Democrats hold on to presidency post-Truman?

Strategos' Risk

The Democratic Party losing the White House was inevitable, FDR had been president for an unparalleled long time, and Truman was there too. And it reminds me of how in Britain that after the war the Tories lost the peace to Labour, seems like the public doesn't like changing horses mid-war, but once the conflict is over they're quick to embrace a new party.

But it also seems like Adlai Stevenson was just a big old uninspiring dud. He got creamed by Eisenhower.

So, could the Democrats have nominated someone more popular in 1952 to give it more of a fighting chance? Possibly Eisenhower also doesn't go into politics? Was Adlai a two-time sacrificial lamb against the general? What if he had been up against Thomas Dewey instead? Then we'd have two two-timer no-winners against each other.
 

Gar48

A couple of PODS may help;
1) No Korean War or the war ends before the 1952 election. This would probably help Truman and the democrats' popularity

2) Robert Taft gets the republican nomination. Besides his isolationism, voters may be turned off by his opposition to the New Deal

I don't think who the Democrats chose in the election of 1952 really mattered, as the victory of Eisenhower in 1952 was mostly based on his reputation and external factors
 

Strategos' Risk

I forgot that if the Korean War (and the Red Scare) had gone better, Truman would've been re-nominated and ran in 1952. I was kind of hoping to see a three president continuation (FDR, Truman, Stevenson or someone else), but I guess that's what would've happened, unless Eisenhower doesn't run and the GOP really fouls up, leading to Stevenson narrowly beats their nominee in 1952.
 

Sabin

Strategos' Risk said:
The Democratic Party losing the White House was inevitable, FDR had been president for an unparalleled long time, and Truman was there too. And it reminds me of how in Britain that after the war the Tories lost the peace to Labour, seems like the public doesn't like changing horses mid-war, but once the conflict is over they're quick to embrace a new party.

But it also seems like Adlai Stevenson was just a big old uninspiring dud. He got creamed by Eisenhower.

So, could the Democrats have nominated someone more popular in 1952 to give it more of a fighting chance? Possibly Eisenhower also doesn't go into politics? Was Adlai a two-time sacrificial lamb against the general? What if he had been up against Thomas Dewey instead? Then we'd have two two-timer no-winners against each other.
Click to expand...
I'd like to push back against only one aspect of this narrative and that is the notion that Adlai Stevenson is a big old dud:

In 1948, Harry Truman got 24 million votes and Thomas Dewey got 22 million (and both Thurmond and Wallace got around 1 million). In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower got 34 million votes and Adlai Stevenson got 27 million. That's an extraordinary leap in voter participation and I don't think that's just a referendum on the choice between Dewey and Truman. I think that's a testament to the choice between Eisenhower and Stevenson. Voter participation leapt 10%.

But there are a few ways for Democrats to win. It's worth noting that it's not inconceivable. Their showing in the 1950 midterm was improved from their showing in the 1946 one.

Just have Harry Truman run for reelection, the Dems line up behind him (no Kefauver challenge), and Dwight Eisenhower opt out of running. Most likely that means it's Truman vs. Taft. According to Allan Lichtman, that would turn three keys towards the Democrats who were (-8) going into 1952: Nomination Contest, Incumbent President, and Charismatic Opponent. Boom, according to Lichmtna, the Democrats gets four more years.

Let's say Harry Truman doesn't run. Just have Dwight Eisenhower stay out. It becomes a race between Adlai Stevenson and Robert Taft. I'm inclined to say just have them debate. Television or radio.
 

Strategos' Risk

Stevenson vs. Taft would be interesting, I get the feeling it would go very scholarly and ideologically dry.

Still wondering how Stevenson vs. Dewey would go.

Good bringing up the Lichtman keys.
 

Sabin

Just a follow up: if Adlai Stevenson wins in 1952, it’s entirely conceivable that if the Democrats win again in 1956. The GOP barely won both Houses in 1952. With a less galvanizing figure at the top of the ticket (Bob Taft), Democrats will probably keep both until at least 1954. No idea what policies Stevenson would push for as the days of the New Deal legislation was twenty years prior but economic management would have continued to be sound.

What I find most interesting though is that for all the speculation on Adlai Stevenson's perceived weakness as a candidate, we don't really know how he will govern. We don't know how liberal or conservative he would be. There's a world where he pushes for sensible legislation and uses both Houses of Congress to get it achieved. There's also a world where he disappoints a lot of liberals and governs as a moderate pursuing consensus. One thing that I do think we can project about Adlai Stevenson's administration: it would be cautious.

The biggest thing we don't know about Adlai Stevenson is what becomes of his rhetoric in a decade of Cold War escalation. We think of Adlai Stevenson as a very high-minded figure and Dwight Eisenhower as a realist. It's worth noting that perception of Eisenhower following the 1950s was not the case but his personal popularity was quite high. Adlai Stevenson will not have similarly teflon favorables. Does Adlai Stevenson have it in him to grow into the role and the world or not?
 
