Could Eisenhower have won as an independent?

Let's say that Dwight Eisenhower, for whatever reason, chooses to run as an independent candidate in 1952. Can Eisenhower and whoever his running mate is beat the Democratic and Republican candidates and win the election?
 
Having Taft as the Republican seems likely, but why would no Eisenhower give Truman victory where he lost OTL?

I don't think it necessarily would, just that Stevenson or Kefauver would probably be able to beat independent Ike splitting the Republican vote.
 
I don't think it necessarily would, just that Stevenson or Kefauver would probably be able to beat independent Ike splitting the Republican vote.
I agree. With a Republican vote split between Taft and Eisenhower, a Democratic victory is assured for ANY candidate beside Truman. If Truman is nominated for the Democrats, and Taft for the Republcians, Eisenhower has a good chance.
 

Jasen777

Donor
I agree. With a Republican vote split between Taft and Eisenhower, a Democratic victory is assured for ANY candidate beside Truman. If Truman is nominated for the Democrats, and Taft for the Republcians, Eisenhower has a good chance.

Eisenhower had no pre-existing political record. He could easily pull in Democratic votes as well running as an independent (that, is more than he did, OTL).

But as to could he win? Who knows...
 
Eisenhower had no pre-existing political record. He could easily pull in Democratic votes as well running as an independent (that, is more than he did, OTL).
In 1952 Stevenson received 44.3% of the PV. I see it as likely that, with another Republican nominee and Eisenhower running idependent, that Stevenson could have won in 52' (Popular vote anyway. I have no idea how that Electoral College will look like).
 
I think the main problem for Eisenhower would have been, for fairly obvious reasons, organizational. However, Ike probably would not have had too much trouble finding donors, given his immense personal popularity. If he begins early enough, he can probably end up on the ballot in enough states to have an impact. I suspect he would receive a substantial amount of votes and end up the victor in a few states. If ever there were an independent candidate who could win, it would have been Ike. But structurally, such a victory is hard to accomplish. I do not know how many of Ike's voters were voting for him personally, and how many were Republicans who would have voted Taft had he been the nominee. Without that knowledge, which I am sure someone on this forum has, I cannot speculate on how well he would do in terms of numbers. I do think he would have done well, perhaps well enough to win a few states. There is, after all, some precedent for third parties to win states, albeit mostly southern states voting for Dixiecrats. My prediction, mostly for structural reasons, is either an outright Democratic victory, or a tie. In the latter case the House would decide the election. Which is interesting in that the Republican Party won the House that year, and if I remember my constitutional law correctly, it would be the new House that would decide the election. Now if Ike were independent, there is a possibility, even a probability, that the House would remain under the control of Rayburn and the Democrats. However, there may be a vague skimmer of a possiblity that the Republicans would still win their majority, in which case I would imagine a hell of a three way fight between Taft and Eisenhower congressmen, with no initial majority unless the Republican divide is enough to elect Adlai to the
 
In 1952 Stevenson received 44.3% of the PV. I see it as likely that, with another Republican nominee and Eisenhower running idependent, that Stevenson could have won in 52' (Popular vote anyway. I have no idea how that Electoral College will look like).
But would all of Stevenson's votes have gone to him? Even though Eisenhower was Republican in all but name, if he ran as an independent he might be able to get some people who voted Democrat out of opposition to the GOP.
 
I am typing on a mobile device right now, so when I type paragraphs, I sometimes am unable to scroll completely down. I meant to conclude the following post with "White House."

The tied election followed by a Republican majority deciding the election, however unlikely, probably results in President Taft. At the very least, assuming that the House and Senate still have a Republican majority, Taft's runningmate will be Vice President. However it may not be unimaginable that Ike's congressional support would be strong enough to merit some concessions on Taft's part in order to facilitate the arrival of a Taft Presidency, and I suspect Eisenhower's demands would involve pushing a more internationalist foreign policy on Taft, based on what had happened prior to and during the fight for the nomination.

There is a slim possibility that some sort of congressional coalition of Democrats and Liberal Republicans decides to elect Eisenhower, but that may so implausible as to not merit discussion in this forum.
 
I am typing on a mobile device right now, so when I type paragraphs, I sometimes am unable to scroll completely down. I meant to conclude the following post with "White House."

The tied election followed by a Republican majority deciding the election, however unlikely, probably results in President Taft. At the very least, assuming that the House and Senate still have a Republican majority, Taft's runningmate will be Vice President. However it may not be unimaginable that Ike's congressional support would be strong enough to merit some concessions on Taft's part in order to facilitate the arrival of a Taft Presidency, and I suspect Eisenhower's demands would involve pushing a more internationalist foreign policy on Taft, based on what had happened prior to and during the fight for the nomination.

There is a slim possibility that some sort of congressional coalition of Democrats and Liberal Republicans decides to elect Eisenhower, but that may so implausible as to not merit discussion in this forum.
Without Eisenhower's coattails, I doubt the Republicans would have gained the majority in the House or Senate.
 
Without Eisenhower's coattails, I doubt the Republicans would have gained the majority in the House or Senate.

Most likely they would not have, which is why I attempted to present that congressional scenario as a really unlikely, but interesting possibility barely within the purview of this forum. I spent so much time with it is because, well what would really happen is Rayburn's Democrats electing their nominee.
 
The tied election followed by a Republican majority deciding the election, however unlikely, probably results in President Taft. At the very least, assuming that the House and Senate still have a Republican majority, Taft's runningmate will be Vice President.

If Taft comes third though, his Veep candidate won't be an option, it would need to be Ike's running mate (centrist Democrat?) or Stevenson's. Presuming the Republican's find Ike's guy preferable, and Taft's cancer is as aggressive as OTL, you'll have an independent in the White House in 1953.
 
Have Hubert Humphrey get the Democratic nomination. Then he loses support in the South massively, being pro-civil rights. Taft becomes the Republican nominee.

Eisenhower picks Harold Stassen as his VP. Taft picks his congress ally Fred A. Hartley. Hubert Humphrey selects Paul A. Dever.
 
But, WTF would he've done that? It'd be unnecessarily cutting off a whole leg, between troubles running and no Congressional support for his agenda.

And the GOP wasn't yet extremely conservative or even mostly conservative.

And he was running in reality, not AH.com, where so many of us have the weirdest and wrongest 'tude toward the two-party system.

So, why?
 
Dwight D. Eisenhower/Harold Stassen (Independent)
Benjamin Travis Laney/James O. Eastland (State's Rights)
Robert Taft/Fred A. Hartley (Republican)
Hubert Humphrey/Paul A. Dever (Democrat)



genusmap.php
 
Top