Dewey in '48?

[pieman97405]

So, here are my questions for the board.
1: Is it at all possibly for Dewey to win in 1948? (POD can be as far back as '46)
2: Assuming he is elected, what would his presidency be like?
3: What would the effects of his presidency be on the US and the world?
4: Who is likely to run for the republican nomination after his time in office is up?

Thanks in advance,
Pieman.

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by pieman97405

So, here are my questions for the board.
1: Is it at all possibly for Dewey to win in 1948? (POD can be as far back as '46)
2: Assuming he is elected, what would his presidency be like?
3: What would the effects of his presidency be on the US and the world?
4: Who is likely to run for the republican nomination after his time in office is up?

Thanks in advance,
Pieman.

1. Yes, though probably not in the popular vote. If Dewey had actually campaigned he could swing Ohio, California and Illinois and won.
2. Similar to Truman's second term: Dominated by the Korean War and ending in failure.
3. Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice J. Edgar Hoover The 1950s are going to be dominated by a Democratic President. Brown v. Board might be butterflied away, but that's a slim shot.
4. MacArthur probably steals the nomination from him in 1952. Either way, a Democrat will win in 1952. If Truman wins the popular vote (likely), expect a comeback. Two-term Truman in the 1950s = a better world. He was better than Eisenhower in every regard.

[red1]

Originally Posted by Plumber

1. Yes, though probably not in the popular vote. If Dewey had actually campaigned he could swing Ohio, California and Illinois and won.
2. Similar to Truman's second term: Dominated by the Korean War and ending in failure.
3. Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice J. Edgar Hoover The 1950s are going to be dominated by a Democratic President. Brown v. Board might be butterflied away, but that's a slim shot.
4. MacArthur probably steals the nomination from him in 1952. Either way, a Democrat will win in 1952. If Truman wins the popular vote (likely), expect a comeback. Two-term Truman in the 1950s = a better world. He was better than Eisenhower in every regard.

You have such a pro-democrat bias its not even funny. Eisenhower gave us the interstate, desegregated the schools,presided over economic prosperity, and led America to dominate the Soviets in the Cold War. This looks to me like a Liberal wet-dream.

[bguy]

Originally Posted by Plumber

2. Similar to Truman's second term: Dominated by the Korean War and ending in failure.

Any chance the Korean War gets butterflied without Dean Acheson's statement about South Korea being outside the American defense perimeter?

Brown v. Board might be butterflied away, but that's a slim shot.

Black, Douglas, and Burton are all already on the court and will definitely vote to strike down segregation. Jackson and Frankfurter will want to strike it down but will be concerned about the decision's enforceability. President Dewey will get at least two Supreme Court picks of his own in 1949, so it could come down to who he puts on the court. Any idea who Dewey would nominate. Someone like Herbert Brownell would certainly vote to end segregation whereas someone like Hoover, Clarence Manion or John Parker would probably vote to uphold it. What were Orie Phillips and Arthur Vanderbilt's views on segregation? They both show up a lot on lists of possible Republican Supreme Court justices for that period, but I've never been able to find anything on their views on Brown.

4. MacArthur probably steals the nomination from him in 1952.

MacArthur was pretty poor at politics. (He didn't know how to deal with non-sycophantic media). Hard to believe he could unseat an incumbant President. And there's no guarantee he'll have the same falling out with Dewey that he had with Truman.

Either way, a Democrat will win in 1952. If Truman wins the popular vote (likely), expect a comeback. Two-term Truman in the 1950s = a better world. He was better than Eisenhower in every regard.

What's Truman's base of support in the party to stage a comeback? Labor remembers him as the man who threatened to draft striking workers into the Army, and the South remembers him as the man who desegreated the military. Especially since if the Republicans look vulnerable in '52 there are likely to be a lot of other candidates stepping up to run. (James Roosevelt for instance might well have been elected Governor of California in 1950 since he wouldn't be running against Earl Warren this time. A war hero, with the Roosevelt name and connections, who happens to be Governor of a major state, would be a powerful candidate.)

