1948: Robert Taft the Republican nominee

[darklordoftech]

How would Truman do against Robert Taft?

[Lechasseur]

Truman does even better than he did against Dewey

[Sir Mohamed]

✓ President Harry S. Truman (D-MO)/Senator Alben Barkley (D-KY): 336 EVs.; 51.1%
Senator Robert Taft (R-OH)/Governor Tom Dewey (R-NY): 157 EVs.; 44.2%
Governor Strom Thurmond (Dixie-SC)/Governor Fielding Wright (Dixie-MS): 38 EVs.; 2.5%

[Huey Long is a Republican]

Mohamed's Map is great and the most realistic. Honestly, Dewey was the GOP's Best Candidate that year. The only thing that led to his defeat was he took the Wrong Lessons from 1944 and applied them to 1948.

[President Johnson]

Mohamed's Map is great and the most realistic. Honestly, Dewey was the GOP's Best Candidate that year. The only thing that led to his defeat was he took the Wrong Lessons from 1944 and applied them to 1948.

I think Earl Warren may have been stronger, but still lost to skillful campaigner Harry Truman.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Truman didn't run against Dewey...he ran against the Republican Congress (even moreso than Clinton and Obama did) and having Taft as an opponent would've made that even easier.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The question would be whether or not Taft, who was the first true "movement conservative" to contend for the GOP nomination, would have been able to appeal to Southerners in terms of his opposition to Truman's FEPC.  Would Taft's nomination have produced "Taftocrats" instead of a Dixiecrat movement?

Harry S. Truman/Alben P. Barkley (D)  53%
Robert A. Taft//Douglas R. MacArthur (R)  45%

My prediction is hinged on local Democrats maintaining a Golden Silence in terms of the national ticket, while noting the Taft opposed the FEPC.  There had been a Hoovercrat bolt in 1928; the difference here would be that the GOP would likely have taken a specific anti-civil rights position that would have suggested that the parties were beginning to flip on racial issues.  It's easy to seen Harry Byrd in VA, Ed Crump in TN, the Chauncey Sparks faction in AL, the Thurmond faction in SC, the Wright faction in MS, the Coke Stevenson Tory faction in TX all actively supporting ticket splitting, especially given that the GOP controlled Congress in 1948. 

That being said, there were many Southern Democrats who supported segregation, but who were more closely aligned with the rest of the Democratic Party than with the GOP in 1948 and saw such a bolt as part of a brave new world that they were not ready to jump into.  There is a difference between being a "conservative" and being a "reactionary".  Bob Taft was a philosophical conservative with a philosophy of government that involved a degree of isolationism foreign to the South (but not the West).  It would have been interesting to see just how much that aspect of Taft-ism would have gone down in the South in 1948.

[Mr. Smith]

The question would be whether or not Taft, who was the first true "movement conservative" to contend for the GOP nomination, would have been able to appeal to Southerners in terms of his opposition to Truman's FEPC.  Would Taft's nomination have produced "Taftocrats" instead of a Dixiecrat movement?

Harry S. Truman/Alben P. Barkley (D)  53%
Robert A. Taft//Douglas R. MacArthur (R)  45%

My prediction is hinged on local Democrats maintaining a Golden Silence in terms of the national ticket, while noting the Taft opposed the FEPC.  There had been a Hoovercrat bolt in 1928; the difference here would be that the GOP would likely have taken a specific anti-civil rights position that would have suggested that the parties were beginning to flip on racial issues.  It's easy to seen Harry Byrd in VA, Ed Crump in TN, the Chauncey Sparks faction in AL, the Thurmond faction in SC, the Wright faction in MS, the Coke Stevenson Tory faction in TX all actively supporting ticket splitting, especially given that the GOP controlled Congress in 1948. 

That being said, there were many Southern Democrats who supported segregation, but who were more closely aligned with the rest of the Democratic Party than with the GOP in 1948 and saw such a bolt as part of a brave new world that they were not ready to jump into.  There is a difference between being a "conservative" and being a "reactionary".  Bob Taft was a philosophical conservative with a philosophy of government that involved a degree of isolationism foreign to the South (but not the West).  It would have been interesting to see just how much that aspect of Taft-ism would have gone down in the South in 1948.

