Eisenhower, Democrat.

[el t]

WI: He ran as a Democrat (For POTUS). Possible affects on both parties.

[Peabody-Martini]

One big change, Richard Nixon would not be the VP under Eisenhower.

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

Ike was unstoppable in 1952, whether as a Republican or a Democrat.

In OTL, Democrats blocked a lot of his progressive domestic agenda. He might have been able to force more things through if he'd been Democrat Number One.

By 1960, the Democrats would have had too long a run. People would have been ready for a Republican president. And who knows? If might have been Richard Nixon.

[Imperator Novae Zealandae]

Who would Ike's VP be? JFK would be 35 in 1952, which seems too young to be seriously considered. If there was an Democrat in the White House prior to the 1960 elections would JFK run in those or would the sitting VP get the nomination, which would delay Kennedy's run for the White House until at least 1964. Would LBJ be a viable VP eight years earlier or would they choose someone else?

[hcallega]

Eisenhower's running-mate would need to be a party regular to balance the ticket. I wouldn't rule out Averell Harriman.

[Duke 4]

Stevenson runs with Ike in 52. In 60 Stevenson and JFK win. Stevenson dies a normal death, JFK becomes President. The GOP gets a a infusion of new voters when the south changes because of civil rights. Goldwater becomes the first GOP President in 68 since Hoover in 28.

[marl_d]

Stevenson runs with Ike in 52. In 60 Stevenson and JFK win. Stevenson dies a normal death, JFK becomes President. The GOP gets a a infusion of new voters when the south changes because of civil rights. Goldwater becomes the first GOP President in 68 since Hoover in 28.

interesting how that meme keeps getting kicked around, particularly when it was Dems that railed AGAINST much of the Civil Rights legislation and attempted to filibuster many of the Civil Rights Acts.

[Ariosto]

Despite almost being cliche for the Democrats in 1948 and 1952 when given the position of nominating a General, Alben Barkley seems like the best bet. He is a Truman ally, favorable to the Unions, has experience in the House, Senate, Leadership, and Vice Presidency, and a good stumper to boot. The only issue, which had also killed his Presidential Campaign in '52, was his age, being 74 at the time.

However given that Eisenhower was, while not young, not prone to visible health issues at the time, Barkley being relegated to the status of Veep yet again would not create these same concerns. Certainly there are other candidates for the position of Running-Mate, but Barkley seems the most able of the lot; Scott Lucas for example would have been a strong contender in my opinion had he not lost two years prior.

The Republicans would most likely end up running Taft, with Harold Stassen becoming his major opponent given that Warren, while also running, did not do so outside of his native California. Many on this forum posit that he will nominate certain individuals as his running mate, so I'll leave that an open question.

Eisenhower wins, though by a smaller margin and with no coattails for the Party.

From there, I see him following much the same line as he did as a Republican, just possibly more successful in some areas and less successful in others, depending on what they are and how the Democrats in Congress feel on such subjects.

[Stolengood]

Despite almost being cliche for the Democrats in 1948 and 1952 when given the position of nominating a General, Alben Barkley seems like the best bet. He is a Truman ally, favorable to the Unions, has experience in the House, Senate, Leadership, and Vice Presidency, and a good stumper to boot. The only issue, which had also killed his Presidential Campaign in '52, was his age, being 74 at the time.

However given that Eisenhower was, while not young, not prone to visible health issues at the time, Barkley being relegated to the status of Veep yet again would not create these same concerns. Certainly there are other candidates for the position of Running-Mate, but Barkley seems the most able of the lot; Scott Lucas for example would have been a strong contender in my opinion had he not lost two years prior.Who replaces him when he dies in 1956, then?

[Duke 4]

interesting how that meme keeps getting kicked around, particularly when it was Dems that railed AGAINST much of the Civil Rights legislation and attempted to filibuster many of the Civil Rights Acts.

You notice in my above statement I said the south changes in this alternative time line just like real time. The south for the most part did not change their thought process just their political party. Remember the southern strategy of Nixon in 68?

[Ariosto]

Looking further on through, there are a number of instances in which I can see policy being different.

Operation Ajax, the Coup in Persia, may possibly not occur, if only because John Dulles, the one who pushed for it, may not have been Secretary of State. The impact that might have on British relations, regarding an issue so important to their Foreign Policy, may prove detrimental if the US chooses to sit on the side-lines.

