1952 Republican Nominee

It ultimately depends on the kind of campaign he runs I think. On the surface he would be at a disadvantage against Stevenson, least based on the polls (losing 44-45), and the general impression among the voting public that he represented the conservative ideal which remained opposed to the New Deal and would roll it back; he would need to orient his message in such a way that he can destroy that notion, least convince a handful of people in the battleground states, that that wasn't the case. He'd also need to work with Moderate Republicans who to some extent he despised given the conduct of the 1952 campaign, but he was fully aware that such divisions would negatively effect his campaign and so I believe he would have made every effort possible to mollify them, at least to some extent. Eisenhower would be problematic however given his endorsement might hinge on NATO, and having the close runner-up not endorse you is generally not a good thing for a General Election campaign.

As for a running-mate, the names that were given serious consideration at the time were General Douglas MacArthur, Senators William Knowland and Richard Nixon of California, Senator Everett Dirksen Illinois, Governor Earl Warren of California, Governor Alfred Driscoll New Jersey, and a Allen B. Kline who headed up the American Farm Bureau Federation at the time. Of those, it was generally considered that either MacArthur or Knowland would be best for the position alongside Taft, with Taft himself publicly giving a preference to MacArthur. That will have a strong effect on the campaign as well, though I'm not sure if either man will be a net positive or a drag on the ticket.

@David T ?
 
The Republicans nominate Taft in 1952. Can he defeat Stevenson (Democratic candidate)?

I'm inclined to think he can, because public dissatisfaction with the Democratic administration--above all, over the continuing stalemate in Korea--is just too great for the Democrats to retain the White House. But it will certainly be much closer than in OTL, and a number of Republicans who won narrowly on Ike's coattails in OTL (including possibly Barry Goldwater) might not win.
 
Conservatism in the US was basically dead at this point. If he tries to run an anti-entitlement and anti-industrial policy campaign, I don't think he wins. Those things would only become unpopular among the broader electorate after the economic shocks and failures of the 1970s.

It should be noted, however, that the electorate was broadly won over to Eisenhower on the issue of foreign policy. His idea of fighting Communism was to do it abroad on a grand scale and not to get too overzealous about it at home, while the Taft wing of the party could be red-baited on the issue of isolationist sentiment regarding NATO while accused of busting down old ladies doors in the US looking for Communists at home. It was a line of attack that was only diffused because of Eisenhower's personal gravitas. Taft would lack that.

It would be more fair to say that the Democratic Party was a tired political force in 1952 that lost, rather than the Republicans winning. Taft would throw a wrench into that.
 
Top