Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 22, 2016, 08:29:18 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 77
126  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: You Can't Shoot An Idea on: September 04, 2016, 02:59:35 pm

Senator Hubert Humphrey Speaking Before a Crowd, September 1952

  Following the DNC, President Dewey absolutely relished in the seemingly irreversible demise of the opposition. Looking ahead, Dewey waited until September to begin campaigning in earnest. Senator Nixon led campaign efforts on the West Coast, giving a multitude of speeches in favor of Dewey's anti-Communist domestic and foreign policies. With Nixon, Taft, and the bulk of the GOP end of the Conservative Coalition now on-board with the presidential ticket, the tense McCarthy-esque "Red Scare" fear tactics of 1947-51 became obsolete. Republicans, by 1952, were in near-universal agreement that the Polecat Commission, along with the newly established Central Intelligence Agency, rendered espionage and terrorist threats incapable. The Eugene Dennis decision remained a controversial matter for the moment, but the fear behind this, too, would fade.

  Senator Richard Russell, Jr. had been having quite the difficult time since the Democratic Convention closed its doors. He paid no mind to the walkout of the liberal contingent of the party, believing they would not act fool enough to work against their own party. Russell had already been planning on pivoting away from social issues in the general election, and only focused on civil rights when such pertained to the Dewey Administration. For instance, when responding to the speculation that the president would have a share of influence in a theoretical overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson, Russell spat, "Doing so would constitute an egregious abuse of executive power." Although the Georgian certainly stood in favor of retaining existing Jim Crow and segregation laws, Russell exclaimed in his acceptance speech that, "For the sake of our economic future and for the sake of our nation's weakened defense strata, we will ensure Mr. Dewey is a one-term president."

  Russell had hoped for a shred of unity in this divided party. Though known for his conscientious nature, the Georgian sought methods of mediation in order to overcome the split. Seeking a "forthright civility," the senator advocated for the vice presidential nomination of former Commerce Secretary W. Averell Harriman. Besides serving in the Truman Administration, Harriman had taken an active role in foreign affairs during the Second World War. The Russell team believed that bringing on Harriman would attract moderate Truman Democrats, satisfy those who were wary of Senator Russell's lack of foreign policy expertise, and would placate the uneasy Northern bosses. Russell/Harriman became the official ticket of the Democratic Party on July 28th.

  Though Russell won the nomination without the need for any underhanded tactics, the liberals refused to recognize the Democratic nominating process as anything other than undemocratic. Washington Post columnist Henry Pluck detailed the ordeal in an August piece. "Primary elections designate pledged delegates in most cases, but as we've seen at the Democratic National Convention, winning primary contests is not an assurance of the nomination, much less a required path to the convention. [...] The process is far from perfected, but the process is more democratic today than it has ever been."

  The left-leaning contingent of the Democratic Party saw things from an alternate perspective. Kefauver won fifteen of sixteen primaries. In the eyes of liberal activists like James Hartford of New York, "The people chose Kefauver. The men pulling the strings picked Russell and Harriman. It was a ruse from the get-go. Those delegates from landslide Kefauver states no right to endorse a candidate whom had not even appeared on the ballot." This sentiment went beyond picketers and unionists. The Tennessean himself stated that the primary voters, "overwhelmingly voted against cronyism and segregation," and therefore he did not recognize Russell as the party's nominee.

  On July 31st, 1952, a handful of New Dealer, anti-segregation congressmen including representatives Daniel J. Flood (D-PA) and Richard Walker Bolling (D-MO) launched the New Democratic Organization. The purpose behind this frontier had initially been a, "nonpartisan investigation into charges of corruption in the highest ranks of the present Democratic leadership." Within days of growing public interest into the intent and power of the NDO, Senator Kefauver endorsed the endeavor. This effort snowballed into public speculation that the sitting Democratic National Committee may have had a hand in covering up a bribery scandal involving Representative Andrew J. May (D-KY).

