan copied FDR lines like "We must eliminate unnecessary functions of government" Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've "interpreted" nothing; I did a summary of FDR's acceptance speech, going through it paragraph by paragraph. Here it is, read it for yourself and point out where I've failed to accurately describe the content. My beef is cherry-picking in order to forward a fringe view representation of what FDR's 1932 platform was. The article, as it stands, suggests FDR's platform was lowering taxes, ending tariffs and reducing government waste, in other words pretty much what we today would call a libertarian, free-market platform. That is diametrically opposed to the common understanding of FDR's platform. I'll dig up sources if you require them, but for now I'd like to hear you make a case for why ending tariffs, lower taxes and slim-lined government is an accurate way to describe his platform in general and his acceptance speech in particular

RandySpears (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

yes we do require reliable secondary sources--we don't assume that one editor's personal reading reflects the "common understanding". Start will Leuchtenburg's classic (FDR and the New Deal) p 10 which says FDR "assailed the Hoover administration because it was 'committed to the idea that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible.'" (here the Tea Party echoes FDR). As for tariffs, Leuchtenburg says FDR "struck out at the disastrous high-tariff policies of the Republicans". (p 10--sounds like Tea Party) FDR proposed a far-reaching farm program that FDR said would not "cost the government any money" and it would not keep the government in business like Hoover's program (p11). Leuchtenburg says, FDR's speech "would increase aid to the unemployed but he would slash federal spending." --he promised to cut federal spending 25% (p 11). Quite an acceptance speech! "I accuse the present Administration of being the greatest spending Administration in peacetime in all our history" -- is that the Tea Party on Obama? no it's FDR on Hoover in his Sioux City campaign speech in Sept 1932. [p 11] . To reiterate, all this comes from a standard RS Rjensen (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I'm not disputing that FDR attacked Hoover on Smooth-Hawley and deficits. I'm saying that the article as it stands fails to achieve NPOV because of cherry picking and promoting a subset of FDR's campaign messages (tariffs and spending). The problem with the article is best described [here]. E.g. "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV.".

So while FDR attacked Hoover on spending and tariffs he also promoted aggressive government action to fight the depression, including securities regulation, public works, wages and hours legislation, home mortgage guarantees, farm relief, etc.

Here are a few excerpts from Jean Edward Smith's FDR:

Roosevelt's speech to the legislature on August 28, 1931, marked the genesis of the New Deal. The term was not used: that would come in FDR's acceptance speech the following year. But the idea that government had the definite responsibility - a "social duty" - to use the resources of the state to prevent distress and to promote the general welfare was first suggested at the time.

Roosevelts final speech before the convention was delivered at Oglethorpe University in Georgia on May 22, 1932. "Must the country remain hungry while raw materials stand unused and factories idle?" he asked. "The country needs, the country demands, bold, persistent experimentation. Take a method and try it. If it fails admit it and try another. But above all, try something."

Roosevelt [in his acceptance speech] served notice to the economic conservatives in the party who wanted to stand pat: "I warn those nominal Democrats who squint at the future with their faces turned to the past, and who feel no responsibility to the demands of the new time, that they are out of step with their Party." […] "Ours must be a party of liberal thought, of planned action, of enlightened international outlook, and the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens." He reached out to progressives across the political spectrum: "Here and now I invite those nominal Republicans who find that their conscience cannot be squared with the groping and failure of their party leaders to join hands with us." FDR promised aggressive government action to tackle the root causes of the Depression and provide effective distress relief. He recited a litany of programs long overdue: securities regulation, public works, tariff reduction, wages and hours legislation, home mortgage guarantees, farm relief, and the repeal of Prohibition. To those listening, both at home and in Chicago Stadium, Roosevelt's voice appeared to gain resonance as he approached his conclusion: "On the farms, in the large metropolitan areas, in the smaller cities and in the villages, millions of our citizens cherish the hope that their old standards of living and thought have not gone forever. Those millions cannot and shall not hope in vain." And then that remarkable close: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a New Deal for the American people."

(Note that Smith's summary of FDR's acceptance speech is virtually identical to mine above.)

Further, while it may be the case that John Nance Garner accused Hoover of "leading the country down the path of socialism" (though I would like to see some the context of that quote), it's just as true that Hoover accused FDR of and the Democratic party of being socialists:

As Hoover would have it, Roosevelt was the precursor of revolution. Speaking in Saint Paul three days before the election, an exhausted Hoover equated the Democratic party with "the same philosophy of government which has poisoned all of Europe… the fumes of the witch's cauldron which boiled in Russia."