Last edited:

Strategos' Risk

That is absolutely insane if Stevenson serves two terms. The country would be talking about a permanent Democratic dynasty.

I also wonder if this would torpedo JFK's ascendancy since the country would be so tired of Democrats. Or even lead to party splits/restructuring.
 

David T

Strategos' Risk said:
The Democratic Party losing the White House was inevitable, FDR had been president for an unparalleled long time, and Truman was there too. And it reminds me of how in Britain that after the war the Tories lost the peace to Labour, seems like the public doesn't like changing horses mid-war, but once the conflict is over they're quick to embrace a new party.

But it also seems like Adlai Stevenson was just a big old uninspiring dud. He got creamed by Eisenhower.

So, could the Democrats have nominated someone more popular in 1952 to give it more of a fighting chance? Possibly Eisenhower also doesn't go into politics? Was Adlai a two-time sacrificial lamb against the general? What if he had been up against Thomas Dewey instead? Then we'd have two two-timer no-winners against each other.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to think that any other Democrat would have done better than Stevenson against the overwhelmingly popular Ike with an electorate sick and tired of the Korean War, scandals in the Truman administration (actually rather minor ones but blown up into the "mess in Washington") and concerns (exaggerated but not without some factual basis) over domestic Communism and espionage. I even doubt that he or any other Democrat could have defeated Taft, though it would have been much closer. (There is no chance at all of the GOP nominating Dewey for a third time. Bryan to be sure was nominated three times but there were many Democrats who, it was said, "would rather lose with Bryan than win with anyone else" and there was no siimilar group of Dewey loyalists.)

Far from being "uninspring" Stevenson was easily the best Democratic orator of his time. I know that some people have argued that his wit and eloquence actually worked against him, but even Richard Hodstdter in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life rejected that idea: "the notion that Stevenson was repudiated by the public because of his reputation for wit and intellect will not bear analysis, and the implications of his defeat on this count have been vastly exaggerated. In 1952, he was hopelessly overmatched. It was a year in which any appealing Republican could have beaten any Democrat, and Eisenhower was more than appealing... In retrospect, however, there seems no reason to believe that Stevenson's style and wit and integrity were anything but assets in his campaign, and that if he had not won a reputation for himself on these counts his defeat would have been still more complete.The notion that the greater part of the public was totally immune to the value of his qualities will not bear even a casual examination. If his personal qualities had been so unattractive as some admirers and detractors alike believed, it is hard to understand how he could have won the governorship of Illinois in 1948 by the largest plurality in the state's history, or why the Democratic convention should have drafted him four years later, in spite of his well-publicized reluctance to be nominated, after the merest brief exposure to his eloquent welcoming speech. (It was the first draft since Hughes's in 1916, and perhaps the only draft of a thoroughly reluctant candidate in our political history.) " https://archive.org/details/antiintellectual000187mbp/page/n239/mode/2up
 
Last edited:

dsp19

The only possiblities of this happening:

1. Ike runs as a Democrat
2. A PoD before or during 1952 where the US wins the Korean War (MacArthur doesn't threaten to cross the Yalu River or nuke Manchuria)
 

starwarsfan

dsp19 said:
The only possiblities of this happening:

1. Ike runs as a Democrat
2. A PoD before or during 1952 where the US wins the Korean War (MacArthur doesn't threaten to cross the Yalu River or nuke Manchuria)
Click to expand...
Ike losing the gop nomination in 1952 is quite possible. and Taft while prob still favored by no means unbeatable
 

NoOneFamous

Truman not gutting the military (he does some downsizing, but doesn't pick Johnson as SECDEF) may help the war end sooner and may help Truman
 

David T

David T said:
There is no reason to think that any other Democrat would have done better than Stevenson against the overwhelmingly popular Ike with an electorate sick and tired of the Korean War, scandals in the Truman administration (actually rather minor ones but blown up into the "mess in Washington") and concerns (exaggerated but not without some factual basis) over domestic Communism and espionage. I even doubt that he or any other Democrat could have defeated Taft, though it would have been much closer. (There is no chance at all of the GOP nominating Dewey for a third time. Bryan to be sure was nominated three times but there were many Democrats who, it was said, "would rather lose with Bryan than win with anyone else" and there was no siimilat group of Dewey loyalists.)