  Press headlines involving the NDO and the DNC encapsulated the first half of August, and Senator Kefauver, widely known as a vocal champion against corruption, encouraged the public stand against the party committee and push for the truth. According to Kefauver in a contemporary Meet the Press interview, "Yes, it was right about then that the letters started pouring in. Thousands a day: postcards, handwritten notes, envelopes carrying pennies, all of it. Each asked of me the same thing, to begin a national campaign." The senator stated that although he initially shrugged off the idea as one which could damage his own influence in Congress, he was unable to rid the thought from his mind.

  Senator Hubert Humphrey, deemed by Kefauver a dazzling and effective orator, was designated with the responsibility of informing the press. "Today, September 12th, it is my pleasure to inform you all that the founding committee of the New Democratic Organization has made a unanimous decision. Two weeks from this moment, the doors of the International Amphitheater in Chicago shall open one more time."

"Corruption Drives Wedge Between Democrats, Experts Say 3-Way Race
The Sacramento Bee, September 12th, 1952

"To Hell With Unity, says Pinko Kefauver Spokesman! Dewey Prepares Inaugural Attire!"
National Enquirer, September 14th, 1952
127  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Democrats, would you vote for Donald Trump (R) or Darrell Castle (C)? on: September 04, 2016, 01:14:57 am
I'd pee all over the voting machine.

This guy's got the right idea
128  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the "Polyamorous community" on: September 04, 2016, 01:13:21 am
If it's between consenting adults, who care
129  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jill Stein flies to wrong city to give speech on: September 02, 2016, 09:20:40 pm

Unlike Jill Stein, Hillary Clinton is qualified and is not a nut.

Read it and weep:


You are incredibly misguided. Stein is an attention seeker who does not have any experience, nor any concrete plans. She is an attention seeker and you are too naive to see the truth.

I am so sick and tired of seeing these "true progressives" on the internet not being willing enough to compromise and look at the realistic side of things, (Pretty much just young, white liberals) then wonder why black voters/supporters (like me and I'm just 15) overwhelmingly chose Hillary.

For once in your life, get it through your thick ass skull, think about a Trump presidency, and think about the positive things about what Hillary has done instead of watching that filthy ass garbage called TYT (or whatever you get your "info" from).

The fact that you support a candidate that says "WiFi signals are dangerous for kids" is beyond me.

You are incredibly misguided. Clinton is an untrustworthy neoliberal who is beholden to special interests who dictate her so-called concrete plans. She is a Republican-courting reactionary and you are too naive to see the truth.

I am so sick and tired of seeing these "Clinton supporters" on the internet far too willing to compromise for anyone who is not Donald Trump and fold into what the establishment media circus defines as realistic, (Pretty much simpletons) then wonder why progressives overwhelmingly chose Sanders.

For once is your life, get it through your thick ass skull, think about a Clinton presidency, and think about the negative things about what Hillary has done instead of watching that filthy ass garbage called CNN (or whatever you get your "info" from).

The fact that you support a candidate who is a fact-checked liar, boasts about her endorsements from war criminals, consistently places herself in politically convenient positions, campaigns for Republican votes, is the preferred candidate of Fortune 500 CEOs and Wall Street, assures these rich corporate donors that she is firmly on their side, and has been actively fighting against proposals to fight climate change, (not to mention her role in Iraq, Honduras, the Central American refugee crisis and the Democratic Leadership Council) is beyond me.

If we don't organize now for a political party that supports the goals of the left--against war and imperialism; unequivocally for women's rights, LGBTQ rights and immigrants' rights; for ending the New Jim Crow, for vigorously combating climate change; for redistributing the immense wealth of this country to meet the desperate needs of the majority--the voice of our movements will be drowned out at election time. Time and energy spent on building an election campaign for the Democrats is time and energy not spent on building an alternative--one that we desperately need.

