Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2014, 12:58:37 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Bacon King)
| | | |-+  Harriman v. Warren in 1952.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Harriman v. Warren in 1952.  (Read 723 times)
A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« on: April 23, 2012, 08:49:32 am »
Ignore

I'm not doing this for a college project or anything. It's just me putting the names of nominees in boxes, shaking 'em around a bit, and then just pulling out a few names.

Now as most of you probably recall, when the 1952 General Elections were coming up, Truman did his homework and realized he wasn't all that popular, and so, despite being legally able, decided he would not seek reelection. This left the DP spot open, and they chose Adlai Stevenson II.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party hadn't put a man in the White House since 1928, a losing streak leaders of any major party would be desperate to end. A struggle between Conservatives and the Moderates took place, which the latter won, putting Dwight D. Eisenhower in the nominee's spot.

Now, to change the games.

******************************

Dwight D. Eisenhower, despite being supported by the moderate Republican faction based in New England, decides he doesn't want to run. Earl Warren manages to snag the nomination in the end.

Meanwhile, on the Democrat side, Adlai Stevenson declines to run. In the following struggle, they make the choice to send William Averell Harriman to the General Elections.

Now, the questions I'm asking you are...

1) Who does each man choose to be his running mate?

2) How do the General Elections turn out when the dust settles?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 01:05:53 am by A Proud Republican »Logged
OC
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9402
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2012, 08:39:22 pm »
Ignore



Warren/Taft v Harrison map
Logged
A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2012, 11:16:15 pm »
Ignore

Warren/Taft v Harrison map

Harriman chooses who to be his VP pick?

Do you feel Warren, being more of a Progressive Republican if my sources are correct, would have made the decision to pick Taft in order to gain the support of the Conservative Republicans?

Final question for this post. You didn't post the numbers, but that's a Warren/Taft win, is it not?
Logged
OC
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9402
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2012, 02:52:07 pm »
Ignore

Harrisman/Estes Kefauver v. Warren/Robert H Taf map. And Warren needed to pick a conservative like Robert H Taft because of the big Union bosses going after the Taft/Hartley act.  And I picked Warren because just like Eisenhower he was no liberal but he was a secular GOP leader who found segregation was inheritley wrong.
Logged
A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2012, 03:04:18 pm »
Ignore

Harrisman/Estes Kefauver v. Warren/Robert H Taf map. And Warren needed to pick a conservative like Robert H Taft because of the big Union bosses going after the Taft/Hartley act.  And I picked Warren because just like Eisenhower he was no liberal but he was a secular GOP leader who found segregation was inheritley wrong.

I see. Interesting.

President Earl Warren... Doesn't sound too bad, does it? I've never had much use for Progressives in reality, but he would have been well above most anything the DP could offer, in my own view.

How do you (anybody, really) see a President Warren handling the Korean War? NATO?
Logged
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14820
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2012, 03:07:03 pm »
Ignore

Harrisman/Estes Kefauver v. Warren/Robert H Taf map. And Warren needed to pick a conservative like Robert H Taft because of the big Union bosses going after the Taft/Hartley act.  And I picked Warren because just like Eisenhower he was no liberal but he was a secular GOP leader who found segregation was inheritley wrong.

I see. Interesting.

President Earl Warren... Doesn't sound too bad, does it? I've never had much use for Progressives in reality, but he would have been well above most anything the DP could offer, in my own view.

How do you (anybody, really) see a President Warren handling the Korean War? NATO?

There actually was a timeline about a Warren Presidency. It later got somewhat derailed, but that's how alternate history works. I can get a link to you (I'm currently tied up in completing some stuff for history and english papers) if need be. From what I remember, he was big on pushing civil rights in said tl, as well as having the same basic foreign policy views as Eisenhower. That's all I can remember though. Good tl however.
Logged

A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2012, 06:10:11 pm »
Ignore

Thanks for the compliment.

