Talk:1932 United States presidential election

message: 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)
thread_title:  William H. Harvey and James R. Cox candidacies 

message: 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)
thread_title: Winner/Runner-Up

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Poor Description of Election 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hoover home state 

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Crowds cheering in Roosevelt campaign 1933.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coolidge? 

message: What about Gerald Ford?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.102.58 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ford was never elected presidentJackattack1597 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Lyndon B. Johnson? He lost the primaries in 1968. Tuliodawidserafeimcabral (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah also what about Truman? He also lost the primaries (eye)rizz (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hoover was the last elected incumbent president to lose reelection until Jimmy Carter 48 years later."