[hcallega]

1. If Dewey campaigns hard and actually goes negative against Truman than he's the favorite to win both the electoral and popular vote. He held a massive lead in the polls before Truman went on his now-famous whistle stop/"Give 'em Hell Harry!" tour. Let's say that Dewey wins the popular vote with 50%. That gives Truman about 45% of the vote. The other 5% is divided mostly between Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace. This is what an electoral map may look like:

Dewey wins with 320 electoral votes to 173 for Truman. Thurmond picks up 38.

2. Dewey would govern as a progressive Republican, ala Herbert Hoover or William Howard Taft. He would not be as radical as Teddy Roosevelt. It's likely he would support the retention of the New Deal, though would support spending and tax reductions. He'll push for Civil Rights legislation, but won't get past a Southern filibuster. Dewey would have also signed Taft-Hartley into law. Containment remains the American response to the Cold War, and he gets tangled up in Korea just the saw as Truman.

3. Domestically, Dewey's victory would be a strong rejection of the Democratic Party that would require some soul searching. The Republicans would be energized, though the Taft wing of the party would remain largely out of power. Internationally little changes. Dewey pursues a similar course as Truman did. Long term, its quite possible J. Edgar Hoover ends up on the Supreme Court and Earl Warren never does.

4. Dewey will get a tough challenge for the nomination in 1952, but has a good chance of holding on. He's an incumbent President and many in the Republican Party would have a real problem trying to unseat him. The Democrats may very well nominate Dwight Eisenhower if Korea is bad enough. If that's the case, than he's the frontrunner to defeat Dewey. Here's a possible electoral map:

Dwight D. Eisenhower/John Sparkman (D): 53% of the PV, 436 EVs
Thomas Dewey/Earl Warren (R): 46% of the PV, 95 EVs

[Paul V McNutt]

I doubt the Korean War is butterflied away. Other people, including MacArtur made statements like Acheson did. In 1952, Dewey is running for reelection while there is a quagmire in Korea.

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by bguy

Any chance the Korean War gets butterflied without Dean Acheson's statement about South Korea being outside the American defense perimeter?

Nope.

Black, Douglas, and Burton are all already on the court and will definitely vote to strike down segregation. Jackson and Frankfurter will want to strike it down but will be concerned about the decision's enforceability. President Dewey will get at least two Supreme Court picks of his own in 1949, so it could come down to who he puts on the court. Any idea who Dewey would nominate. Someone like Herbert Brownell would certainly vote to end segregation whereas someone like Hoover, Clarence Manion or John Parker would probably vote to uphold it. What were Orie Phillips and Arthur Vanderbilt's views on segregation? They both show up a lot on lists of possible Republican Supreme Court justices for that period, but I've never been able to find anything on their views on Brown.

Dewey promised J. Edgar Hoover (who would be Attorney General first) a spot. Another might go to Warren, because Dewey didn't like him. But probably a liberal, which will be good for the ruling. Hoover will vote no, and with Clyde, might try to blackmail the other members into going with him. Which could be very dangerous or could backfire spectacularly.

MacArthur was pretty poor at politics. (He didn't know how to deal with non-sycophantic media). Hard to believe he could unseat an incumbant President. And there's no guarantee he'll have the same falling out with Dewey that he had with Truman.

Dewey will have around 25% popularity by 1952, and Richard Russell won't have a partisan interest in destroying MacArthur during the hearings. Dewey probably won't run for reelection, anyways.

What's Truman's base of support in the party to stage a comeback? Labor remembers him as the man who threatened to draft striking workers into the Army, and the South remembers him as the man who desegreated the military. Especially since if the Republicans look vulnerable in '52 there are likely to be a lot of other candidates stepping up to run. (James Roosevelt for instance might well have been elected Governor of California in 1950 since he wouldn't be running against Earl Warren this time. A war hero, with the Roosevelt name and connections, who happens to be Governor of a major state, would be a powerful candidate.)