President Warren would have been a big Civil Rights champion, you say? Well, that matches with his status as a Progressive Republican, as compared to Taft or Dewey. As well, with Eisenhower's mindset in regards to foreign policy decisions, he could well have gained support from hard-liners regarding opposition to global Communism.

Does anybody else have any comments? Any thoughts on the map proposed by OC?
Logged
Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2012, 11:06:20 pm »
Ignore

Interesting scenario, I'd like to see it fully developed if/when you have the time.
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

Skyrim now, Skyrim tomorrow, Morrowind Forever!

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)
A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2012, 04:35:54 pm »
Ignore

Interesting scenario, I'd like to see it fully developed if/when you have the time.

Thanks. I'm giving it some thought. It's either this one, or one of two others I've been considering recently.

I still like OC's map quite a bit, really. That's a 287/244 victory to Warren and Taft, unless I'm very mistaken.
Logged
Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2012, 07:39:58 pm »
Ignore

Interesting scenario, I'd like to see it fully developed if/when you have the time.

Thanks. I'm giving it some thought. It's either this one, or one of two others I've been considering recently.

I still like OC's map quite a bit, really. That's a 287/244 victory to Warren and Taft, unless I'm very mistaken.

I'm thinking a massive TL like the fdr one you were planning sound amazingly interesting, but you'd probably have more time to go further in-depth over the summer.  I'd recommend starting your first TL with something with a POD around 50 years ago, like this one
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

Skyrim now, Skyrim tomorrow, Morrowind Forever!

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14820
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2012, 08:04:59 pm »
Ignore

By the way, PR, I think you mighta asked me about a tl where TR decides to run for term 3 in 1908. I didn't respond then, but I'll use this as a place to voice my approval.
Logged

Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2012, 12:06:24 am »
Ignore

By the way, PR, I think you mighta asked me about a tl where TR decides to run for term 3 in 1908. I didn't respond then, but I'll use this as a place to voice my approval.

My stamp of approval is on the petition!
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

Skyrim now, Skyrim tomorrow, Morrowind Forever!

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)
A Proud Republican
Rookie
*
Posts: 26
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2012, 01:48:24 am »
Ignore

I'll keep your words in mind, gentlemen.

Now, unless I'm mistaken as to which Robert Taft was meant in OC's posts, Vice-President Taft is most likely going to die in July of the Warren/Taft Administration's first year, so...

Yeah, this timeline has quite a bit of potential.
Logged
johnpressman
Full Member
***
Posts: 135
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2012, 06:45:43 pm »
Ignore

I enjoy these Past Election What-ifs but, as much as Earl Warren wanted to be President, the ONLY man that could have deprived (just barely) Robert A. Taft of the 1952 Republican Presidential nomination was  Dwight Eisenhower.

After the 1948 election, where Tom Dewey had snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, the nomination of "Mr. Republican" Robert Taft in 1952 was a forgone conclusion. Having tried for and lost the nomination in 1940 and 1948, mainly due to the belief that "Taft can't win",  the "mossback" Conservative wing of the Republican Party was now in the ascendancy.  Dewey's losses in 1944 and 1948 (when he had every advantage) prompted Sen. Everett Dirksen to declare from the podium of the 1952 convention; "We followed you before and you took us down the path to defeat".  The only man to have a realistic chance to derail Taft was Ike, the General who had led us to victory in Europe in WW2.

Again, Warren WANTED to be President, he had turned down the Vice Presidential nomination in 1944 and only accepted in 1948 due to the feeling that if he turned it down again, he would no longer be considered a viable Presidential candidate.  His only hope in 1952 was as a compromise choice if the convention deadlocked.  The Junior Senator from California, Richard Nixon, however, worked behind the scenes for Ike much to Warren's displeasure.

Dewey, by the way, called Warren "that big dumb Swede"!
Logged
GPORTER
gporter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6797
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 03, 2012, 09:13:30 am »
Ignore

Warren might loose in 1952. Would be awful to be the face of not one but two democratic upset victories back to back. Happens to the best of us though.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines