Truman v. Taft - 1952

[TNF]

Before anyone asks, yes, Truman can run for a third term. The 22nd Amendment contained a grandfather clause that would have allowed him to seek another term as he was President at the time the amendment was passed. He didn't because his popularity dried up and because the Republicans nominated Eisenhower for President.

But...

Let's say that the Republicans instead nominate Bob Taft, a sort of proto-Goldwater, for President in 1952. Suddenly Truman looks a lot better in comparison. The Democratic Convention drafts Truman to run for a third term, and the charismatic Truman wins another upset victory over Bob Taft, essentially burying him in the popular and electoral vote. The Democrats expand their majorities in the House and in the Senate, etc.

What does that electoral map look like? I figure Truman can carry at least the states he won in 1948, plus most of the Northeast that he lost to the progressive Republican he slugged it out with. He probably loses Ohio to Taft, though. Any thoughts?

[RogueBeaver]

Bess was implacably opposed to the idea, so unless she's removed from the scene Truman isn't running.

Handwaving, I still think Taft pulls out a victory. Truman's approval ratings were in the 20s, Dems had been in for 2 decades and K1C2 was very potent. Dems keep Congress.

[Jerseyrules]

Bess was implacably opposed to the idea, so unless she's removed from the scene Truman isn't running.

Handwaving, I still think Taft pulls out a victory. Truman's approval ratings were in the 20s, Dems had been in for 2 decades and K1C2 was very potent. Dems keep Congress.

I'm not even sure Dems keep congress, especially if Taft picks a moderate running mate, maybe Stassen to represent party unity, etc.

[ask_not]

I think taft may get it because the democrats have been power since 1933.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Yeah. The last time any party held power for more than 20 years was the Gilded Age. It was Taft's turn for the nomination following Dewey and Willkie, and the party's itching to finally get back in. Taft will probably need a very energetic and reasonably moderate running mate to ensure both party unity and a good campaign, but I think it can be done. I'd suggest Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. of Massachusetts, but he wasn't the most hard working candidate as I recall.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Here's a perfect map of Truman beating Taft, Truman of course would have had to win MI.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Taft picks Sen. and Fmr Gov. James Duff of Pennsylvania.

I think Taft would win due to disapproval of Truman, but if he does manage a victory, it would be close:

Pres. Truman (D-MO)/ VP Barkely (D-KY)  284
Sen. Taft (R-OH) /Sen. Duff (R-PA) 247

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The only GOP could have beaten Truman were Warren and Eisenhower; Taft and Dewey would have lost to Truman even in a 3rd term.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The only GOP could have beaten Truman were Warren and Eisenhower; Taft and Dewey would have lost to Truman even in a 3rd term.

The Dems are going for a frickin' sixth term here, man! Truman's approvals are in the toilet! Now I can see shua's map as realistic. If there's one thing Truman has going for him, it's that he's not facing Dewey again, who had the North-East pretty much tied up. But Taft can make up for that in the West and Mid-West. If Truman pulls off another win, it's going to be close.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

As for possible VP picks, I think Senator Irving Ives might be a good choice. Moderate, and can help Taft in the Dewey states.

[Rooney]

The failed haberdasher from Independence was highly unpopular by 1952 and, really, who could blame the populous for disliking him? President Truman showed the same efficiency in office as he had done as a haberdasher, and both led to pretty much the same result.

By 1952 President Truman was overseeing a government of corruption and power abuse that had not been since, well, FDR. So I guess he is not all that odd. While Truman is to be applauded for a competent handling of Korea from 1950 to roughly mid-1951 when there was a limited mission. By expanding the mission into North Korea Truman and his Joint Chiefs showed an ineptitude that the American people did not forgive. Truman's attempt to scapegoat General MacArthur for his own Defense Department failures was, justly, unpopular. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin stated that, "the bastard ought to be impeached" when the removal of General MacArthur was removed from command.

Truman probably should have been removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. By 1952 he had allowed gangsters (who ever since he was Jackson County Judge were his constant companions) to infiltrate the IRS. A Justice Department investigation led to the removal of 166 IRS agents. The mob figures were able to escape paying taxes through bribing the agents, such as giving their wives mink coats. "The Mink Coat" bribery scandal was referenced by Nixon in his Checker's Speech: "Pat doesn't have a mink coat but she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat."