And this is why Taft would've had no chance in The South. Between that and Big Business anyway.

The Civil War and fear of loss instilled a certain yearn for strong defense and need to prove oneself in war that other regions didn't necessarily have.

And between Richard Russell, the Longs, and other populist elements still at bay, Truman would be more than safe.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The question would be whether or not Taft, who was the first true "movement conservative" to contend for the GOP nomination, would have been able to appeal to Southerners in terms of his opposition to Truman's FEPC.  Would Taft's nomination have produced "Taftocrats" instead of a Dixiecrat movement?

Harry S. Truman/Alben P. Barkley (D)  53%
Robert A. Taft//Douglas R. MacArthur (R)  45%

My prediction is hinged on local Democrats maintaining a Golden Silence in terms of the national ticket, while noting the Taft opposed the FEPC.  There had been a Hoovercrat bolt in 1928; the difference here would be that the GOP would likely have taken a specific anti-civil rights position that would have suggested that the parties were beginning to flip on racial issues.  It's easy to seen Harry Byrd in VA, Ed Crump in TN, the Chauncey Sparks faction in AL, the Thurmond faction in SC, the Wright faction in MS, the Coke Stevenson Tory faction in TX all actively supporting ticket splitting, especially given that the GOP controlled Congress in 1948. 

That being said, there were many Southern Democrats who supported segregation, but who were more closely aligned with the rest of the Democratic Party than with the GOP in 1948 and saw such a bolt as part of a brave new world that they were not ready to jump into.  There is a difference between being a "conservative" and being a "reactionary".  Bob Taft was a philosophical conservative with a philosophy of government that involved a degree of isolationism foreign to the South (but not the West).  It would have been interesting to see just how much that aspect of Taft-ism would have gone down in the South in 1948.

And this is why Taft would've had no chance in The South. Between that and Big Business anyway.

The Civil War and fear of loss instilled a certain yearn for strong defense and need to prove oneself in war that other regions didn't necessarily have.

And between Richard Russell, the Longs, and other populist elements still at bay, Truman would be more than safe.

A lot would have to do with just how worked up in a dither the "Never" faction of Southerners would have gotten absent a Dixiecrat revolt.

In Marshall Frady's Wallace, one of Wallace's advisers discussed the Goldwater sweep of the Deep South in 1964 with Frady.  The adviser emphasized that the South didn't really like Goldwater; it's just that Goldwater opposed Civil Rights legislation and the South reciprocated with their votes.

Southern Conservatives were in rebellion against the National Democratic Party in 1948.  That rebellion had been quietly going on throughout the FDR years, but Truman's FEPC was a rallying point for these conservatives.  There was going to be some kind of bolt in 1948.  One reason there was no "Deweycrats" was that Dewey was a moderate Republican, even a liberal Republican on some issues, who was no less in favor of Civil Rights than was Truman.  Taft, on the other hand, had appeal to Southern conservatives that Dewey never did. 

I believe that the final result of the 1948 election would have been much, much different if Taft were the nominee.  Certainly, Taft's nomination would have mobilized labor unions in the Northeast and Midwest, and unions had more juice back then.  I do think that the South could have had Taftocrats instead of Dixiecrats, and I believe that Taft could have carried the South, even if it were a bit of an aberration, and a victory without depth.

[UnselfconsciousTeff]

The question would be whether or not Taft, who was the first true "movement conservative" to contend for the GOP nomination, would have been able to appeal to Southerners in terms of his opposition to Truman's FEPC.  Would Taft's nomination have produced "Taftocrats" instead of a Dixiecrat movement?

Harry S. Truman/Alben P. Barkley (D)  53%
Robert A. Taft//Douglas R. MacArthur (R)  45%

My prediction is hinged on local Democrats maintaining a Golden Silence in terms of the national ticket, while noting the Taft opposed the FEPC.  There had been a Hoovercrat bolt in 1928; the difference here would be that the GOP would likely have taken a specific anti-civil rights position that would have suggested that the parties were beginning to flip on racial issues.  It's easy to seen Harry Byrd in VA, Ed Crump in TN, the Chauncey Sparks faction in AL, the Thurmond faction in SC, the Wright faction in MS, the Coke Stevenson Tory faction in TX all actively supporting ticket splitting, especially given that the GOP controlled Congress in 1948. 