Far from being "uninspring" Stevenson was easily the best Democratic orator of his time. I know that some people have argued that his wit and eloquence actually worked against him, but even Richard Hodstdter in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life rejected that idea: "the notion that Stevenson was repudiated by the public because of his reputation for wit and intellect will not bear analysis, and the implications of his defeat on this count have been vastly exaggerated. In 1952, he was hopelessly overmatched. It was a year in which any appealing Republican could have beaten any Democrat, and Eisenhower was more than appealing... In retrospect, however, there seems no reason to believe that Steven son's style and wit and integrity were anything but assets in his campaign, and that if he had not won a reputation for himself on these counts his defeat would have been still more complete.The notion that the greater part of the public was totally immune to the value of his qualities will not bear even a casual examination. If his personal qualities had been so unattractive as some admirers and detractors alike believed, it is hard to understand how he could have won the governorship of Illinois in 1948 by the largest plurality in the state's history, or why the Democratic convention should have drafted him four years later, in spite of his well-publicized reluctance to be nominated, after the merest brief exposure to his eloquent welcoming speech. (It was the first draft since Hughes's in 1916, and perhaps the only draft of a thoroughly reluctant candidate in our political history.) " https://archive.org/details/antiintellectual000187mbp/page/n239/mode/2up
Click to expand...

BTW, Stevenson is a good example of an American politician with an exaggerated reputation as an intellectual. "Wanting to read a book was something to talk about but not do. He was not really an intellectual," wrote his biographer John Bartlow Martin. https://www.google.com/search?q="wa...-pHiAhUKWq0KHY7nC2wQ_AUIFCgB&biw=1839&bih=779 JFK was probably telling the truth when he told friends that he read more books in a week than Stevenson did in a year... https://books.google.com/books?id=rnphPjrOOkMC&pg=PA399
 

marktaha

Banned
Sabin said:
Just a follow up: if Adlai Stevenson wins in 1952, it’s entirely conceivable that if the Democrats win again in 1956. The GOP barely won both Houses in 1952. With a less galvanizing figure at the top of the ticket (Bob Taft), Democrats will probably keep both until at least 1954. No idea what policies Stevenson would push for as the days of the New Deal legislation was twenty years prior but economic management would have continued to be sound.

What I find most interesting though is that for all the speculation on Adlai Stevenson's perceived weakness as a candidate, we don't really know how he will govern. We don't know how liberal or conservative he would be. There's a world where he pushes for sensible legislation and uses both Houses of Congress to get it achieved. There's also a world where he disappoints a lot of liberals and governs as a moderate pursuing consensus. One thing that I do think we can project about Adlai Stevenson's administration: it would be cautious.

The biggest thing we don't know about Adlai Stevenson is what becomes of his rhetoric in a decade of Cold War escalation. We think of Adlai Stevenson as a very high-minded figure and Dwight Eisenhower as a realist. It's worth noting that perception of Eisenhower following the 1950s was not the case but his personal popularity was quite high. Adlai Stevenson will not have similarly teflon favorables. Does Adlai Stevenson have it in him to grow into the role and the world or not?
Click to expand...
Story in Alternate Presidents The Impeachment of Adlai Stevenson.
 

David T

marktaha said:
He also had no plans to run anyway.
Click to expand...
He didn't take himself out of the race until March 29, 1952, after he had been defeated by Kefauver in the NH primary.. Yes, I know he claimed that he had reached that decision much earlier but it was hardly a hard-and-fast decision until then. "For several weeks Truman toyed with the possibility of running again. Some of the staff felt sure he had changed his mind and was about to announce his candidacy...[After the primary] At a small private dinner at Blair House for a few close advisers, including the new Democratic chairman, Frank McKinney, Truman polled the table. Should he become a candidate to succeed himself? The answer, put as tactfully as possible, was no." https://books.google.com/books?id=8fp1A2s6aQwC&pg=PA1061
 

marktaha

Banned
David T said:
He didn't take himself out of the race until March 29, 1952, after he had been defeated by Kefauver in the NH primary.. Yes, I know he claimed that he had reached that decision much earlier but it was hardly a hard-and-fast decision until then. "For several weeks Truman toyed with the possibility of running again. Some of the staff felt sure he had changed his mind and was about to announce his candidacy...[After the primary] At a small private dinner at Blair House for a few close advisers, including the new Democratic chairman, Frank McKinney, Truman polled the table. Should he become a candidate to succeed himself? The answer, put as tactfully as possible, was no." https://books.google.com/books?id=8fp1A2s6aQwC&pg=PA1061
Click to expand...
Would have lost by a landslide.
 

starwarsfan

David T said:
He didn't take himself out of the race until March 29, 1952, after he had been defeated by Kefauver in the NH primary.. Yes, I know he claimed that he had reached that decision much earlier but it was hardly a hard-and-fast decision until then. "For several weeks Truman toyed with the possibility of running again. Some of the staff felt sure he had changed his mind and was about to announce his candidacy...[After the primary] At a small private dinner at Blair House for a few close advisers, including the new Democratic chairman, Frank McKinney, Truman polled the table. Should he become a candidate to succeed himself? The answer, put as tactfully as possible, was no." https://books.google.com/books?id=8fp1A2s6aQwC&pg=PA1061
Click to expand...
From what I've read recently (I Like Ike: The Presidential Election of 1952, was a good read imo), from what I gathered reading it, it asserted that a lot of Truman's back and forth on running was due to his extreme dislike of Kefauver and feeling that no one else in the race at the time could defeat him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top