There is an unsolvable contradiction in building movements and campaigning for candidates who don't support the goals of practically any of those movements. To continue Sanders' call for a "political revolution" and to build a real fight against Trump and the right, it's time to organize, protest and break away from the two-party straightjacket. -Adam Sanchez

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)
130  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who wins? on: September 02, 2016, 04:53:09 pm
No idea. Lean/Tilt D for now.
We'll get a better idea after the first debate.
131  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: You Can't Shoot An Idea on: September 02, 2016, 04:44:31 pm

The Contested DNC, 1952

  July 21st. The Democratic Convention was to begin processions in the very same auditorium rented by the Republicans some weeks prior. The news had been filled to the brim with reports of the RNC since its opening day, from President Dewey withstanding Senator McCarthy to clinch the nomination to the young and largely unknown VP nominee, Senator Richard Nixon, receiving endorsements from Bob Taft and Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL). As Dewey remarked in his acceptance speech, "Our Grand Party stands here tonight united. This November, all of America shall stand united."

  This DNC, from its first breaths, found itself bathing in heated controversy. Outside of the venue when guests initially arrived, five protesters chanted against the pro-segregation candidates. One had a sign reading, "Thurmond for President of the Confederacy," poking fun at his Southern heritage and demeaning his support for segregation. The names of those protesting remain uncertain, though it is confirmed by modern historians that they had no connection to the Kefauver Campaign. It took only a short twenty minutes before a handful of delegates from Southern states shouted down at the protesters, with one grabbing the sign and stomping it apart. A brawl broke out on the doorsteps of the convention, with seven individuals sent to the hospital for injuries. "Quite the precedent," one convention go-er stated to the local NBC branch. The fight was on.

  Inside the arena, the arguments between these differing factions of the party took on a (slightly) more peaceful tone. Signage had been prevalent from each delegation and the vast array of differing names displayed upon these signs indicated the expected length of this convention. Although Kefauver had won nearly every primary contest, he was far from winning over the whole of the party. The establishment became divided between numerous candidates. Eisenhower had a message delivered to the Democratic Committee stating that he would, in no circumstance, run against President Dewey. This piece was not revealed to the public until August.

 President Truman arrived to speak at the convention on its first night, and he was the sole party representative who received applause from each of the argumentative factions. He rallied hard against the Republican Machine, exclaiming that their "servile nature" to deliver benefits to corporate interests meant there was, "never a serious pledge to thwart monopolies." He went on to attack the "shadowy cloud hovering over this Polecat Commission" and urged the next president bring about transparency in the realm of exposing Communist conspiracy. For every plank in the Republican platform, Truman had a retort, and one could easily argue that the former president gave the greatest speech at the event. The Missourian did not endorse any one candidate, and provided no mention of Eisenhower. He did urge the convention nominate a man with, "Compassion for his country, a fierce dedication for our democratic ideals, and an intuition sharp enough to pierce steel."

  The delegates enjoyed this short-lived, unifying moment at the DNC, yet the former president failed to provide an adequate solution for the issues at hand. Following Truman came the platform debates, and these lasted well into the third day. The 1952 platform, when finalized, pledged to move towards expanding the New Deal, protecting democratic nations across the sea, and challenge the Republican hegemony. Once more, the party provided no insight relating to segregation or civil rights, but the liberal faction chose instead to save its fervor for the nominating process. With no time to lose, the first ballot was taken, and it would provide definitive partisan lines. Somewhere in the chaos, the party center whispered a new name: former Commerce Secretary W. Averell Harriman.

  Ballots upon ballots were cast, and just as the bosses desired, Kefauver plateaued. Some names climbed up the list while others disappeared. Senator Hubert Humphrey, a Kefauver supporter who had no intention of casting his name for the running, ended up in the No. 7 spot on the fifth ballot. President Truman ended up with nearly 100 votes on the seventh ballot, then fluttered back to 40. Kefauver, Russell and Eisenhower remained in the top standings. By the fourth call, Thurmond dropped out and endorsed Russell. Then Senator John Sparkman (D-AL) followed suit. Eisenhower-supporter James E. Murray (D-MT) crossed faction lines and called for the nomination of Harriman halfway through the eighth call. A delegate from New York read aloud a letter from Eleanor Roosevelt wholeheartedly endorsing Kefauver during the ninth ballot. The whole thing was nearing complete chaos. An elder reporter from the New York Times printed on July 27th that, "Not since my introduction to political affairs at the Democratic balloting in 1924 have I seen such a scene."

