|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2020, 02:11:03 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Where is my Freistaat Preußen avatar?, Apocrypha)
  Robert Taft vs. W. Averell Harriman 1952 with no Korean War
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Robert Taft vs. W. Averell Harriman 1952 with no Korean War  (Read 5090 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 24, 2010, 01:49:14 pm »

Everything else stays the same. For reference, unemployment was 2.8% and the inflation rate was 1.1% on election day 1952.

My map:



W. Averell Harriman-311 EV-50.57% PV
Robert Taft-220 EV-48.88 PV
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2010, 03:26:20 pm »

Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2010, 03:35:03 pm »


I seriously doubt Taft would win that kind of landslide with no Korean War and with a very good economy. You got to keep in mind that Truman had relatively decent approval ratings before the Korean War, and that was while the U.S. economy was in a recession in 1948-1949.
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,958
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2010, 03:46:44 pm »

Then what did happen with Korea?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2010, 03:50:46 pm »

Then what did happen with Korea?

Truman decides to send U.S. troops to occupy all of Korea instead of allowing Stalin to occupy the Northern part. Since Stalin did not want to fight another war at this moment (and due to the fact that the U.S. had nukes), Stalin decided to obey Truman's orders and did not send Soviet troops to North Korea. The U.S. decides to give the entire Korean peninsula indepedence in 1951 under the condition that U.S. troops shall be stationed there indefinitely.
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2010, 04:01:01 pm »



Robert Taft/ Douglas MacArthur (Republican): 345
Averell Harriman/ John Sparkman (Democratic): 186
Logged
CatoMinor
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,013
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2010, 04:02:05 pm »

Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2010, 04:02:32 pm »



Robert Taft/ Douglas MacArthur (Republican): 345
Averell Harriman/ John Sparkman (Democratic): 186

This map is way too generous to Taft in my opinion.
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2010, 04:10:48 pm »



Robert Taft/ Douglas MacArthur (Republican): 345
Averell Harriman/ John Sparkman (Democratic): 186

This map is way too generous to Taft in my opinion.

Then your opinion is wrong.
Logged
Cassius Dio
Mel
Rookie
**
Posts: 110
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2010, 05:05:59 pm »


Robert Traft/ Alfred Driscoll (Republican)  (337 EV)
Averell Harriman/ John Sparkman  (Democratic) (194 EV)
Logged
dwkulcsar
Rookie
**
Posts: 72
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2010, 06:31:46 pm »

I'd say Mario Cuomo's map works.
Logged
Cassius Dio
Mel
Rookie
**
Posts: 110
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2010, 07:49:16 pm »


His map is way to friendly to Harriman after 20 years of Democratic rule in the White House.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2010, 07:52:35 pm »


His map is way to friendly to Harriman after 20 years of Democratic rule in the White House.

Even though the Democrats controlled the White House for 20 years, the economy was in exceptionally great shape (unemployment was below 3%) and I doubt ordinary people would want to switch parties when their own lives are getting better and better.
Logged
Cassius Dio
Mel
Rookie
**
Posts: 110
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2010, 07:55:11 pm »


His map is way to friendly to Harriman after 20 years of Democratic rule in the White House.

Even though the Democrats controlled the White House for 20 years, the economy was in exceptionally great shape (unemployment was below 3%) and I doubt ordinary people would want to switch parties when their own lives are getting better and better.

Sorry, but I still can't see a Democratic victory in 1952.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2010, 07:57:58 pm »


His map is way to friendly to Harriman after 20 years of Democratic rule in the White House.

Even though the Democrats controlled the White House for 20 years, the economy was in exceptionally great shape (unemployment was below 3%) and I doubt ordinary people would want to switch parties when their own lives are getting better and better.

Sorry, but I still can't see a Democratic victory in 1952.

Well, try harder.
Logged
hcallega
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.10, S: -3.90

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2010, 08:04:54 pm »

The only reason why dynasties don't last is that generally the buisness cycle leads to an economy downturn every generation or so. A good example is Bush in 1992 despite doing pretty much everything else well (read my lips, it was the economy stupid!). If things were going well than there is no reason to believe that Averell wouldn't win. I mean why break the greatest era in American history?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2010, 08:08:24 pm »

The only reason why dynasties don't last is that generally the buisness cycle leads to an economy downturn every generation or so. A good example is Bush in 1992 despite doing pretty much everything else well (read my lips, it was the economy stupid!). If things were going well than there is no reason to believe that Averell wouldn't win. I mean why break the greatest era in American history?

Exactly, I totally agree with you. The main reason why Truman was so unpopular in 1952 is the Korean War. If it didn't occur (or if it would have ended sooner), Truman would have been much more popular in 1952. Also, in this scenario, Eisenhower (a popular war hero) doesn't run, and thus the Republicans have much more trouble appealing to moderate and liberal voters to vote for them when the economy is good (and when the Democrats are in power).
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2010, 08:12:25 pm »


lol

The Economy and Korea were not the only two issues for people going into voting booths in 1952, most were concerned about the so called "McCarthy Hunts" and the seeming inability of the Truman administration to root out communists in the Government. McCarthy was popular back then, and Truman was not. Whether or not McCarthy was right, Americans listened to him.

Another issue being Truman's constant conflict with Labor, which drove down Labor turnout in 1952 and 1956. Another issues was corruption, which was another mark against the Truman Government in the eyes of the public. Another fact being there was already 20 years of Democratic Rule, Americans wanted a change.

You need to understand that having a good economy does NOT always equal good election outcomes for the incumbent party.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2010, 08:14:49 pm »


lol

The Economy and Korea were not the only two issues for people going into voting booths in 1952, most were concerned about the so called "McCarthy Hunts" and the seeming inability of the Truman administration to root out communists in the Government. McCarthy was popular back then, and Truman was not. Whether or not McCarthy was right, Americans listened to him.

Another issue being Truman's constant conflict with Labor, which drove down Labor turnout in 1952 and 1956. Another issues was corruption, which was another mark against the Truman Government in the eyes of the public. Another fact being there was already 20 years of Democratic Rule, Americans wanted a change.

You need to understand that having a good economy does NOT always equal good election outcomes for the incumbent party.

I know Eisenhower severely disliked Taft. If he would have endorsed and actively campaigned for Harriman in this scenario, would that have been enough for Harriman to win (in your opinion)? I think that having a popular war hero campaign on your behalf would be a great asset.
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2010, 08:20:34 pm »

I don't believe Taft and Eisenhower would have a bad relation in this scenario. The Taft-Ike hate only came after Eisenhower cheated Taft out of dozens of Southern Delegates, and both men would probably have never had interacted at all if Ike didn't run for president.
Logged
rebeltarian
rebel_libertarian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 286


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2010, 01:10:32 pm »


I've got a narrow 272-259 EC win for Senator Robert Taft.  The key to the election is Taft's excellent campaign effort to break into the solid south and bring out conservative voters in east Tennessee and Virginia to push him over 270.


Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2010, 06:15:20 pm »


I've got a narrow 272-259 EC win for Senator Robert Taft.  The key to the election is Taft's excellent campaign effort to break into the solid south and bring out conservative voters in east Tennessee and Virginia to push him over 270.




OK would push Harriamn over the top.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines