WI: Eisenhower didn't run in 1952
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:04:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  WI: Eisenhower didn't run in 1952
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: WI: Eisenhower didn't run in 1952  (Read 2275 times)
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,390
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 17, 2018, 04:36:09 PM »

What if Eisenhower refused to run for President? Would Taft have been nominated or would someone else (perhaps Nixon?) taken over the anti-Taft role?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2018, 05:55:00 PM »

Dude, Nixon was a 41-years old freshman Senator. He was already an unconventional VP pick and there's no way he could be a contended in 1952.
Logged
Dr. MB
MB
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,813
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2018, 08:01:44 PM »

Bob Taft would've been nominated, likely won, and, obviously died shortly into his term, so whoever his VP pick was would've mattered a lot.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2018, 08:05:06 PM »

Dude, Nixon was a 41-years old freshman Senator. He was already an unconventional VP pick and there's no way he could be a contended in 1952.

Not even. He was 39 when sworn in as VP.

Dewey or Henry Cabot Lodge are the most obvious “liberal internationalist” picks, though perhaps I underestimate Warren.
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,268
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2018, 08:30:50 PM »

MacArthur?
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2018, 10:24:52 PM »

Bob Taft would've been nominated, likely won, and, obviously died shortly into his term, so whoever his VP pick was would've mattered a lot.

This. Though Taft's win would be very close.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,074
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2018, 12:05:55 AM »

A Warren/Lodge ticket dis-Lodges Democrats

Dude, Nixon was a 41-years old freshman Senator. He was already an unconventional VP pick and there's no way he could be a contended in 1952.

Bryan was contender for less in all ways, also Kefauver was running as a freshie Senator too.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2018, 08:47:21 AM »
« Edited: March 18, 2018, 09:23:20 AM by Cath »

A Warren/Lodge ticket dis-Lodges Democrats

Dude, Nixon was a 41-years old freshman Senator. He was already an unconventional VP pick and there's no way he could be a contended in 1952.

Bryan was contender for less in all ways, also Kefauver was running as a freshie Senator too.

Nixon's strengths as a Vice Presidential pick in 1952 would have been his weaknesses as the leader of any ticket. With youth, you got inexperience; with anti-communism, you got attachment to the McCarthies of the world; with his attack dog status, you got "unpresidential".

[EDIT: It should also be stated that the Republican Party in 1952 was in a profoundly different, and probably incomparable, position than the Democrats found themselves in 1896. Beyond ideology, demography, and recent winning record (or lackthereof), the country as a whole was in a very different spot.]

In any case, I had forgotten MacArthur. With no Eisenhower, he might have been The One. Without his presence, I see Taft taking the nomination over Warren, Dewey, or Lodge. As I recall, he may have had some deal with MacArthur to select him for Vice President. As for those afraid of what a MacArthur presidency might look like, recall that aside from his vainglorious qualities and saber-rattling language, he actually did run a country for some years, and in an interesting and innovative, if flawed, fashion. Of course, we cannot take how he would run the reconstruction of a former enemy state as an example for how he would run America, but I think it speaks to a certain level of "enlightenment"--if we could still call it that--which can be seen in his desire for universal suffrage, an industrial base, recognition of labor, etc. And as for foreign policy, we had Dulles as Secretary of State for over six years and somehow avoided nuclear catastrophe. If we eliminate MacArthur from contention entirely, either as President or Vice President, I can see Taft being forced to select someone like Lodge--relatively well-known, fresh enough in that he has never been on a Presidential ticket before, obviously moderate, service in the war, relatively young, and very well-positioned to balance Taft overall in terms of demeanor, appearance, region, and stance on the issues. Dewey and Warren, in my mind the two other obvious possibilities from the moderate wing, had been used before.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,390
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2018, 10:13:31 PM »

If Taft was nominated and won, would that result in a more dovish Republican Party?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2018, 06:50:07 AM »
« Edited: March 19, 2018, 09:14:29 AM by Kalwejt »

Dude, Nixon was a 41-years old freshman Senator. He was already an unconventional VP pick and there's no way he could be a contended in 1952.

Not even. He was 39 when sworn in as VP.

Dewey or Henry Cabot Lodge are the most obvious “liberal internationalist” picks, though perhaps I underestimate Warren.

For some reason I thought he was born in 1911 not 1913.

As of Lodge, when he pressed Eisenhower to run, the general asked him "why won't you run? You have experience, recognition?", to which Lodge replied "because there's no way I could win a presidential election", adding his desire to seek reelection as Senator. Ironically, due to being busy with helping Ike, he screwed his own bid.

