I could have Gore get Kefauver's senate seat ITTL instead of Kefauver. This should cut into Kefauver's support ITTL.
The problem is that Kefauver already had a sizable base of support within Tennessee based on his opposition to machine politics, and was heartily favored by the labor unions within the State at the time given his opposition to Taft-Hartley. Throwing Gore into the mix might have muddled the field but he unfortunately voted for Taft-Hartley, both initially and for the override, and I can't think of any real reason for him to change his mind on either account, which means he would essentially be running the same kind of campaign as Kefauver but without labor backing (hostility actually) or the tacit backing of a machine (which he may well have rejected anyway). It doesn't really seem that feasible, and it could well have injured any bid he would make for the Senate later.
If he changes his rhetoric, does he have a shot at the nomination? If not, is he suitable as a VP pick for Harriman or Murray?
The first problem here is that, based off what I initially read some time ago (I wasn't able to respond then), was that the States' Righters you said were to be present but revolt after the pick of Claude Pepper. One of Kefauver's plans which I meant to incorporate into one of my own (in developmental hell) Timelines was to pass a resolution that would have stripped the voting rights from any delegation whose State Party endorsed policies which discriminated against voters on the basis of race; the problem with this resolution was how far-reaching it was (all the former Confederate states minus Tennessee [of course] and Florida [somehow]). Those states were never going to vote for Kefauver, and in reducing the number of voting delegates he would have gotten markedly closer to securing a majority for himself. The resolution actually would have very well passed had Stevenson himself not intervened and thrown himself against it; with Stevenson gone though or even Truman not being able to throw himself into the mix there isn't much of a case to be made for against it (Humphrey and Pepper both supported the resolution), which would mean the grand majority of the Southern delegations would have left early and in disgust at the 'undemocratic' nature of the Convention.
Now I don't have the exact voting figures on hand, by books on the 1952 Conventions are in storage somewhere while the house is undergoing renovations, but Kefauver in OTL already had about (360) votes to depend upon. Assuming every Russell supporter was in the South and thrown out the number to reach majority would be (469), and it'd almost certainly be lower still since I can remember Mississippi, Arkansas and South Carolina at least were for Stevenson rather than Russell. That'd mean no more than a (100) delegate cushion for the Anti-Kefauver forces to find a candidate palatable to all sides, and even assuming Claude Pepper were to change his rhetoric on foreign affairs and other matters, I can't see him holding back enough defections that Kefauver wouldn't be over the hump by the end of the roll call.
This also does raise the question though of how Claude Pepper was able to survive his re-election bid in 1950, especially with the Smathers having even more ammo to lob at him in regards to the Soviet Union, and even less time for Pepper to backtrack from his concept of amicable relations with the Soviet Union; if anything I would suspect that Pepper would get Blanched. Ignoring that for a moment, picking Pepper would also weaken any argument the Democratic ticket could make in regards to the expansion of Communism in the West given Republicans could simply point to Pepper's record and say "well he was on board with Taft," or at least construe it as such. At best Pepper would mollify Progressives like Wallace, but so would Murray so..........I'm not really sure what benefits he would bring.
In the interests of balancing the ticket in terms of experience and region, I'd instead suggest Earle Clements. While a Liberal himself he is from the Upper South (Kentucky) and would have valuable insight as an executive given his tenure as Governor, and would certainly mollify those few who would have normally supported Alben Barkley (a stubborn bunch at the convention).
Noted.
I'll change this. What year will the Dixiecrats stop being referred to as the Dixiecrats and start being referred to as the States' Rights Party in infoboxes?
To be honest, it would be right from the start; even when they were running back in '48 with Thurmond they were technically known as the States' Rights Democratic Party, and Dixiecrat itself is merely the art of mashing up Dixie with Democrat. It's somewhat akin to listing Democratic candidates as Democrat in the Wikibox where, while not exactly wrong, is rather informal.
I've actually tried changing the States' Rights name in the Wikibox for the '48 election several times to the more formal moniker, but others keep flipping it back after some time.
Noted.
What do you think of the election ITTL back in 1948? Should I have made Douglas the candidate? If Douglas would have been more plausible, who would make a good running mate for him? (Besides Barkley)
What you have proposed in the ticket of William Douglas and Henry Schricker I actually like quite a lot, and to be fair I do see Douglas as a stronger nominee and candidate when compared to say Harriman who wouldn't yet have any real experience in government beyond as an ambassador. With the incumbent not seeking the nomination either (willingly or otherwise) there is even less reason to suspect that Douglas would be averse to the risk of seeking a nomination that may be essentially waiting for him. The only problem of course is that he may well follow the example of Charles Evan Hughes and resign from the Court once he receives the Democratic nomination, meaning that the Republican Senate would get to confirm an additional Justice.
Wallace would have probably performed a bit worse as well given the international situation, but an argument could be made either way.
My problem with this is that it would be a lot of work to do something that wouldn't even be accurate. At least with the Senate boxes I have some idea of how things might go/it's a good visual for the reader. If anyone wants to know about a certain individual's fate ITTL, they are more than welcome to ask. I'll also be sure to include who controls congress in each election update to avoid confusion in the future.
To be honest I thought you were just using a universal swing; if you are using different measures for different states than I can understand how that might be a bit more than its worth.
And accuracy is overrated, especially when delving into unknown territory.