RandySpears (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Two points here: RandySpear is seriously wrong in alleging the article has a minority POV based on a Tea Party viewpoint; Spear was very rude and mistaken to say the article suffers from "selection bias.. Is this supposed to be US history according to the Tea Party?". The article follows Leuchtenburg's classic account. Smith provides generalities--he is a generalist (he writes on 1800 to 1950) not a New Deal specialist like Leuchtenburg. 2) the VP's rhetoric in the campaign belongs in the article (of course it should be attributed to Garner). Rjensen (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This sentence (from the second paragraph) "The Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt criticized Hoover's excessive spending and his protectionist policies." is either sourced to a 1982 Time's essay by Friedrich, Gorey, Mehrtens Galvin, or else editors original research. It is not sourced to Leuchtenburg.

In the first paragraph of the Campaign section we have another cherry picked sentence: "In this history-making speech, Roosevelt promised to 'abolish useless offices' and 'eliminate unnecessary functions of Government,' stating that 'Government—Federal and State and local—costs too much,' and even promised to help facilitate the 'restoration of the trade of the world.'". This is sourced directly to Roosevelt's acceptance speech my summary of which was rejected as original research (but which we found Smith describes in much the same way). In any case, that sentence is not sourced to Leuchtenburg, either.

Thusly, it is fundamentally imaterial whether Leuchtenburg is a specialist and Smith merely a generalist, since the offending sentences are not sourced to Leuchtenburg, but to a) a Time's article written by three journalists one of which has a degree in history, and b) Roosevelts acceptance speech.

On the subject of the Garner quote, that one is unambiguously sourced to the mentioned Time essay, and since you seem to reject mere generalists from consideration as sourcing I'm sure you will volunteer to delete it from the article, seeing how it is sourced to a bunch of journalists? I would not be that harsh, since i guess Time magazine is mainstream news reporting. However, I would argue that it is absolutely unfit to serve prominently as one of two sentences summarizing FDR's campaign in the lead section. See guidelines here, specifically: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". As it stands it gives a short quote fragment of Garner's Undue Weight to the point where the implication is that it represents the main thrust of FDR and Garner's public case against Hoover.

Cheers, RandySpears (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Randy rejects the statement "The Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt criticized Hoover's excessive spending and his protectionist policies." He missed this quote: "I accuse the present Administration of being the greatest spending Administration in peacetime in all our history" [FDR Sioux City campaign speech in Sept 1932 quoted Leuchtenburg p 11]. I think the basic problem is that Randy misunderstands FDR's coalition--it included a lot of anti-spenders ("Bourbon Democrats") like Garner himself (and many southern Democrats, as well as Morgenthau & FDR's budget director Lewis Douglas. see Zelizer, "The Forgotten Legacy of the New Deal: Fiscal Conservatism and the Roosevelt Administration, 1933-1938" Presidential Studies Quarterly, June 2000). So FDR and Garner etc repeatedly attacked Hoover's spending. Leuchtenburg picks up the nuances and contradictions (but Smith misses most of them and just paraphrases FDR.) Rjensen (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. My problem is exactly that the article as of now does not accurately reflect the "nuances and contradictions" of FDR's campaign. Leuchtenburg is irrelevant to the language we're discussing, because Leuchtenburg is not presently the source of the status quo you seem to be defending. Time Magazine and FDR's acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention are the sources.

I propose the following edits:

In the lead: "The Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt criticized Hoover's excessive spending and his protectionist policies." => "The Democratic candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt ran on a platform that included public works programs, new regulations, removing tariffs and decreasing spending".

In the Campaign section: "In this history-making speech, Roosevelt promised to 'abolish useless offices' and 'eliminate unnecessary functions of Government,' stating that 'Government—Federal and State and local—costs too much,' and even promised to help facilitate the 'restoration of the trade of the world.'" => "In this history-making speech, Roosevelt proposed eliminating unecessary elements of government, ending prohibition, regulating the securities market, public works to stimulate the economy, regulating and shortening the working day and working week, reforestation and land reform, tariffs on agricultural products, central planning of farming output, refinancing farm mortgages, removing tariffs on industrial products and argued that the human suffering under the Great Depression is the responsibility of the federal government - rather than the states.". As noted, the sentence - as of now - is sourced to FDR's speech, not Leuchtenburg. I'm proposing a different sentence that in my (and Smith's) opinion more accurately reflect the content of the source we're already using.

I also propose we move the Garner quote to the Campaign section, and we need to add context that clarifies to what extent Garner and FDR accused Hoover of driving the country towards socialism. Was it on one occasion? Was it widely reported? We should also make clear that accusations of socialism went both ways.