It also needs to be mentioned that Truman oversaw a massive increase in presidential power. Senator Taft attacked Truman in 1951 of, "“simply usurped authority, in violation of the laws and the Constitution, when he sent troops to Korea.” The Supreme Court had already shot down Truman's unconstitutional attempts to nationalize the steel industry.

Truman also knowingly appointed Harry Dexter White, a Soviet agent, to the IMF while stating that any and all investigations into communist infiltration of government departments were, "a red herring." Perhaps the real "red" was the failed haberdasher. Truman also defended Alger Hiss in his perjury trial, despite the fact that Hiss was a communist spy working for the intentional socialist Carnegie Institute. 

In many ways Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio would be the perfect opponent for Harry Truman. Educated as a lawyer he faced an executive with but a high school diploma. Taft was a passionate opponent of red infiltration of the government while Truman did not believe the threat was real (he was wrong as pointed out in Freedom Betrayed by former President Herbert C. Hoover, a Truman friend). Taft opposed the Korean War and ran on removing all soldiers from that scene as well as Europe. Truman would have had to run as a pro-Korean War militarist, which was not a popular stance in 1952. Taft would have run as a "clean out the corruption" candidate against a scandal tarred president who's own first lady had accepted bribes from General Harry Vaughn, a convicted influence peddler.

The 1952 Republican strategy of C2K (communism, corruption and Korea) was right up Senator Taft's alley. On Election Day he would have won a comfortable victory and made Truman a member of the 4 H club (Hurry Harry Home Hastily). America's gain, though, is also the gain of Independence, Missouri.

Robert A. Taft/Irving Ives (R): 341 EV; 54.4% of the PV
Harry S Truman/Alben W. Barkley (D): 190 EV; 45.1% of the PV
Others: 0 EV; 0.5% of the PV

Of course, this means that on July 31, 1953, Vice-President Irving Ives takes power and the "Taft Revolution" of conservatism in the Republican Party comes to an end. President Ives is pro-labor, pro-civil rights and anti-McCarthy. He most likely makes Senator Nixon his running-mate in 1956 and in 1960 Vice-President Nixon runs as a liberal Republican against Senator Kennedy. Amazingly, the world resets itself. 

[johnpressman]

Great post, Rooney.  As to further point out the academic differences between the candidates, Taft finished first in his class at both Yale and at Harvard Law School, served as Editor of the Harvard Law Review, and received the highest score on the Ohio Bar Exam.

I do believe that Taft would have beaten Truman had HST run for a third term, with the caveat being that Eisenhower would have declined to contest the GOP nomination, thus avoiding a split in the party come November. I do not believe, however, that Truman would have made that race, given his extremely low approval ratings and his difficulties with Congress. Would Taft had beaten Stevenson in 1952?  That would have been a much closer contest.

Incidentally, Ike met with Taft in 1951 and stated that, if Taft declared his support for NATO, he, Ike, would not announce his candidacy for the GOP nomination.  When Taft refused, essentially choosing his views as more important than the Presidency that he had been chasing since 1940, Ike said; "there's a man"!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I don't see how Truman would have beaten anybody, even Taft, in 1952, since he was so unpopular.

[Jerseyrules]

Honestly I think Joe friggin McCarthy could've taken on Truman in 52; approvals at 25%?!  Come on!

Anyway, why does everyone seem to think he doesn't pick Nixon for VEEP?  Nixon was admired by both factions of the party and would help Ike or Taft grab all the young men coming home from WW2 or Korea.

[ask_not]

didnt  taft die in 53. so the v.p if its williqam knowland or stason becomes president.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Honestly I think Joe friggin McCarthy could've taken on Truman in 52; approvals at 25%?!  Come on!

Anyway, why does everyone seem to think he doesn't pick Nixon for VEEP?  Nixon was admired by both factions of the party and would help Ike or Taft grab all the young men coming home from WW2 or Korea.

IMO, he'd help with the internationalist wing a lot, given Nixon bridged the gap between the old school anti-war conservatives and the moderate internationalists, a domestic conservative and an internationalist (of course he would moderate a great amount later in his career).

[NHI]

Taft/Eisenhower: 384 (55.0%)

Truman/Barkley: 147 (43.4%)

[DC Al Fine]

To those who think Taft absolutely could not have defeated Truman: How bad a candidate would the Democrats have to have nominated if they were facing Bush in 2008?