nickboy000
Banned
What if Earl Warren won the 1948 Republican primary? Who would his running mate be? Would he beat Truman? Would he get the Western states that went to Truman? Who would his running mate be?
But 1948 was not its year; it was the Indian Summer of the New Deal's glory days and a radiant one it was to many a grassroots New Deal voter.
Funny thing about the Electoral Vote and the popular vote though...It just about always does jibe, EV selecting and usually greatly amplifying the victory of a candidate in popular vote. Ah, there are exceptions you say! Indeed, four and counting so far since the 1830s when the popular vote of the nation became a meaningful thing to track and measure. But of these four, two are cases which, now with a century and more's hindsight, historic consensus affirms were in fact frauds. Indeed right back in 1876 itself hardly anyone pretended to believe the '76 official outcomes as manipulated blatantly by Republican officials were anything but faked. It was widely understood Hayes's single vote margin victory over Tilden in the Electoral Votes was engineered, but a lot of Republicans supported it on the grounds that the Southern Democratic numbers were equally mendacious, being the result of gross voter repression by infamous means. One down three to go. 1888 was not so obviously a criminal bit of fraud at the time, but in fact historical judgement comes down to agree that it really was. Republican operatives tipped the balance in Indiana to guarantee Grover Cleveland would lose the EV of that state and thus the nation. Now we are down to just two cases of divergence between popular vote and the Electoral Vote system. I give a free throw to just one of them, 2016. I am unaware of any evidence for fraudulent manipulation of cast votes to flip any states from Clinton to Trump in 2016--that does not mean I think it was a clean election, but our elections are ordinarily rather grimy and messed up affairs. Various layers of voter repression and intimidation might be shown to have tipped the balance but most of these tactics are considered more or less legitimate. More or less. The Republicans have in fact been repeatedly found to have acted wrongly by Federal judges and admonished to sin no more only to use the same tactics all over again for another round of knuckle-rapping and tsk tsking at. In 2000 I blame the unclear results for Florida which pretty much guaranteed a pro-Bush outcome one way or another on the grossly partisan banning of hundreds of thousands of mostly enrolled Democrats just days before the election by Katharine Harris, Florida Secretary of State. So in my view that one is a clear case of fraud as well--had Florida elections not been prejudiced time and again by massive acts of fraud to tip the scales to the Governor's brother, once again the popular vote and electoral vote would jibe in outcome.But if you switch only three states that Truman barely won: Illinois, Ohio, and California (Warren's hone state) then the Republicans would have won. Many historians - and Dewey himself - agree that if Dewey's campaign had hit back against Truman's attacks in the fall prior to the election, then Dewey would have won. The reason that Dewey ran such a mellow campaign devoid of attacks against the unpopular Truman is that he felt negative campaigning had backfired in 1944. (In actuality, his attacks against FDR worked extremely well and he did the best of all of Roosevelt's opponents). So he practically sat out the 1948 campaign and simply made vague, unpolitical speeches that inspired no one. Warren, who didn't have the experience of losing four years earlier, would probably have engaged in an energetic campaign against Truman as Dewey should have. So Warren just might have beaten Truman, but perhaps without the popular vote.