  Fifteen ballots in an no one candidate had come close to the required threshold of 820 votes. At last, the South seemed to be settled with a candidate: Senator Richard Russell, Jr. Noticing an emerging middle-ground between the hard-line segregationists and the moderate reformists, Senator Kerr relinquished his consistent 145-delegate base and endorsed Russell. The Georgian senator soared to second place on the fifteenth ballot, surpassing Eisenhower. Kefauver delegates began to lose steam: coming to the realization that the Democratic bosses would not allow the nomination of their liberal candidate. Roughly eighty moderates in the Eisenhower camp left to join either Harriman or Russell. As New Jersey delegate and Ike supporter Linus Winder stated to reporters, "We lost this one, but we will fight like hell for four years regardless of the nominee."

  It all happened in an instant after this transitional "crossing" period. Much like a stock market panic, Eisenhower's base tanked and flooded straight into the Russell column. This occurred as last Southerner on the balloting, Senator Alben Barkley (D-KY), tepidly endorsed the Georgian for the sake of, "moving damn forward." Senator Richard Russell reached 824 votes on the seventeenth ballot: solidifying his place as the Democratic nominee for president. As many of the party insiders predicted, however, this turned out to be a disastrous decision.

  Russell's win spurred a momentous, spontaneous walkout by the liberal Democrats. Truman-ers and the party center booed as the left-leaning, anti-segregation sect abandoned the party. Senator Kefauver led this angry parade along with a slew of other prominent figures. To name a few, this contingent included senators Hubert Humphrey and Brien McMahon (D-CT), governors Frank Lausche, G. Mennen Williams (D-MI) and Paul Dever (D-MA), California Attorney General Pat Brown (D-CA), and representatives Eugene McCarthy (D-MN) and John F. Kennedy (D-MA). For all intents and purposes, this election was over.

DEMOCRATIC BALLOT: PRES1st Call5th Call10th Call15th Call17th Call1230 DELEGATES
Richard Russell, Jr.221235227362824
Estes Kefauver381379372370296
A. Averell Harriman225110212360
Dwight Eisenhower25125524123144
Frank Lausche532321202
Harry S. Truman305940302
Robert S. Kerr153145146121
Adlai Stevenson23111
Alben W. Barkley212258690
Paul A. Dever4151860
Hubert Humphrey141330
Strom Thurmond810000
132  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jill Stein flies to wrong city to give speech on: September 02, 2016, 12:56:37 pm
"It's also unclear how and why she flew into the wrong airport."
Though yeah, clearly it's her fault. I mean, she dares to challenge THE QUEEN!@!!
133  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Which national pizza chain do you prefer? on: September 01, 2016, 08:14:34 pm
As a NYer I feel inclined to say they all suck, but Dominos has gotten a lot better.
134  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Coca Cola or Pepsi? on: September 01, 2016, 08:13:42 pm
Diet Coke though it's hard to resist the tantalizing allure of Crystal Pepsi.
135  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Which posters do you have on ignore? on: September 01, 2016, 08:11:54 pm
No one that hasn't been banned by now or has left the forum
136  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: You Can't Shoot An Idea on: September 01, 2016, 05:37:51 pm
YES! Grin

A Californian had to be swapped for a Californian after all Cheesy

As I read that, I was thinking Bricker. But Nixon's fine too.

Was considering Bricker for some time for the role. Keeping in mind Taft would probably be looking for a young, rising star to continue his push for conservative policies, the scales were slightly tipped. Dewey will certainly keep his eye on Bricker though, dontcha worry!
137  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Trump's Immigration Speech: Will It Help? on: August 31, 2016, 09:43:17 pm
Would like to hear your thoughts.