That being said, there were many Southern Democrats who supported segregation, but who were more closely aligned with the rest of the Democratic Party than with the GOP in 1948 and saw such a bolt as part of a brave new world that they were not ready to jump into.  There is a difference between being a "conservative" and being a "reactionary".  Bob Taft was a philosophical conservative with a philosophy of government that involved a degree of isolationism foreign to the South (but not the West).  It would have been interesting to see just how much that aspect of Taft-ism would have gone down in the South in 1948.

And this is why Taft would've had no chance in The South. Between that and Big Business anyway.

The Civil War and fear of loss instilled a certain yearn for strong defense and need to prove oneself in war that other regions didn't necessarily have.

And between Richard Russell, the Longs, and other populist elements still at bay, Truman would be more than safe.

A lot would have to do with just how worked up in a dither the "Never" faction of Southerners would have gotten absent a Dixiecrat revolt.

In Marshall Frady's Wallace, one of Wallace's advisers discussed the Goldwater sweep of the Deep South in 1964 with Frady.  The adviser emphasized that the South didn't really like Goldwater; it's just that Goldwater opposed Civil Rights legislation and the South reciprocated with their votes.

Southern Conservatives were in rebellion against the National Democratic Party in 1948.  That rebellion had been quietly going on throughout the FDR years, but Truman's FEPC was a rallying point for these conservatives.  There was going to be some kind of bolt in 1948.  One reason there was no "Deweycrats" was that Dewey was a moderate Republican, even a liberal Republican on some issues, who was no less in favor of Civil Rights than was Truman.  Taft, on the other hand, had appeal to Southern conservatives that Dewey never did. 

I believe that the final result of the 1948 election would have been much, much different if Taft were the nominee.  Certainly, Taft's nomination would have mobilized labor unions in the Northeast and Midwest, and unions had more juice back then.  I do think that the South could have had Taftocrats instead of Dixiecrats, and I believe that Taft could have carried the South, even if it were a bit of an aberration, and a victory without depth.

Ah a primitive southren strategy...But tbh I dont think Taft could win the south because the alformentioned reasons but also because the south is overwhelming democratic... they even voted for pro civil rights liberal Stevenson (maybe because they had a dixiecrat as RM ) but still

[Fuzzy Bear]

Truman didn't run against Dewey...he ran against the Republican Congress (even moreso than Clinton and Obama did) and having Taft as an opponent would've made that even easier.

The second part is not accurate.

Truman ran against the Republican Congress by challenging them to enact the 1948 GOP platform.  He did this because he recognized that the Congressional Republicans were far more conservative than Dewey, and that the GOP platform, which was tailored to Dewey's "Me, too" Republican views, was a fairly liberal document that did not represent the views of the Republican Members of Congress in either House.  Truman's strategy was successful because the Republicans couldn't pass their own platform, and that made Dewey look bad.

Had Taft been the nominee, the Republican platform would well have been a more conservative document that the 80th Congress MIGHT have passed.  Of course, there were liberal Republicans who never would have voted for such proposals, but in that scenario, the platform and the candidate would have been more in sync.

One of V. O. Key's observation in the book Southern Politics was the discovery of "latent bipartisanism smothered by racism".  He used this phrase in a sub-chapter on South Carolina, comparing the low country and the hills, but it applied in other states as well.  Goldwater was the candidate that truly brought bi-partisanism to the South, even though Eisenhower carried a number of Southern states each time out.  Taft would have brought out this latent bi-partisanship into the open if it had been done right.

On the other hand, Taft's nomination would have resulted in the non-Southern Democrats closing ranks.  Henry Wallace would have been told to get lost, and labor unions in the North would have viewed the 1948 election as the Enemy At The Gates.  There were a lot of Northern states that voted for liberal Republican Dewey that would have voted Union for Truman over Taft in 1948.

[darklordoftech]

Could Taft have appealed to Japanese-Americans by pointing out his opposition to internment? Could he have appealed to black voters by running a "party of Lincoln" campaign?