The Suez Crisis will be interesting, if it still occurs. Eisenhower was not supportive of it, and wanted to bring what amounted to serious economic sanctions against Israel and Britain despite opposition from within his Cabinet and from Democrats. This is liable to still be the case, though there might be even more of an uproar given that Jews are a significant base within the Democratic Party. This would, I believe, be done in conjunction with a Foreign Policy aimed at trying to turn Arab Nations from the Soviet Sphere to the American Sphere.

With Indochina, it depends on if Ridgway's report comes out the same way as it did historically. A minor military deployment under circumstances more favorable to the French in said report would not be out of the question.

I can't see Eisenhower backing down on Civil Rights, which will prove troublesome for the Democratic Party in the South.

Eisenhower can openly condemn Joseph McCarthy now regarding his methods, and no doubt McCarthy will be trying to go after him anyhow. In effect, one decision he could have made and should have made likely will be made in this case. Discredit him earlier, and swiftly.

I am not even going to speculate on his judicial appointments, but Earl Warren is not making it on to the court, especially as Chief Justice.

[Ariosto]

Who replaces him when he dies in 1956, then?
Albert Gore seems like a good choice, being Liberal, from the South, supportive of what would have been Eisenhower's policies, and relatively young, being 49. His experience in public service as both a Representative and Senator doesn't hurt at all.

Some of his comments might hurt it though. Hell, in 1951 he advocated nuking the Armistice Line in Korea so as to provide a permanent partition. :rolleyes:

Of course there is also JFK as some would consider, but due to his light friendship with McCarthy, among other things, he wouldn't be considered.

[TNF]

A better way for Eisenhower to become President is for him to let the Democrats draft him against Truman in 1948. IOTL, he said he wasn't interested in politics. As we later found out, that wasn't necessarily the case. So let's say Ike takes up their offer and steals the Democratic nomination away from Truman at the 1948 Democratic convention. Wouldn't be too hard, methinks. Truman had already alienated large segments of the Democratic coalition, and was basically trying his best to patch everything back up and hopefully secure another term.

So Ike becomes the Democratic nominee in '48, and destroys Tom Dewey. Utterly. Entirely. The Democrats win back control of the House and the Senate, and things begin to change from there. Eisenhower in the Oval Office probably means Joe Stalin is less likely to allow 'Glorious Leader' to try and reunify the Korean peninsula. So maybe no Korean War? Even if there is one, I think there's a greater likelihood of an American victory with Eisenhower in the Oval Office. And if he has to fire MacArthur, it will go over a lot better. McCarthy gets shamed to hell by Eisenhower for going after the Army.

Going into 1952, Eisenhower can beat Bob Taft pretty easy, too. The Democrats will have majorities that can repeal Taft-Hartley, enact Medicare for everyone, and start the ball rolling on civil rights. That, combined with an interstate highway bill will do a lot to keep the economy going strong in the early to mid-fifties. Eisenhower will probably also appoint different people to the Supreme Court, but I think that by the mid-to-late 1950s, federal legislation or a Court decision regarding segregation is inevitable.

By 1956, with the Democrats now having held the White House for 24 years, the public is ready for a change. Voters go to the polls in a tight race that sees Senator Richard Nixon of California elected President. Of course, the Democrats get a break four years later with a slow economy and Sputnik...

[037771]

There's a wonderful timeline (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=220506) by DanMcCollum doing exactly this. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned it yet...

[Ariosto]

There's a wonderful timeline (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=220506) by DanMcCollum doing exactly this. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned it yet...
Forgot that happened in that timeline, though I find it hard to believe that Truman of all people would manage to bring him around; the OTL meeting was absolutely disastrous.

[Stolengood]

Forgot that happened in that timeline, though I find it hard to believe that Truman of all people would manage to bring him around; the OTL meeting was absolutely disastrous.If nothing else, that TL keeps Bob La Follette, Jr. alive...

Eisenhower-Gore might be interesting... however, were Eisenhower to run in '48, instead, he gets grandfathered into more than two terms under the 22nd Amendment by being the sitting president.

That'd be interesting. ;)

[Ariosto]

If nothing else, that TL keeps Bob La Follette, Jr. alive...

Eisenhower-Gore might be interesting... however, were Eisenhower to run in '48, instead, he gets grandfathered into more than two terms under the 22nd Amendment by being the sitting president.

That'd be interesting. ;)
That passage applied specifically to Truman, and only Truman. Doesn't help that it was passed in 1947 and Eisenhower would become President in 1949.