Was it smart to abandon the pivot in order to appease the base, or will Hillary gain from this (again)?
138  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump will nake a major speech on immigration in Arizona on Wednesday. on: August 31, 2016, 09:38:15 pm
Looks like it's Martyr Time again.
139  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump will nake a major speech on immigration in Arizona on Wednesday. on: August 31, 2016, 09:31:42 pm
Getting this bad feeling that this ideology Trump is giving voice to will not disappear when he loses.
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: So, there's probably a new PA poll coming soon... on: August 31, 2016, 03:14:04 pm
Only somewhat favorable for McGinty?
141  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: You Can't Shoot An Idea on: August 31, 2016, 12:38:01 pm

Robert Taft Supporters at the 1952 RNC

  On July 7th, the International Amphitheater, host of the Republican National Convention, opened its doors to an eager public. Those bosses and leading figures within the Republican Party excitedly awaited the opportunity to broadcast their message of unity and strength in contrast to the divided Democrats. This, after all, had been the party of the president. Not a word of the McCarthy Campaign was spoken, even by those sparse congressmen who endorsed the Wisconsinite. The primary was to be erased from history, in a sense, and now Dewey led the party in near-totality. The president's mission was now to achieve a complete unity.

  By the first evening, the GOP platform ended up quite a bit more liberal than anticipated. President Dewey had accomplished much of what the '48 platform offered, and now new steps were necessary in order to sway old Truman voters and conservatives alike. The party took a clear stance on civil rights: wholly endorsing social reform and stating that a "new era in human rights has reached our horizon." New promises of equal education, firm anti-lynching laws, and long-term reversal of Jim Crow lay squarely in the center of the platform. Led by Dewey and his growing contingent of moderates and liberals, another plank was added stating preference with, "our rights as free individuals to partake in any and all social or political organization lest a clear and present danger should be determined." In other words, this 1952 platform endorsed the Eugene Dennis decision.

  As one may expect, these progressive gains also required a counterbalance. The party platform, as its predecessor had, celebrated the Taft-Hartley Act and proclaimed its usage necessary in order to preserve a stable economic landscape. As a means to satisfy the McCarthy voters and ensure there was no chance of a contested nomination, the platform even included a number of right-leaning economic pledges of which Dewey personally disagreed. These included an end to wage and price controls, the protection of free trade, a reduction of "waste" in the federal budget, and further promises to "streamline" pension plans.

  President Dewey, following a formal nomination by Senator Wayne Morse (R-OR), was chosen to be the party's nominee on the first ballot. Former President Hoover would give a few words endorsing Dewey following Morse's endorsement. As for the vice presidential pick, that one turned out a touch more complex than the administration hoped. Dewey crossed Warren off of his shortlist, and suggested to Brownell that they ought to ask Eisenhower or MacArthur for the slot. Brownell, speaking frankly to his boss, urged for a compromise pick. "The wounds hadn't yet healed from the McCarthy primary and the party needed a dose of Dristan."

  Brownell requested an audience with Bob Taft on the third night of the convention. A skeptical Taft agreed. "We were walking on this dime of thin ice. I hated the bastard, even more so than Dewey had, but in order to ensure the vitality of the president's mandate, it was either him or Joe McCarthy. 'Bob,' I told him, 'we need a winning ticket.' Kefauver could have us whipped in the right circumstance and the whole blasted world knew it.

  "We offered the man a say on foreign policy, economic proposals, you name it, but he had no interest. [...] Never discovered if he knew about the cancer yet, but now his reluctance makes more sense. No, Taft refused the slot, but he finally agreed to endorse Dewey barring our accepting his choice of VP. Totally drained and ready to walk out, I asked him who exactly that would be. He took a moment and then handed me a folded campaign flier with black ink scribbled in: NIXON FOR AMERICA"

Thomas E. Dewey935
Joseph McCarthy181

Richard M. Nixon1206
142  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton to give a speech on American exceptionalism to American Legion in Ohio on: August 31, 2016, 10:25:52 am
The """"progressive"""" candidate
143  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2016 Congressional Primaries on: August 30, 2016, 08:12:53 pm