If Truman wins the popular vote in 1948, then he'll be the natural. He won't want James Roosevelt, who backed Wallace, as President.

Originally Posted by red1

You have such a pro-democrat bias its not even funny. Eisenhower gave us the interstate, desegregated the schools,presided over economic prosperity, and led America to dominate the Soviets in the Cold War. This looks to me like a Liberal wet-dream.

Eisenhower was one of the three greatest Republican Presidents of all time. Doesn't change the fact Truman was better than him in every regard.
Of those points, the only thing I would give Eisenhower the edge is the interstate, which was his pet project. The others go to Truman easily.

[Orville_third]

Originally Posted by red1

You have such a pro-democrat bias its not even funny. Eisenhower gave us the interstate, desegregated the schools,presided over economic prosperity, and led America to dominate the Soviets in the Cold War. This looks to me like a Liberal wet-dream.

No. Eisenhower does, compared to Truman. (Though Eisenhower kept the US in NATO...)
I'd certainly prefer Dewey to Truman. Taft and Stassen too. (Of course, my dream candidate is Wallace...)

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by hcallega

1. If Dewey campaigns hard and actually goes negative against Truman

That means Dewey can't be Dewey.

[DanMcCollum]

Originally Posted by Plumber

That means Dewey can't be Dewey.

Not the case, actually; Dewey certainly went negative agaisnt FDR in 1944. The entire experience left a bad taste in his mouth, to be sure, but I would hardly try to characterize Dewey and some 'nice guy' who couldn't take politics. Besides being a successful multi-term govenor of New York, his experience as DA certain paints that attitude as a lie; this is a man who, when he was told he'd be shot and killed that day, purposely refused to change his daily routine, save for one major switch; while driving home, he kepy the light in his car on so everyone could see exactly who he was at all times.
Dewey was noble, but he was a fighter at heart. Dewey making a major push agaisnt Truman is not outside the realm of possability, although I would think he needs someone to convince him on it, or a less brusing battle against FDR.
As for Dewey giving up in 1952? No way in hell, especially if he is facing a rebellion by the far right in his party. Dewey was a firm believer that the Republican Party needed to modernize, that it needed to accept the best parts of the New Deal, and to become more moderate. He truly thought that, if the radicals gained control of the party, that the Republicans were doomed. Furthermore, this is not a man who ever took threats to his authority well (unless, of course, you believe that launching corruption investigations into his poltical opponents, "taking it well.") He would do everything to keep the Taftites from ever getting control fo the party; he wouldn't care if he lost, as long as THEY didn't win.

[Plumber]

Dewey can't be 1948 Dewey, sorry. With a POD during the 1944 campaign, he can go negative.

I saw the most common scenario being Dewey is narrowly defeated at the convention, probably by MacArthur, and either runs as an independent or refuses to help MacArthur at all. I agree that Dewey wouldn't have supported a Taftite of any form.

[bguy]

Originally Posted by Plumber

Dewey promised J. Edgar Hoover (who would be Attorney General first) a spot. Another might go to Warren, because Dewey didn't like him. But probably a liberal, which will be good for the ruling. Hoover will vote no, and with Clyde, might try to blackmail the other members into going with him. Which could be very dangerous or could backfire spectacularly.

If Hoover had anything with which to blackmail the liberal justices on the court wouldn't he have used it OTL? And it's really hard to imagine men like Felix Frankfurter or William Douglas knuckling under to blackmail.

And if Dewey hated Warren why would he possibly put him on the Supreme Court? He's already got Warren safely neutered by sticking him with the Vice Presidency, why put him on the Supreme Court and give him real power again.

Dewey will have around 25% popularity by 1952, and Richard Russell won't have a partisan interest in destroying MacArthur during the hearings. Dewey probably won't run for reelection, anyways.

Why do you assume Korea will play out exactly the same under Dewey as Truman? Dewey's an inexperienced Commander-in-Chief with no prior military experience. He might defer to MacArthur much more than Truman did in which case MacArthur will have no reason to turn on him.