Dewey's biggest problem was, of course, losing two elections in the row, including one (1948) was was thought to be a sure winner. Even though, Ike still considered asking Dewey to run again, with his full support, had he decided to retire in 1956.

I guess it leaves Warren, who would have to aspire to something more than "California favorite son" candidate. The "moderate-internationalist" bench was not that big, as it would seem.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2018, 09:16:52 AM »

A Warren/Lodge ticket dis-Lodges Democrats

Dude, Nixon was a 41-years old freshman Senator. He was already an unconventional VP pick and there's no way he could be a contended in 1952.

Bryan was contender for less in all ways, also Kefauver was running as a freshie Senator too.

Nixon's strengths as a Vice Presidential pick in 1952 would have been his weaknesses as the leader of any ticket. With youth, you got inexperience; with anti-communism, you got attachment to the McCarthies of the world; with his attack dog status, you got "unpresidential".

Preceisly. Nixon needed to do some growing as "number two" before becoming number one. 52 was just way too early for him.

As of Kefauver, true, but he already served twice as long as Nixon by 52.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2018, 04:45:21 AM »

I think a Lodge/MacArthur or Warren/Bricker ticket carries through.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2018, 09:14:30 PM »

I think Taft gets the nomination and then loses to Stevenson; my recollection on the subject is the Republican establishment prefered Taft but gave Eisenhower the nomination because they knew he was electable.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2018, 03:31:56 PM »

MacArthur, Taft, Morse, and Warren are the main candidates for President, and Theodore McKeldin eventually becomes a compromise nominee, making Sherman Adams his running mate.
Logged
David T
Rookie
**
Posts: 52
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2018, 08:01:56 PM »

If even as popular a moderate Republican as the war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower could only narrowly defeat Taft for the presidential nomination in OTL, there is no doubt that Taft would prevail over any other candidate for the nomination.

The election in November would be much closer than in OTL--Taft was obviously much less popular personally than Ike, and in addition there was a widespread perception that he wanted  to do away with the entire New Deal and return the US to isolationism (though this was actually an oversimplified view of both Taft's domestic and foreign policy views).  Nevertheless, given the widespread dissatisfaction with the Democrats (especially over the seemingly endless war in Korea) I think he would probably narrowly defeat Stevenson.  (One consequence of the likely narrowness of Taft's victory is that he wouldn't have anything like Ike's coattails--so some Republicans narrowly elected in OTL, like Barry Goldwater in Arizona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_1952 might be defeated.)

Obviously, in view of the cancer that was to be fatal to Taft in 1953, his vice-presidential choice is important.  IMO the most likely prospect is William Knowland-- a veteran, relatively young, from the key state of California, a conservative ideologically compatible with Taft, but also acceptable  to moderates because he was a Warren supporter and (despite his "Asia First" reputation) a supporter of the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty.  Indeed, the leading biography of Knowland, alluding to this possibility, is entitled One Step from the White House. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4k4005jq&brand=ucpress
Logged
David T
Rookie
**
Posts: 52
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2018, 09:20:36 PM »

I might add that Eisenhower almost didn't run in OTL.  He had a conference with Taft, and indicated a willingness not to be a candidate if Taft could convince him he was in favor of collective security.  Taft failed to do so to Ike's satisfaction.
Logged
mianfei
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 322
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2020, 10:06:21 AM »

If Taft was nominated and won, would that result in a more dovish Republican Party?
Most likely, since he was such a strong isolationist. Then, Truman was unpopular enough that Taft could have won as easily as Eisenhower did, possibly more so in the electoral vote even if the Democrats held a few northeastern states.

Even if more dovish, this GOP might have been just as or more hostile to non-whites than it actually has become since the Reagan Era. As James Löwen showed in his landmark 2005 book Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism, most of the country outside the plantation (“traditional” as Löwen terms it) South was so hostile to blacks that they were not allowed to live there. Löwen also shows that the isolationist Midwest and Plains States were in many ways more racist than the interventionist plantation South.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2021, 12:11:58 PM »

1952

Governor Adlai Stevenson (D-IL) / Senator John Sparkman (D-AL)
Senator Robert Taft (R-OH) / Fmr. General Douglas MacArthur (R-NY)* ✓
*Assuming MacArthur still moves to the Waldorf Towers and makes New York his home state

1956

President Douglas MacArthur (R-NY) / Vice President Henry Lodge (R-MA)
Fmr. Governor Adlai Stevenson (D-IL) / Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN) ✓
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 13 queries.