WI: Eisenhower didn't run in 1952 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 11:56:18 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 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: WI: Eisenhower didn't run in 1952  (Read 2299 times)
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,304
United States


« 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
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,304
United States


« Reply #1 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
Pages: [1]  
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 0.028 seconds with 13 queries.