If Truman wins the popular vote in 1948, then he'll be the natural. He won't want James Roosevelt, who backed Wallace, as President.

But again a Truman that lost in '48 has no clear base of support to get the nomination in '52. If Dewey is as vulnerable as you think he'll be then Liberals and Labor will think they can win with someone like Harriman, Humphrey, or Roosevelt, so why would they settle for Truman? The South is certainly not going to support him. The party regulars aren't going to want another Dixiecrat revolt on their hands and have better options for a compromise candidate that could satisfy all segments of their party (Stevenson, perhaps Scott Lucas if he gets reelected in 1950, or even Eisenhower if they get lucky enough). And it's not as though Truman's presidency is going to be remembered all that fondly by the general public (it's mainly going to be remembered for shortages of consumer goods, labor strife, and the start of the Cold War.) So why exactly are the Democrats going to want to pull Truman out of mothballs when they have better options available.

[Plumber]

Originally Posted by bguy

If Hoover had anything with which to blackmail the liberal justices on the court wouldn't he have used it OTL? And it's really hard to imagine men like Felix Frankfurter or William Douglas knuckling under to blackmail.

Hoover wouldn't have known what Justices were going to do IOTL. I agree that him trying would lead to some... Interesting times. Especially since the judges are for life, they are less vulnerable.

And if Dewey hated Warren why would he possibly put him on the Supreme Court? He's already got Warren safely neutered by sticking him with the Vice Presidency, why put him on the Supreme Court and give him real power again.

To ensure he never becomes POTUS.

Why do you assume Korea will play out exactly the same under Dewey as Truman? Dewey's an inexperienced Commander-in-Chief with no prior military experience. He might defer to MacArthur much more than Truman did in which case MacArthur will have no reason to turn on him.

So you think Dewey will nuke and invade China? MacArthur will be fired by Dewey.

But again a Truman that lost in '48 has no clear base of support to get the nomination in '52. If Dewey is as vulnerable as you think he'll be then Liberals and Labor will think they can win with someone like Harriman, Humphrey, or Roosevelt, so why would they settle for Truman? The South is certainly not going to support him. The party regulars aren't going to want another Dixiecrat revolt on their hands and have better options for a compromise candidate that could satisfy all segments of their party (Stevenson, perhaps Scott Lucas if he gets reelected in 1950, or even Eisenhower if they get lucky enough). And it's not as though Truman's presidency is going to be remembered all that fondly by the general public (it's mainly going to be remembered for shortages of consumer goods, labor strife, and the start of the Cold War.) So why exactly are the Democrats going to want to pull Truman out of mothballs when they have better options available.

The South didn't determine the top of the ticket at the time. If Truman wins the popular vote, then the political class is stumped almost as much as OTL because they thought Dewey would walk away with it. The Democrats will run Eisenhower if they can, but there's a slim chance of him going for it since he's a Republican. Roosevelt will be favored by the Wallace wing, who look like Soviet stooges by 1952. Humphrey will trigger another Southern walkout. The South can tolerate Truman. Lucas has the same appeal as Truman: none of the wings of the party really hate him. But Lucas is a piss-poor Majority Leader compared to a President who was re-elected by the people and denied the office of the Presidency by the electoral college. No-brainer.

Truman will be remembered for winning the War, being tough on the Soviets, and governing in an era of new prosperity. That's why he won IOTL, after all. Dewey will be the man who can't win the war.

[bguy]

Originally Posted by Plumber

Hoover wouldn't have known what Justices were going to do IOTL.

The Supreme Court had already decided Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Sweatt v Painter, and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education in the years right before Brown. (And the later two cases were both unanimous decisions.) Based on those precedents there's no way Hoover didn't know how Brown was going to be decided. (The only real uncertainty in Brown OTL was whether it would be a unanimous opinion or not.)

To ensure he never becomes POTUS.