RandySpears (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No I think we have a misunderstanding of election campaigns especially 1932. FDR was promising hope, and above all he was denouncing Hoover. Indeed Hoover became the #1 target of Democrats for decades. FDR did have a long laundry list that kept all the factions of his party happy, but in fact he had no definite plans at all until march 1933, and then he moved in directions he hardly mentioned (such as NRA, FERA, CWA, closing banks, going off gold standard). The emphasis should be on FDR's attacks, as it now stands. And yes, Leuchtenburg is cited. Rjensen (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Leuchtenburg is not the source of the language we're discussing. You're of course free to suggest new language that is sourced to Leuchtenburg, but he is irrelevant until you do so.

It is my understanding then that you flat out reject my first proposed edit appealing to your opinion that the present language is appropriate. Let's leave that aside for now. What about my other two proposed edits: a) changing the description of FDR's acceptance speech, and b) moving the Garner quote to the Campaign section and adding context?

RandySpears (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So the situation as I understand it is that we do not have consensus on my first proposed edit. We'll have to find a way forward there but I'll leave that aside for now. I'm going to wait another 24 hours giving everyone some time to weigh in on my other two proposed edits, and if I don't hear anything I'm going to go ahead and make them. In addition, I'd like to delete this sentence (in the Campaign section): "In his addresses, Hoover attacked Governor Roosevelt as a capitalist president who would only make the Depression worse by decreasing taxes, reducing government intervention in the economy, promoting "trade [with] the world," and cutting "Government—Federal and State and local." This sentence is sourced to FDR's acceptance speech, which doesn't support it. Awaiting your feedback...

RandySpears (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[outdent] the problem is that proposed changes are based on RandySpears private views of what was important--that is the wrong way to approach it. He got interested in the first place because it all sounbded too Tea Partyish. (Indeed, the Tea Party did adopt some of FDR's 1932 ideas)--that is, motivated by POV partisanship in 2012 to re-read the past. I suggest editors would be on more solid ground if they first read the RS to find out what historians say was important in 1932. He seems to say he is relying primarily on his own reading of the primary sources supported by one popular book (by Jean Smith) rather than the many advanced studies that are listed here (and under the Hoover, New Deal and FDR articles]]. Rjensen (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Am I to understand it that you are objecting to all my suggested edits? It's good to have a yes or no answer. What is your suggestion - keeping in mind the various issues I called to your attention? E.g. is the Garner quote important enough to be in the lead section? Why? Can we find that importance documented somewhere? Further, in the Campaign section: why are we only telling the readers about the parts of Roosevelt's acceptance speech where he talks about government spending and tariffs? Why are we not mentioning him proposing public works programs, shortening the working week, etc? Why are we mentioning government spending and tariffs when we're not even mentioning him pledging a "New Deal", which was of some importance I believe? Can you offer some specific thoughts on why this is the best way to describe the speech? I offered you a secondary source - Smith - for the speech. I think it would be useful if you offered another secondary source, if you don't feel Smith is sufficient.. RandySpears (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition: you seem to be implying, again, that must read Leuchtenburg. I assume you're referring to Leuchtenburg as the reliable source you're talking about. But Leuchtenburg is NOT the source for any of the sentences I've suggested changing. Am I correct then in guessing that what you're saying is that those sentences are written in "the spirit" of Leuchtenburg, following his lead? Then what you're saying is that Leuchtenburg is a hidden source for these parts of the text. But that's not, I believe, the correct way to go about things. Then we should add Leuchtenburg as a source for these sentences. Is that what you're suggesting? RandySpears (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could look at Donald A. Ritchie's overview of scholarship of the 1932 campaign in A Companion to Franklin D. Roosevelt as a starting point? Ritchie gives a good summary of the full body of work, covering Leuchtenburg and many others. It's also available online from Google Books. Have a look and tell me if you think that might be a way forward. RandySpears (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

yes I agree Ritchie would be a good base to work from. p 176 of Companion notes that the 1932 campaign included both conservative and liberal themes. The tariff was an old Dem warhorse--good for attacking Hoover/Hawley Smoot, but not important after FDR was elected. Note p 79 (FDR's speeches as evasion, says Peel & Gosnell). "disconnect" between 1932 rhetoric & 1933 New Deal (Lindley). "contradictory" (Tugwell, Moley) ; frenzy over repeal of prohibition (p 85); Hearst as key figure (p 85); FDR firmly believed in balanced budget (p 86); Maney on FDR's cautious appeals to every group ( 87); FDR as juggler --balls from many viewpoints (p 90). I agree with Kennedy who says FDR won be default and downplays all the rhetoric (p 87). Rjensen (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Great!

