Nixon in 1952?

[Kevin]

what if Nixon had run for President in 1952 and wins the party's nomination afrer Eiesenhower decides not to run. As Vice President lets say that Nixon chooses liberal Republican Senator Leverett Saltonstall of MA. So what happens?

[Kevin]

Stevenson only does marginly better.

[Joe Republic]

'Nixon' really isn't the hardest name to spell.  'Eisenhower' is, so I can understand that one.

[Kevin]

Thats my mistake, sorry I was tired when I typed this.

[kashifsakhan]

I think Stevenson would have done better, but Nixon would have won.

Eisenhower was a popular figure from his involvement in WW2, where as Nixon wasnt that well known.

However, the American public would still vote in Nixon, making him the first GOP president since 1932.

[johnpressman]

Nixon in 1952?  No way a 39 year old with barely 2 years in the Senate would have been nominated, not with the mind set of this nation in 1952 and with the Korean War ongoing to boot.  The ONLY way Nixon could have been the GOP candidate in 1952 would be if Eisenhower renounced the nomination and urged the convention to nominate Nixon in his place.  Should that long-shot scenario come about, Stevenson would have won.  The USA in 1952 would not vote for such a young and inexperienced nominee.

A better question would be; if Eisenhower died or declined to run in 1956, would Nixon have gotten the GOP nomination and then beaten Adlai? 

[Kevin]

Nixon in 1952?  No way a 39 year old with barely 2 years in the Senate would have been nominated, not with the mind set of this nation in 1952 and with the Korean War ongoing to boot.  The ONLY way Nixon could have been the GOP candidate in 1952 would be if Eisenhower renounced the nomination and urged the convention to nominate Nixon in his place.  Should that long-shot scenario come about, Stevenson would have won.  The USA in 1952 would not vote for such a young and inexperienced nominee.

A better question would be; if Eisenhower died or declined to run in 1956, would Nixon have gotten the GOP nomination and then beaten Adlai? 

Keep in mind the country as a whole was pretty sick of the Democrats in 1952. It is indeed possilbe the Nixon could have won given how shwerd he was.   

[johnpressman]

No, I have to disagree with you.  In 1952, Richard Nixon was 39 years old and the junior senator from California with only two years in the Senate.  There is almost no possible scenario that a reasonable person could forsee him getting the GOP nomination that year.

The USA in 1952 was a MUCH more conservative nation than it is today.  The Republican Party would have surely given the 1952 nomination to Senator Robert Taft of Ohio "Mr. Republican" in his last attempt at the Presidency after three previous failures on his part.  It was only the sheer charisma of Eisenhower, a national hero, that wrested the nomination from Taft after a close and bitter floor fight.

As for the general election, with the "Solid South" still in evidence in 1952 and the US population concentrated in the industrial northeast, it would have taken a strong, charismatic GOP candidate like Ike to buck those odds.  Even with the country tired of 20 years of Democratic rule, NO Way would it elect a 39 year old junior senator with only 4 years in the House and 2 in the Senate.  Stevenson wins! (and probably would have beaten the lackluster Taft as well).

You are confusing the image of Nixon as a shrewd master politican with the young, inexperienced, somewhat callow Nixon of 1952.  While he did pull of the "Checkers Speech" that year, he cried when Ike told him "you're my boy".   Remember, even "Tricky Dick" himself LOST two elections in a row that drove him out of national politics.  His comeback in 1968 was only possible due to front-runner George Romneys's "brainwashing" gaffe and the chaotic nature of that year that paved the way for the election of a "law and order" candidate.

[Wakie]

I think you would have gotten a much stronger field if Eisenhower had not run and I doubt seriously Nixon would have won the nom.

[NewFederalist]

I think you would have gotten a much stronger field if Eisenhower had not run and I doubt seriously Nixon would have won the nom.

I agree. Robert Taft may well have been nominated.

[Lincoln Republican]

With Eisenhower out of the running, Robert Taft becomes the GOP nominee, and he crushes the intellectual Stevenson in the election.

By 1952, the nation was looking for a change, and was just asking the Republicans to nominate a credible candidate for President to vote for.  Taft would have been credible indeed, and wins a resounding victory.

President Taft, however, dies a mere six months after his inauguration.  He dies in July of 1953.

Taft had persuaded Governor Thomas Dewey of New York to become the Vice Presidential nominee in 1952.  Dewey reluctantly accepts, having failed himself twice previously to be elected President, in 1944 and in 1948.  Dewey, however, in July of 1953, realizes his lifelong ambition of becoming President of the United States, albeit in a more round about way than what he had planned on.

Dewey, with Senator John Bricker of Ohio as the VP candidate, goes on to win a landslide victory in 1956 over Democrats Adlai Stevenson and Estes Kefauver.

Dewey goes down in history as one of the great Presidents, personally negotiating an end to the Korean War.

[MaC]

Nixon in 1952?  No way a 39 year old with barely 2 years in the Senate would have been nominated, not with the mind set of this nation in 1952 and with the Korean War ongoing to boot.   

Haha, exactly my thoughts when I saw this thread.

[johnpressman]

Wakie, what do you mean by "With Eisenhower out of the running, you would have had a much stronger field"?  Eisenhower was a can't-miss candidate for President, he was wooed by the Democrats and the Republicans as early as 1948.

