1952: Robert Taft/Douglas MacArthur vs. Harry Truman/Averell Harriman

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Taft/Truman.

Discuss with maps.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Best case for Truman.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

I see this as a Reid vs. Angle type of battle where Truman wins because of Taft's "extremism." Truman would've been able to portray himself as being harder on communism, especially because Taft's isolationism would've been hard to sell in a general election. In short, Dewey defeats Truman.

Harry Truman/Averell Harriman: 48.6% PV, 292 EV
Robert Taft/Douglas MacArthur: 48.1% PV, 220 EV
Unpledged: 0.8% PV 19 EV

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

~20% approval ratings. Dude was toast.

[Mechaman]

~20% approval ratings. Dude was toast.

Pretty much this.
Harry Truman would've LOVED to have Harry Reid's approval ratings back in '52.

[CatoMinor]

[Kaine for Senate '18]

404 - 127

[Lincoln Republican]

Han, get real.

By 1952, Truman was so far under that a whole division of front end loaders would not have been able to dig him out.

His dismissal of General MacArthur
The corruption scandal at the IRS and Truman's slow response
His attempted seizure of the steel industry which was overturned by the Supreme Court
Loan scandal at the Reconstruction Finance Corporation
A tax fixing scandal tied into long standing associations between Truman and machine politics
The sluggish progress of the Korean War

By 1952, Truman was a walking train wreck.  Forget about it.  No way he wins.

Taft was a prominent and respected national figure in 1952.  He would have mopped the floor with Truman.

As pointed out by Dallasfan, Truman's approvals were 20% (22%).  

Why do you think Truman decided not to run in 1952?  Because he knew it was a lost cause.  That's why.

The Dallasfan map is about accurate, and as he said, the best case for Truman.  Meaning it could have been worse.  Yes indeed.

Though Taft would have had a short lived Presidency.  He died in July, 1953.  So in this scenario a General still becomes President in 1953, not Eisenhower, but MacArthur.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Taft's foreign policy was majorly discredited after WWII in the minds of the American electorate, especially with the looming fear of the Soviet Union. Truman's approval ratings were incredibly low, but Truman would campaign hard and would exploit anti-communist fears, which would be particularly effective given Taft's isolationism. Taft would have to fight charges that he'd be soft on communism. That being said, I don't see Truman doing any better than what I have on my map.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

In 1948, during the aforementioned "Dewey Defeats Truman" scenario, Truman's approvals were in the 40% range - and his election was still regarded as a "major upset" against a guy that barely campaigned, and when he did campaign, was bad at it. Truman's, in 1952, are about half. Not to mention he would have difficulty holding ground in the rust belt, and Taft, while a milquetoast campaigner, would have defeated Truman handily. He was not Angle in pants.

[Mechaman]

In 1948, during the aforementioned "Dewey Defeats Truman" scenario, Truman's approvals were in the 40% range - and his election was still regarded as a "major upset" against a guy that barely campaigned, and when he did campaign, was bad at it. Truman's, in 1952, are about half. Not to mention he would have difficulty holding ground in the rust belt, and Taft, while a milquetoast campaigner, would have defeated Truman handily. He was not Angle in pants.

Very true.
Not to mention that in this scenario Truman's VP candidate is William Averell Harriman, who while he wasn't Henry Wallace, was considerably to the LEFT of most Democrats.  I can't imagine having that kind of reputation would help the Democratic ticket at all in the South, hell a third party would probably run and win the South.
Taft would've been considered real conservative, but Harriman's liberalness would've probably helped cancel some of the disadvantage of Taft's conservatism.

[Mechaman]

~20% approval ratings. Dude was toast.

Pretty much this.
Harry Truman would've LOVED to have Harry Reid's approval ratings back in '52.

No, taft was too conservative...taft would led in the polls, but would have lost in the end.

Once again, 20% approval ratings versus conservative ideology.
Not to mention, like I did in the previous post, Harriman wouldn'tve done jack sh*t to help Truman.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

In 1948, during the aforementioned "Dewey Defeats Truman" scenario, Truman's approvals were in the 40% range - and his election was still regarded as a "major upset" against a guy that barely campaigned, and when he did campaign, was bad at it. Truman's, in 1952, are about half. Not to mention he would have difficulty holding ground in the rust belt, and Taft, while a milquetoast campaigner, would have defeated Truman handily. He was not Angle in pants.

Very true.
Not to mention that in this scenario Truman's VP candidate is William Averell Harriman, who while he wasn't Henry Wallace, was considerably to the LEFT of most Democrats.  I can't imagine having that kind of reputation would help the Democratic ticket at all in the South, hell a third party would probably run and win the South.
Taft would've been considered real conservative, but Harriman's liberalness would've probably helped cancel some of the disadvantage of Taft's conservatism.

This would be analogous to Bush (well, if we assume he were eligible for a 3rd term) squaring off against Feingold in 2008. Feingold would win easily.

[Mechaman]

In 1948, during the aforementioned "Dewey Defeats Truman" scenario, Truman's approvals were in the 40% range - and his election was still regarded as a "major upset" against a guy that barely campaigned, and when he did campaign, was bad at it. Truman's, in 1952, are about half. Not to mention he would have difficulty holding ground in the rust belt, and Taft, while a milquetoast campaigner, would have defeated Truman handily. He was not Angle in pants.