The last Vice President to ascend to the presidency by election in their own right was Martin Van Buren, over a hundred years before Dewey's own election. I doubt Dewey was all that worried about Warren becoming President. (And if it had really worried him then he hardly would have selected Warren as his veep in the first place.)

So you think Dewey will nuke and invade China? MacArthur will be fired by Dewey.

I don't know what Dewey will do in Korea. But there is historical precedent for Presidents with limited or no prior military experience being easily intimidated by the military leadership. (Think Kennedy at the Bay of Pigs, Johnson with escalation in Vietnam and Clinton's relationship with the Pentagon.) Truman had already been President for 6 years, had already been the Commander-in-Chief in a previous war (where he had authorized atomic strikes), and had his own prior military service in World War 1, so he was well situated to deal with MacArthur in OTL. Dewey doesn't have that same experience (and has the added burden that fighting with MacArthur will upset the GOP base). He'll also have John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State, so Rollback will be the order of the day. I don't know if Dewey would release nukes, but I would certainly expect conventional bombing of Manchuria and possibly a naval blockade of China and ROC troops in Korea.

The South didn't determine the top of the ticket at the time.

They couldn't select the candidate on their own, but if they throw their support behind a candidate like Lucas or Stevenson that person is a long way towards winning the nomination.

Roosevelt will be favored by the Wallace wing, who look like Soviet stooges by 1952.

You don't believe that with the Roosevelt name and his war record, Roosevelt can reach out beyond the Wallace wing?

Humphrey will trigger another Southern walkout.

Absolutely, but Humphrey doesn't have to win the nomination to deny it to Truman. Just by being in the hunt Humphrey (or Harriman or Kefauver) takes away critical votes from Truman for the nomination. If he loses the left to Humphrey, and the right to Russell, then Truman doesn't have much of a path to the nomination.

The South can tolerate Truman. Lucas has the same appeal as Truman: none of the wings of the party really hate him. But Lucas is a piss-poor Majority Leader compared to a President who was re-elected by the people and denied the office of the Presidency by the electoral college. No-brainer.

If the South can tolerate Truman why did he lose 4 Southern states? And Lucas is in a stronger position here than OTL, since instead of being stymied trying to get Truman's legislative program through, he's getting to play defense against Dewey's program. Much easier to establish a national profile by attacking an unpopular president than by defending one. The party bosses will like going with Lucas since he's the safest choice, and since the Democrats will be heavily favored to win the '52 election they can afford to play it safe. Why run Truman and risk losing the election due to a Dixiecrat revolt, when you can easily win it with Lucas?

[lounge60]

Originally Posted by bguy
Any chance the Korean War gets butterflied without Dean Acheson's statement about South Korea being outside the American defense perimeter?

Originally Posted by Plumber

Nope.

Why?
Many historians not agree on this point,and think that the Den Acheson's statement was a colossal mistake.

[Peelitebkearns]

(1) Yes it's possible for Dewey to eak out a narrow victory. Perhaps he campaigns more effectively. Might a different running mate help him more than Warren? Perhaps not-but it's an idea.

(2) I agree with those who say that Dewey's first term will most likely be simelar to Truman's second one.

(3) I'm not sure what the national affects would be, but there most likely would be butterflies developing as we move through the TL.

(4) I agree that Eisenhower most likely doesn't contest the election in this scenario-I think in OTL he was motivated to do so in part by his fear of the democrats holding the WH for 24 straight years and partly to deny Taft and Warren the possibility of becoming president. It's possible an "I Like Ike" type group tries to draft him, but I think it's more likely (say 60 %) that he'll say no and sit it out.

I'm curious about Truman pulling a Cleveland-I wouldn't rule that out entirely. But would Truman want to come out of retirement and run again anyway? and if he did, would Bess go along with that? I don't think she liked being First Lady all that much.

If Ike and Truman are out, I think Stevenson and Harryman could likely be the 2 alternative nominees and both have an excilent chance here (didn't Truman back both Stevenson and Harryman in 52 and 56 respectively in OTL?).