If Ike had not run in 1952, Taft was the obvious GOP choice.  After two failures by Dewey and the Eastern Establishment moderate wing of the party, many felt  that "Mr. Republican" Taft had earned his party's nomination.  Sen. Everett Dirksen pretty much stated so when he pointed at Dewey as he addressed the convention and said:  "We followed you before and you led us down the path of defeat".

As for who would Taft pick for VP.  with the aforementioned, I cannot see any scenario where he would pick Dewey and why  he would accept.  I realize stranger things have happened (LBJ as VP in 1960) but remember, these are Republicans and the year is 1952.   The idea of the GOP picking for VP the nominee who lost the two previous elections, the last one where Dewey snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory,  is a non-starter.  Besides, with the bland, humorless Taft as the nominee, why pick the man who botched the 1948 campaign to help him win??

Now, who would Taft pick for VP in 1952???  Why non other than Richard Nixon!!!  A young, vibrant campaigner from the swing state of California who has appeal to both wings of the GOP.  Taft himself sent out VP feelers to Nixon in 1952 but Dick saw Ike as the sure-fire winner and worked hard to get him nominated, much to Gov. Earl Warren's displeasure as he planned to be California's favorite son in case of a Ike-Taft deadlock.

Would Taft-Nixon beat Stevenson-Sparkman??  A close one.  Despite the country's displeasure after 20 years of Democratic rule, with the "Solid South" and the US population concentrated in the Northeastern states, the GOP has a hard time overcoming the traditonal Democratic coalition.  War hero Eisenhower represented 8 years of the GOP out of the 34 years between 1932 and 1968.  Also, Taft-Hartley had made Robert Taft the enemy of organized labor in this country.   A tough one to call, but yes, if this had come about, Richard Nixon could have been President in 1953!   

[Wakie]

Wakie, what do you mean by "With Eisenhower out of the running, you would have had a much stronger field"?  Eisenhower was a can't-miss candidate for President, he was wooed by the Democrats and the Republicans as early as 1948.

I'm saying that because Ike was such a strong candidate there were few who wanted to run against him.  If Ike declines to run then more Republicans (and probably more Democrats) run for Pres.

Sure, we can arrange a scenario wherein Nixon ends up as President.  But odds are he wouldn't be as paranoid as he was in '68, nor would he be as experienced and skillful as he was in '68.  Without Ike's political capitol Nixon could have very well been a terrible disaster.

[johnpressman]

Wakie, I believe that if Ike had not run for President in 1952, Robert Taft would have surely been the GOP nominee.  Taft had tried and failed three times for the nomination, losing to Eastern Establishment candidates (Wilkie, Dewey and Dewey).  These three went on to defeat in the general election after telling the rank and file GOP that "Taft can't win".

1952 was to be his year.  Eisenhower even approached Taft and offered to refrain from entering the race if Taft supported NATO!  As for the Democrats, I cannont see other potential candidiates jumping into the race for the nomination after discerning that Ike wasn't running.  History (and politics) repeatedly shows us that ANYTHING can happen.  The nomination of one of the two major political parties for POTUS is a prize that is always coveted.  If you want the job, the only reason not to run is if  you  determine that you have no chance at winning the nomination.  Look how  the Republican Presidential Nomination was contested in 1936, 1940, 1944, 1964 and 1996.  Ditto the Democratic nomination in 1952, 1956, 1972 and 1984.

As for Nixon, if Ike did not run in 1956, would he have run for President that year and won?  What if Ike didn't endorse him?  What if Ike died from his 1955 heart attack and Nixon suceeded to the Presidency?  Would he have run and won in 1956?  and 1960?

[Lincoln Republican]

VP for Taft in '52?

How about Taft breaks new ground, is far ahead of his time, and picks Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine?

[Wakie]

I actually don't think Taft would have selected Nixon as his VP.  Eisenhower only went with him because he thought he had to.  Taft and Nixon would had dramatic differences on foreign policy.  From what I've read Taft was a non-interventionalist vs Nixon who was firmly on board with NATO and stopping Communism at every turn.

One would think Taft would select a running mate with views closer to his own.

[johnpressman]

I hear you Wakie, but Nixon was considered closer to the conservative wing of the GOP than the more moderate group represented by Dewey, Warren and Ike.  Ike picked him as a concession to the Taftites who were bitter at their man going to defeat.  They knew it was Taft's last chance to claim the nomination than many believed was rightfully his.

Nixon, with his support of Nato, did have a foot in both camps.  Interestingly, in those times, the moderates supported a strong Western European alliance including West Germany as a stopgap to the Soviet Union, while preaching moderation in the Pacific.  The conservatives wanted no part of Nato and an armed West Germany as an ally, but wanted to "unleash" Chaing Kai-Shek agianst Communist China!!

Nixon made a pragmatic decision that "Taft can't win" and worked behind the scenes for Ike, even after Taft sent feelers to Nixon about the VP slot.
After the Whittaker Chambers "Pumpkin Papers' investigation, Nixon was tabbed as a future GOP star.  It would make sense for Taft to pick a young, dynamic and tireless campaigner from California to balance the ticket with an old, bland Ohioan at the top.  Taft/Nixon in 1952!!!  But seriously, I see a close race that could have gone either way.  It was tough for the GOP to overcome the New Deal Coalition in those days which consisted of the industrial Northeast with the "Solid South".