Very true.
Not to mention that in this scenario Truman's VP candidate is William Averell Harriman, who while he wasn't Henry Wallace, was considerably to the LEFT of most Democrats.  I can't imagine having that kind of reputation would help the Democratic ticket at all in the South, hell a third party would probably run and win the South.
Taft would've been considered real conservative, but Harriman's liberalness would've probably helped cancel some of the disadvantage of Taft's conservatism.

This would be analogous to Bush (well, if we assume he were eligible for a 3rd term) squaring off against Feingold in 2008. Feingold would win easily.

There is a good reason why the Democrats wanted Barkley for VP in 1948 instead of say Claude Pepper (who wasn't northern but was pretty damn liberal).
Can anyone honestly tell me that Democrats would've been anywhere as competitive in the South in 1948 if they nominated a northern pro-Civil Rights Democrat as the VP pick?  I mean really guys?
Now apply that to 1952 and you would get a bloodbath.

[Mechaman]

^^^^^
This is probably what would've happened.  While I can't see the GOP winning that many southern states (they are still the Party of Lincoln to many in the South during this time after all) I doubt that Southern Democrats would hold their noses for a Truman/Harriman ticket.  So third party dominance in the South resulting in the Republicans making their biggest gains in the South since 1928 and the Democrats being massacred in all but a few states.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

^^^^^
This is probably what would've happened.  While I can't see the GOP winning that many southern states (they are still the Party of Lincoln to many in the South during this time after all) I doubt that Southern Democrats would hold their noses for a Truman/Harriman ticket.  So third party dominance in the South resulting in the Republicans making their biggest gains in the South since 1928 and the Democrats being massacred in all but a few states.

Didn't Hoover make some back-door concessions to the Dixiecrats in 1928...?

I could see Taft doing the same.

[Mechaman]

^^^^^
This is probably what would've happened.  While I can't see the GOP winning that many southern states (they are still the Party of Lincoln to many in the South during this time after all) I doubt that Southern Democrats would hold their noses for a Truman/Harriman ticket.  So third party dominance in the South resulting in the Republicans making their biggest gains in the South since 1928 and the Democrats being massacred in all but a few states.

Didn't Hoover make some back-door concessions to the Dixiecrats in 1928...?

I could see Taft doing the same.

For some reason I don't see Taft firing every black leader of the Republican Party to appease white southern protestants.  The fact that the Democratic ticket consisted of the President who supported the Civil Rights platform plus a member of the left (who I believe was endorsed by Tammany Hall) from the Not-So-Southern state of New York would be enough to help the Republicans secure victories in the South.  Hell, Eisenhower managed to win Florida and Texas IRL without making "concessions" to Dixiecrats.  Sure, one could argue the fact that Eisenhower didn't mention Civil Rights that often as evidence of "concessions", but on the whole he didn't go out of his way to appease Southern Whites besides being ultra famous.
Also keep in mind that in 1928 the Democrats nominated Alfred Smith, an Irish (okay he was also English, German, and Italian but he publicly identified as Irish) Catholic as their presidential candidate.  Due to the irrational fears of Southerners the GOP suddenly found itself in a position to make massive gains in the South on the condition that they fire abunch of the blacks from their party in the South.  If the Democrats had nominated the "usual suspect" (ie White Anglo Saxon Protestant) to the ticket in 1928 the so-called "Southern Strategy" of the Republican Party would've failed.  Why?  Because Southerners in 1928 would've still seen the GOP as the pro heavy tariff and more anti-segregation party (ie "the Party of Lincoln").  However, with the nomination of Smith the Republicans were more in a position to make a drastic shift in the voting demographic by portraying the Democratic Party as the servants of Rome and not the party of anti-elitism.  The fear of a president, both Irish (alcoholic) and Catholic (servant of the Pope, not America) scared the people of the South (who were mostly protestant and (at the time) pro-Prohibition).  All of the perfect elements, of fear, of racial and religious bigotry......of time honored American traditions and values....all worked to guarantee the biggest Republican electoral vote victory since Lincoln in 1864.
Needless to say, the Republicans wouldn't need to resort to such tactics in 1952 to assure a landslide victory.  The unpopularity of Truman, as well as the betrayal of the "Southern Agenda" by the National Democratic Party would've all been enough to guarantee a victory in the South that might rival that of Hoover's victory.  Taft wouldn't have to resort to appealing to the politics of fear like Hoover did, except maybe the fear of future failure underneath Truman.  By 1952 Republicans would have nothing to gain by abandoning blacks, a strategy used to gain WASP votes in fear of an Irish Catholic becoming president.
Taft, of course, wasn't anywhere as popular as Ike, however the fact that his opponents are giving Southern WASP very little reason to come to the voting booths and vote Democrat would help the Republicans even in the Deep South.  Also, in states like Tennessee there are areas that have historically been Republican (Sevier county comes to mind) that would make the contest more winnable for Republicans in the event of a third party candidacy.