Poor guys can't catch a break.
144  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 2016 Presidential Election (down to two candidates) on: August 30, 2016, 06:52:57 am
muh lesser evil
145  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jimmy Dore: Trump will lead to Dem majorities in 2018, real progressive in 2020 on: August 29, 2016, 10:25:14 pm
This theory is certainly not unheard of, and I recall hearing quite a few arguing for a similar strategy in 2012. If Trump should be elected, it is fairly likely Congress would go relatively unchanged in 2018 barring a major event/crisis, but there is no legitimate way to predict who would win in 2020. In all likelihood the Democrats would end up nominating a safe insider a la Kerry or Mondale and end up losing. It's a dangerous game anyway, and the end goal would probably mean disaster along with a conservative court (no way in hell the Democrats block someone as effectively as the GOP had Garland). What the panel argues about the repercussions of a Clinton win is more likely (Senate gains reversed), in my opinion, than their Trump prediction.

Now that Jimmy has his own TYT show, it will be enjoyable to watch Clinton hacks go off the rails in threads like these. Looking forward to it.
146  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: You Can't Shoot An Idea on: August 29, 2016, 06:31:52 pm

The Pro-Segregation Candidates in the Race (Left to Right): Richard Russell Jr, Strom Thurmond, Robert Kerr

  With Earl Warren effectively deposed, the Taft-led isolationist wing of the party abandoned the McCarthy Campaign and worked full-force towards the nominating convention. Joe McCarthy ceased actively fighting for the nomination after his massive loss in the Ohio primary, rejoining with Taft to sort out the details of the nominating process. Dewey would go on to sweep the Oregon, California and South Dakota primaries. Knowing he was on the path to the nomination, the president introduced a significant new platform proposal.

  The results of the Moton Inquiry had been unveiled, and it came to the definitive conclusion that separate schooling facilities were not, in fact, equal. In districts throughout the state of Virginia, not in any one instance was a "black" school remotely measurable to a "white" school. Schools labeled "Whites Only" consistently received higher funding and a greater number of amenities. Though this was hardly a shock to those already in favor of integration, Americans who previously did not hold much of a stance on the issue now noticed this reality. Dewey revealed that if re-elected, he would advocate heavily in favor of gradually integrating communities. "We shall begin with our schools," the president stated. "All children, regardless of color, deserve an upstanding American education of the highest quality."

  The Democratic race, by the end of spring, was approaching the finish line. The Ike Campaign had been endorsed by a slew of establishment Democrats in the North and West, yet with the former secretary still refusing to declare any intentions one way or another, the majority of voters distrusted the legitimacy of the proposed candidate's interest. Eisenhower finished in either second or third in every Democratic primary, but failed to win a single state in totality. The establishment vote splintered between Ike, Lausche and various favorite son candidates in each of the primaries, leading to solid Kefauver wins in 15 of 16 contests (Lausche won Ohio).

  Senator Kefauver had cemented his frontrunner status and, in theory, was well on his way to the nomination. Liberal Democrats had endorsed Kefauver by the dozen, including influential Senator Paul Douglas (D-IL) and former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Once Henry Wallace declared he would not be running for president this cycle, members of the Progressive Party corralled around Kefauver as well. Meanwhile, Southern segregationists rejected both Kefauver and Eisenhower, instead pushing for the nomination of either Senator Kerr (who narrowly lost the Florida primary), Senator Richard Russell Jr (D-GA), or Governor Strom Thurmond (D-SC).

  Russell, Thurmond and Kerr all disapproved of what they saw as federal intrusion into the social behavior of states, yet beyond this, these three differed on a number of issues. Kerr preferred to focus on the development of public works and energy production rather than civil rights or Communism, arguably making him the most moderate of these three favorite sons. Russell sought agricultural and education reform, co-sponsoring the National School Lunch Act of 1946. Thurmond primarily focused on the segregation issue, and was considered by moderate Southerners as too conservative to be considered for nomination by the party. All three of these figures received votes in the '52 primaries.

  Headed into summer, President Dewey began to overshadow the Democratic race. Gallup polling revealed that in a hypothetical race with Eisenhower, the president now led by eight points. Against Lausche he led by 12, and against any of the Southern contenders, Dewey held a minimum 15 point lead. The Kefauver pairing had been a bit closer, with Dewey ahead by only six percentage points. For the first time since 1932, the Democratic Convention would be contested, and to make matters worse, this election was beginning to look an awful lot like 1948 all over again.

