CT, I've posed this question to a few of the historian types on this forum, and I'll send it your way, for I'm verily confused as to what was actually happening in the '32 campaign in relation to the launch of the New Deal.
My understanding is that FDR ran as a conservative Democrat, which meant his platform was fiscally conservative and socially liberal (never a good mix, of course). His was a cut-spending, low-deficits, anti-tariff, pro-beer, bankers-suck platform. Sure, they called for regulation of the finance industry, and employment programs, but there was none of the radicalism of the first hundred days.
The way I see it, those 100 days would not have been anything had FDR taken office in January instead of March. Indeed, the New Deal was an unfortunate consequence of the slow adoption of the 20th amendment. Hoover's lame duck end-of-term went on too long. To me, that was what launched the New Deal, and not FDR's election promises/plank. Had FDR taken office in January, he would not have had those awful do-nothing months of Dec-Jan-Feb on which to blame for his newfound, unpromised, unvoted radicalism.
Just fishing for thoughts here.
It is important to reiterate---I cannot find that FDR stood for ANYTHING. Like Clinton, he there was nothing inside the box, except the acquisition of power. He was a consummate liar. Had he had a GOP congress that was fiscally conservative, like Clinton he would have supported balanced budgets. As for the regulation and reform aspects, all of those laws were based on highly faulty premises (that stock market speculation had caused the depression; that bank securities "affiliates" had fueled the boom; that low wages were to blame, and so on). Since he completely misunderstood the problem he inexorably was going to get the answers wrong.