I agree that common observations include Hearst as key figure, appeals to every group; holding the coalition together; end of prohibition. On those we agree. But I do not find much support for FDR campaigning mainly on cutting spending, lowering tariffs and fighting socialism. The big picture I'm getting is rather of FDR (which you noted) targeting different audiences at different times - to hold his coalition together and attract disillusioned republicans - but also pitching the broad outlines of the policies he would implement in office; albeit in general terms. E.g.:

Peel, Donnelly 32: "described Hoover as representing outmoded individualism while Roosevelt embodied the spirit of collectivism" (Companion 78). Gosnell: "agreed that Roosevelt's speeches had not been specific, although he believed that they at least indicated that the candidate's willingness to take an experimental approach to the problem facing the government." (Companion 79) Moley: "Over the next several years, Moley drifted to the right. […] Proud of the many campaign speeches that he drafted, Moley insisted that they did forecast the main themes of the New Deal, except that people had missed these points because Roosevelt had shrouded them in generalities." (Companion 80) Tugwell: "Like Moley, Tugwell felt sure that the speeches had set Roosevelt well on the way to shaping the policies that he implemented as president."

But, indeed (still Tugwell): "He regretted, however […] particularly the one [speech] that Roosevelt delivered in Pittsburgh that October, in which he promised to balance the budget and restrain government spending. Bernard Baruch and Hugh Johnson had drafted that speech to assure nervous business leaders of Roosevelt's fiscal responsibility." (Companion, 80) Note "the one [speech]", indicating it wasn't the central theme but a targeted message to one constituency: business elites.

Lindley's 'disconnect' between rhetoric and policies: "The disconnect between Roosevelt's campaign rhetoric and the policies that he later implemented was also the theme of Ernest Lindsey's account […] He noted that Roosevelt had avoided the term 'revolution' during the campaign-other than to use the phrase 'revolution through the ballot box'-and had promised nothing revolutionary or utopian. […] Yet as soon Roosevelt took office, no other word than revolution fit the swift and fundamental change his programs wrought." (Companion, 79-80) Note the "disconnect" being between avoiding characterizing his policies as "revolutionairy" while they de facto turned out to be (in Lindley's opinion).

Finally, Ritchie's own cliffsnotes takeaway on 1932: "At stops across the nation, [Roosevelt] avoided local disputes and picked and chose his themes from the conflicting advice he was getting from the planners, trust-busters, and budget balancers in his entourage. He tried out different approaches before different audiences. He made his priorities clear, but not the details of his programs, and he amply demonstrated the political juggling skills that he would employ as president." (Companion, 90)

Attacks on Hoover as a Socialist is mentioned by no-one, indicating that if it did in fact occur it was not central to the campaign. Neither are attacks by Hoover on Roosevelt as a "capitalist" mentioned by anyone. To the contrary! Moley: "Moley concluded that Herbert Hoover had best perceived the boldness of the plans Roosevelt was proposing, which Hoover had denounced as dangerously radical." (Companion, 80) Alsop: "Roosevelt also had to dodge Hoover's charges of being a left-wing extremist." (Companion, 86)

My suggestion is to nudge the language about Roosevelt pitching austerity and Hoover attacking capitalism in the direction of Ritchie's summary on p90; remove Garner and Hoover attacks; if anything then Hoover attacking FDR as a left-wing radical (which is my takeaway from Companion).

RandySpears (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misreading what happened. FDR made manhy local speeches to local groups. However when he wanted to reach out to a NATIONAL group (like big business executives), he used one national speech (as Pittsburgh). Counting how many times a topic that come up in the local speeches misses the point. Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction is mind-bogglingly lengthy. I'm going to condense it and movie salient information to the body of the article where appropriate. Myownworst (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Coolidge?

Did former President Calvin Collidge really run for the republican nomination? Did he oppose President Hoover? I have never heard about such an attempt. Are there any sources which confirm this? Or have there only been some delegates at the convention who voted for him? --Jerchel (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Hoover was the last elected incumbent president to lose reelection until Jimmy Carter 48 years later."

What about Gerald Ford? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.102.58 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ford was never elected presidentJackattack1597 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What about Lyndon B. Johnson? He lost the primaries in 1968. Tuliodawidserafeimcabral (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah also what about Truman? He also lost the primaries (eye)rizz (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

LBJ and Truman didn't lose reelection they were never the candidate so they did not lose the election Pikachubob3 (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

We should probably change it to last elected incumbent presidential candidate then, because as it is right now it's false (eye)rizz (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I would use nominee instead of candidate, as a candidate is anyone who runs for president. For example in 2016 Bernie was a candidate while Clinton was the Nominee Pikachubob3 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)