1952: Taft/MacArthur (R) vs. Stevenson/Pepper (D)

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Let's say in 1952, Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio wins the Republican Nomination easily, after General Dwight Eisenhower refuses to run. For Vice President, Senator Taft selects General Douglas MacArthur of Wisconsin.

Whilst on the Democratic side, Governor of Illinois Adlai Stevenson easily wins the nomination. For Vice President, Governor Stevenson selects former Floridian Senator Claude Pepper.

Would the Democrats hold onto the White House for another 4 terms? Or would America vote for one of the most Conservative tickets of all time?

Discuss with maps.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

[PBrunsel]

Contrary to popular ideas, Taft was not that weak of a candidate. He was a respected Senator and his brand of Conservative isolationism would have played very well in 1952 with Korea in a stalemate, the economy in a tailspin, Truman's Administration caught in scandal, and the threat of Communism taking over the state department. In fact, Taft wrote a great deal ofm Ike's 1952 speeches and gave him a great deal of advice. Though he did not have the star power, he had the speaking abilities and ideas to sucesfully execute the Republican stragetgy of C2K: Communism, Corruption, and Korea.

Taft/MacArthur (R): 361 EV
Steveson/Pepper (D): 170 EV

An early "Conservative Revolution" hits both the GOP and the nation.

[johnpressman]

Taft-MacArthur would have beaten Stevenson-Pepper easily.  Adding MacArthur's "star-power" to Taft's "Mr. Republican" image would make an unbeatable combination given the world events leading up to the 1952 election.  Who better to solve the mess in Korea than MacArthur himself???  Senator Claude "Red" Pepper would not have been able to hold the "Solid South" for the Democrats.  I see an election victory for the GOP in 1952 even bigger than Ike's considerable margin. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Although Stevenson was the left of most Democratic national presidential candidates at the time, he was sort of a populist democrat, who had both factions of the Democratic party served him especially his vp nominee. His experience as organizer of the United Nations clearly would have set him apart from Taft who had no experience with WWII. Most people look to the top of the ticket for foreign affairs experience not the bottom. And Taft's who favored neutrality would of hurt him in the heartland. I think it would of been an upheal battle for Stevenson, because of Korean War, but I give Stevenson the edge by the nose. Maybe WA wouldn't have voted for him, but I still think Stevenson could of won.

 I look for bellweathers and IL other than a moderate republican like Eisenhower would of voted for Stevenson. The Republicans before 2000 didn't win an election without carrying IL and OH.

[Lincoln Republican]

I agree generally with the statements of PBrunsel and johnpressman.

Although generally isolationist, Taft was a strong suppoter of war efforts after Pearl Harbor.

He co-authored the Taft-Hartley Act which remains the basic labor legislation in effect.  He was conservative, but he did move a bit to the left, supporting such policies as federal aid to education and cosponsored an act to subsidize public housing in inner cities.

Taft always favored a strong defense, and though basically isolationist, would not hesitate to take whatever actions necessary to protect the nation.

Taft was a well known, credible, and respected political figure at this time, and had a national profile.  MacArthur was a genuine war hero, more popular than Truman.

In 1952, the Democrats had occupied the White House for 20 consecutive years.  The incumbent President, Harry Truman, had approval ratings similar to what G W Bush has today.

There is no way that a major Republican candidate, as credible as Taft, loses to Stevenson, witty yet uninspiring, in 1952.

A solid win for Taft and MacArthur.     

Taft/MacArthur                328
Stevenson/Pepper          203

President Robert Taft dies on July 31, 1953, a mere six months after being sworn into office.  Vice President Douglas MacArthur, the former commanding General, is sworn into office the same day as the new President, and thus becoming as well the Commander in Chief.   

MacArthur serves out the term, serving ably and well, and resolving the Korean conflict.  President MacArthur does not seek a full term in 1956, retiring at the age of 76. 

Says President MacArthur, "it's time to turn command over to the upcoming generation ."

In 1956, the Republicans nominate the ambitious rising star in the Republican Party, Senator Richard M Nixon of California for President.   

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Eisenhower won the election in 1952 because of his record in foreign affairs such as winning WWII as general. I think Stevenson's record as delegate to the UN, I think it will be more prevelant than Taft's foreign affairs experience who wanted neutrality equal to Pat Buchanan's.  Bush had approvals in the 20's but that doesn't mean Giuliani or the othe GOP don't have a shot. I think it would be an uphill battle due to the Korean War, but I don't think people wanted neutrality in the world. I think people wanted to be engaged in the world. That's why I think that Stevenson had a better shot against Taft than Eisenhower. I'm not saying Stevenson would of won, I say he would of had clearly a better chance than Eisenhower.

If the Dems energized their base, unlike that in 1952 against Eisenhower due to the conservative voting record of Taft, they could have edged out Taft by a nose or came close. But they would had to relied on their base turning out. Which they were depressed due to the Korean War.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

[gorkay]

This would have been a close one, I think, but I'd give the edge to Stevenson. For one thing, the Taft/MacArthur ticket was too conservative for 1952; it's true that the country was moving to the right and to the Republicans, but not that far. And Stevenson was not exactly a flaming liberal. Taft was dull, dull, dull, and that would have hurt him, especially with TV beginning to play a role in politics. MacArthur was anything but dull-- and that may well have hurt the ticket as well. I can see him making all kinds of rash statements that would have gotten the ticket into trouble, and acting as if he were the presidential nominee himself.