[Stolengood]

That passage applied specifically to Truman, and only Truman. Doesn't help that it was passed in 1947 and Eisenhower would become President in 1949.But this article ... shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

The Admendment did not become "operative" until 1951, several years after Eisenhower would've become President.

[Ariosto]

The Admendment did not become "operative" until 1951, several years after Eisenhower would've become President.Regardless............Eisenhower is not standing for a Third Term unless there is a World War going on. Hell he argued with himself over taking on a Second Term. Personal health concerns will override any attempt to make him run in 1956, at which point the Republicans will likely come back into power.

[Plumber]

Reading Eisenhower's memoirs yesterday, he implied that Truman was weak for not using conventional nukes, not necessarily in Korea, but in general. Eisenhower was of the opinion that nukes had to be used here and there to keep the Soviets afraid. :eek:

So if elected in 1948, it seems that Korea will be very different, indeed.

[Magniac]

Reading Eisenhower's memoirs yesterday, he implied that Truman was weak for not using conventional nukes, not necessarily in Korea, but in general. Eisenhower was of the opinion that nukes had to be used here and there to keep the Soviets afraid. :eek:

No, really? But Ike deliberately waffled when his Cabinet honchos wanted him to drop the bomb at Dien Bien Phu. He kicked the can to the US senate and Churchill, IIRC, killing off any chance that he would be forced to go nuclear on behalf of the French.

Man is not to be trusted in the "do what I say, not what I do" department, IMO.

[DanMcCollum]

No, really? But Ike deliberately waffled when his Cabinet honchos wanted him to drop the bomb at Dien Bien Phu. He kicked the can to the US senate and Churchill, IIRC, killing off any chance that he would be forced to go nuclear on behalf of the French.

Man is not to be trusted in the "do what I say, not what I do" department, IMO.

Eisenhower's views on nukes changed throughout his life. During his retirement, and early in his presidency, Ike saw them as little more than conventional weapons. Very large conventional weapons, yes, but conventional all the same. As his Presidency progressed, however, his views changed as he ascribed more and more into a policy of MAD.

[Plumber]

Eisenhower's views on nukes changed throughout his life. During his retirement, and early in his presidency, Ike saw them as little more than conventional weapons. Very large conventional weapons, yes, but conventional all the same. As his Presidency progressed, however, his views changed as he ascribed more and more into a policy of MAD.

These were in his memoirs, though. I don't think he would use them in Dien Bien Phu, but Korea is another matter entirely. He was talking about Korea when he brought up that nukes can be used conventionally, but rarely, so it seems more likely than I thought that he would use a few tactical nukes in Korea.
I sincerely doubt he will touch China, though.

[Magniac]

As his Presidency progressed, however, his views changed as he ascribed more and more into a policy of MAD.

Massive Retaliation?

I thought his lot at this this time were all operating on the assumption that America wouldn't receive anywhere near as much as they gave in an exchange with the Soviets.

[Glass Onion]

To have Eisenhower run as a Democrat, you probably need to give him adequate cause. I am sure that there are Eisenhower experts on the board who will dispute what I am arguing, and I will concede that I am no expert. But, from the little I know of Eisenhower, he was, ideologically speaking, always a Dewey Republican. While he may not seem like a Republican in comparison to the Goldwater wing that later took over the party, he was nonetheless a Republican. Perhaps I am wrong, but from what I know, he did not chose his political affiliation at random. I am not sure to what extent his publicly declared lack of interest in elective politics before 1952 was genuine, but the fact that he entered does not mean he was being entirely facetious before that time. After all, a major reason that he entered that campaign was to block Robert Taft's Presidential aspirations. Had Taft died of cancer a couple of years earlier, there is at least some chance General Eisenhower never would have become President Eisenhower. Since Dewey was of Eisenhower's political persuasion, it's difficult to see Eisenhower running against him.

So either you need to change Eisenhower's ideology so he's on less politically friendly terms with Dewey, which may be difficult, or you need another kind of divergence, one which I do not know a precise divergence to accomplish. In short, I think you need to make Robert Taft the 1948 Republican nominee. If that happens, and it looks like Truman is a losing cause as it did historically, Eisenhower might be more open to calls for a draft on the opposite side of the political aisle. Eisenhower might decide to run as a Democrat if that's the only way to prevent a Taft Presidency. Of course, the plausibility of that depends upon how great Eisenhower's antipathy for the possibility of that eventuality actually was.

The question then becomes, how do you achieve a Taft nomination in 1948? That might be prohibitively difficult.