"The Conventions Coming Home! President Dewey to Speak on Friday."
Chicago Tribune Weekend Edition, July 5th 1952
147  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jill Stein shamelessy pandering to Harambe voters on: August 28, 2016, 09:40:40 pm
the true meme queen
148  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: You Can't Shoot An Idea on: August 28, 2016, 03:58:19 pm

President Dewey Conducting His Weekly Radio Address, April 1952

  The first primary in New Hampshire served to set an example for what was to follow. Eisenhower still refused to make a formal entrance into the race, Kefauver resumed campaigning in his folksy style, McCarthy lost a great deal of momentum, and Dewey shifted focus toward the general.

  Little of this dynamic changed over the course of the following weeks and months. President Dewey had been able to orchestrate a compromise between the United Steelworkers of America and U.S. Steel in April, thereby preventing a massive strike. The president was not the friendliest figure toward labor in the slightest, but he understood how to play the game. The workers achieved a mild pay increase while U.S. Steel had been placated by a promise of continued subsidies from the federal government. By April 16th, Dewey's approval numbers reached 50%: his highest in six months.

  Senator McCarthy began to flounder. Membership in the Communist Party was reported to have remained, more or less, the same since the Supreme Court decision, and there had been no recorded instances of a Communist plot to "overthrow the American government," as McCarthy predicted. He attempted to pivot slightly in mid-April in order to appease a wider audience, but political journals jumped on this move as a "sign of an inevitable drop-out." Even with losses in New Hampshire and Minnesota, McCarthy trudged on.

  Robert Taft had tepidly supported McCarthy in his run against the president up to this point. The two frequently worked in tandem in unleashing criticisms of Dewey, and Taft would have been willing to support anyone running against his nemesis. However, when McCarthy only narrowly won the Wisconsin primary (51-46), Taft ceased his correspondence with the infamous senator and plotted a new course. Now that Dewey's approval had rebounded, the Ohioan knew there was no use in a direct challenge and had something a bit more devious in mind.

  Prior to the release of Bob Taft's private records and journals in the mid-1980s, political historians including Taft biographer James Patterson wrote that, "With McCarthy certain to leave the race in April, the nation focused intently on the multifaceted Democratic nominating race. In this time, Republican bigwigs and bosses met in those infamous 'smoke-filled rooms' to discuss the ticket for 1952. Right around this time, prior to McCarthy's concession, a White House leak revealed that Vice President Earl Warren was allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair with 22-year old Irene Olson: an intern in the Truman Administration who was promoted by Warren to the role of personal secretary. The fact behind this accusation remains muddled, but it had been more than enough for President Tom Dewey to ask Warren not to run for the VP nomination."

  When the leaks began, all in the Dewey Administration were taken aback. Warren argued to his dying day that the accusations were wholeheartedly false and not a shred of genuine evidence existed to confirm any of it. Ms. Olson left her White House role four days following the initial leak and stated only of Warren that, "He committed no act which would have been considered unacceptable behavior at the time." When Taft's journals were finally released, they confirmed a controversial theory that he had indeed been behind the accusation. Taft, always cordial to his state's press, passed the story along to his source at the Cincinnati Enquirer, who in turn sent the tale to the Washington Post. Today, the consensus among historians is that Warren's infidelity was a fabrication. At the time, however, the public ate it up.

"VP Breaks Marriage Vow: Anonymous Aid Tells All"
The Washington Post, April 29th, 1952

"Earl Warren: "I Shall Not Seek a Second Term as Your Vice President."
Chicago Tribune, May 24th, 1952
149  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: You Can't Shoot An Idea on: August 28, 2016, 12:09:26 pm
Kefauver '52! #FeelTheFauv

#FeelTheFauv would have made a much better title for this chapter Tongue
150  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: should panhandling be legal? on: August 28, 2016, 11:47:35 am
Yes. No to any laws that sh*t on the poor for being poor.
It's like when cities put spikes around buildings. Not helping the bigger issue.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 77

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines