Could Taft Have Won in 1952?

[Amadeus]

A major reason that Republican leaders supported Dwight Eisenhower for President in 1952 was that they believed the frontrunner, Senator Robert Taft, was unelectable. Taft was widely seen as an isolationist arch-conservative who opposed the New Deal, positions that were very unpopular at the time. After the disappointment of 1948, the GOP was desperate to win and the moderate Eisenhower prevailed at the convention.

But was Taft really doomed to failure in 1952? Could he have possibly won the general election?

 

[GeographyDude]

party fatigue with the Democrats among enough independent and swing voters, I want to say, yes, Taft could have won.

 

[Johannes Parisiensis]

Adlai Stevenson already attacked Ike for alleged ties to Taft and used Great Depression memories, so with Taft it will be even easier to pull it.

 

[Zheng He]

party fatigue with the Democrats among enough independent and swing voters, I want to say, yes, Taft could have won.

It's also easy to forget how unpopular Truman was at the time, in early 1952 at one point his disapproval ratings were running at something like 67%. How much this spills over to the party nominee in 1952 (Stevenson or anyone else) I don't know but there has to be some collateral damage.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Probably yes, but not by the same landslide that propelled Ike into the White House. Taft was not a very magnetic personality at all.

One would hope he made an outstanding choice for his running mate: while it was undiagnosed at the time-indeed, it was asymptomatic-Taft had cancer that IOTL was diagnosed definitively in June 1953. It was metastatic pancreatic cancer, and he died on 31 July 1953. Thus, a Taft presidency would be right there with William Henry Harrison and James Garfield for short presidencies. I'd guess Taft would have had to choose someone from the other wing of the party to balance the ticket, so whoever that was would have become the 35th president in short order. It's not impossible that this person might have been Harold Stassen, based on OTL events.

 

[Athelstane]

Yes - but it would have been closer.

 

[David T]

One possible result of Taft winning by a much narrower margin than Eisenhower is that the Democrats might maintain control of the Senate and the House as well. Among the Republicans who narrowly won Senate races in OTL who might have lost in this ATL are Barry Goldwater (who defeated Ernest McFarland in AZ by 51.3-48.7) and Charles E. Potter (who defeated Blair Moody in MI 50.6-49.0). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_United_States_Senate_elections

(And if Goldwater isn't elected to the Senate in 1952, will he ever be? True, he easily defeated McFarland again in 1958, so one can argue that he could have been elected to the Senate for the first time then, even though it was a Democratic year nationally. But Goldwater was unlikely to have done as well in 1958 without the advantage of incumbency. And as for AZ's other Senate seat, Carl Hayden looks unbeatable, at least in 1956.)

In the House, the Republicans only won a very narrow majority in OTL--221-213. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections A few Republicans who would probably have lost without Ike's coattails: Frank Small, Jr., MD-05 (won 50.4-49.6); Clarence Clifton Young, NV-at-large (won 50.5-49.5); Edward J. Bonin, PA-11 (won 50.2-49.8); Louis E. Graham, PA-25 (won 50.4-49.6); and Joel Broyhill, VA-10 (won 50.2-49.8).

 

[Athelstane]

One possible result of Taft winning by a much narrower margin than Eisenhower is that the Democrats might maintain control of the Senate and the House as well. Among the Republicans who narrowly won Senate races in OTL who might have lost in this ATL are Barry Goldwater (who defeated Ernest McFarland in AZ by 51.3-48.7) and Charles E. Potter (who defeated Blair Moody in MI 50.6-49.0). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_United_States_Senate_elections

(And if Goldwater isn't elected to the Senate in 1952, will he ever be? True, he easily defeated McFarland again in 1958, so one can argue that he could have been elected to the Senate for the first time then, even though it was a Democratic year nationally. But Goldwater was unlikely to have done as well in 1958 without the advantage of incumbency. And as for AZ's other Senate seat, Carl Hayden looks unbeatable, at least in 1956.)

In the House, the Republicans only won a very narrow majority in OTL--221-213. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections A few Republicans who would probably have lost without Ike's coattails: Frank Small, Jr., MD-05 (won 50.4-49.6); Clarence Clifton Young, NV-at-large (won 50.5-49.5); Edward J. Bonin, PA-11 (won 50.2-49.8); Louis E. Graham, PA-25 (won 50.4-49.6); and Joel Broyhill, VA-10 (won 50.2-49.8).

The Senate is definitely a coin flip at that point, given the margin of control (48-48). A Taft nomination stands a good chance of costing the GOP at least one house of Congress.

1952 is also interesting in that it is a striking exemplar of an era where GOP regional strength actually tended to work against them in Senate election results: they only managed a tie (48-48) despite winning the popular vote in Senate races that year by 7 points.

Obviously, there's been a lot of geographical realignment since the 1950's...

(I think Goldwater would still win, but there's a few other Republicans I am less certain about...)

 

[Sporian]

A Taft nomination stands a good chance of costing the GOP at least one house of Congress.

This makes an interesting conundrum; a conservative in the executive with not a lot of support in Congress, but a need to pass budgets still. Taft would certainly do what he can do in the Executive Branch to cut costs and welfare programs, but congress would be a lot more hesitant...

This might lead to, in the 20th century onward, Congress having much more control over things that would usually become the Executive Branch's deal, stretching their elastic clause even further. Leads to more shared governance, as popular programs that economic conservatives would balk at can still happen in congress, with a pressured Taft forced to sign them.

 

[Athelstane]

This makes an interesting conundrum; a conservative in the executive with not a lot of support in Congress, but a need to pass budgets still. Taft would certainly do what he can do in the Executive Branch to cut costs and welfare programs, but congress would be a lot more hesitant...

This might lead to, in the 20th century onward, Congress having much more control over things that would usually become the Executive Branch's deal, stretching their elastic clause even further. Leads to more shared governance, as popular programs that economic conservatives would balk at can still happen in congress, with a pressured Taft forced to sign them.

It may hardly matter, given that a Taft presidency would only have lasted five months - not much time to get a legislative program through even if he had both houses. Much would depend on who he picked for his running mate.

 

[Sporian]

It may hardly matter, given that a Taft presidency would only have lasted five months - not much time to get a legislative program through even if he had both houses. Much would depend on who he picked for his running mate.

Good point, I forgot how quickly his cancer got him. If he got the nomination, he'd likely have to go for someone more liberal at the bottom, meaning almost nothing would matter. It's a very sad existence- a powerful senator deemed to be the most irrelevant president of the 20th century.

 

[Athelstane]

Good point, I forgot how quickly his cancer got him. If he got the nomination, he'd likely have to go for someone more liberal at the bottom, meaning almost nothing would matter. It's a very sad existence- a powerful senator deemed to be the most irrelevant president of the 20th century.

Might serve as a warning shot across the bow of the Dewey internationalist wing of the party that conservatives had actually managed to get a nominee and even elect him.

But yeah, in the short term, not much policy impact. Korea probably still ends because that was driven mostly by Stalin's death in March.

 

[Zheng He]

Korea probably still ends because that was driven mostly by Stalin's death in March.

That and the Chinese figuring out that Stalin was egging them on to stay in the course in Korea because he was thrilled to see Chinese and Americans killing each other.

One thought about Taft - are his defense cuts even steeper than Ike's or can he not pull it off because Eisenhower had the heft of five stars behind him?

 

[Don Corleone]

POD would have to be pre-1941. One factor working against him was his condemnation of the Nuremberg trials on the grounds that it was victors justice/ex post facto law. That criticism earned him a chapter in Profiles in Courage, but didn't play well with voters (hence the inclusion in the book).

 

[bguy]

(I think Goldwater would still win, but there's a few other Republicans I am less certain about...)

The Goldwater campaign played up the Eisenhower connection really heavily during the close of the campaign. Goldwater road with Eisenhower in an open car in Phoenix, and the campaign ran ads in both the Phoenix and Tuscon newspapers stressing that Ike needed Republican senators and showing a beaming Eisenhower shaking hands with Goldwater. Given how close the election was even with Goldwater able to ride on Ike's coattails, it's hard to see Goldwater winning with a much less personally popular Republican presidential candidate.

Also IOTL McFarland made a huge gaffe late in the campaign by referring to the Korean War as "a cheap war" and crediting the war for making the US prosperous. He might make the same mistake ITTL (McFarland doesn't seem to have taken Goldwater seriously as an opponent until far too late in the campaign), but if that particular gaffe gets butterflied away than McFarland would almost certainly win.

Good point, I forgot how quickly his cancer got him. If he got the nomination, he'd likely have to go for someone more liberal at the bottom, meaning almost nothing would matter. It's a very sad existence- a powerful senator deemed to be the most irrelevant president of the 20th century.

According to the James Patterson biography on Taft, he planned to pick California Senator William Knowland as his vice president. Knowland was ideologically similar to Taft but would have provided the ticket with geographic balance and was very good friends with Earl Warren (to the point that Knowland supported Warren's doomed 1952 presidential run).

The interesting thing about a President Knowland is that he was very pro-Taiwan. (To the point he was known as the Senator from Formosa.) So if Taft wins and then Knowland inherits the presidency, he might be much more aggressive against Communist China should they make any move against Taiwan.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Certainly, but not by nearly as wide a margin as Eisenhower. This itself would have important ramifications. As was already pointed out, Barry Goldwater only won his seat in the United States Senate by a very thin margin that year, arguably as a result of Ike's coattails. His political rise will, at the very least, be delayed. Not only that, but Goldwater actually defeated the Senate Majority leader, Ernest McFarland, in the election. This means that LBJ will, at the very least, have to wait a few years before filling that position.

David T is also makes a good point in arguing that the Democrats probably do hold both the House and the Senate, but given the existence of the conservative coalition, this would probably not make much of a practical difference, at least in the short-term.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Given Taft's death in 1953, I often see this scenario proposed as a way to install some other Republican as President of the United States. Richard Nixon, Joe McCarthy, Douglas MacArthur...

 

[Anarcho-Occultist]

Given Taft's death in 1953, I often see this scenario proposed as a way to install some other Republican as President of the United States. Richard Nixon, Joe McCarthy, Douglas MacArthur...

Probably not MacArthur-he was Taft-like on policy (at least domestic, though I’ve seen a few claim he was isolationist for a time). McCarthy might actually be a choice as, anti-communist paranoia aside, he was a fairly mainstream Republican on policy.

Nixon would work but that’s a less interesting scenario I would think

 

[Gentleman Biaggi]

The interesting thing about a President Knowland is that he was very pro-Taiwan. (To the point he was known as the Senator from Formosa.) So if Taft wins and then Knowland inherits the presidency, he might be much more aggressive against Communist China should they make any move against Taiwan.

Taft/Judd 1956: Let's just annex Formosa

 

[Athelstane]

The Goldwater campaign played up the Eisenhower connection really heavily during the close of the campaign. Goldwater road with Eisenhower in an open car in Phoenix, and the campaign ran ads in both the Phoenix and Tuscon newspapers stressing that Ike needed Republican senators and showing a beaming Eisenhower shaking hands with Goldwater. Given how close the election was even with Goldwater able to ride on Ike's coattails, it's hard to see Goldwater winning with a much less personally popular Republican presidential candidate.

Also IOTL McFarland made a huge gaffe late in the campaign by referring to the Korean War as "a cheap war" and crediting the war for making the US prosperous. He might make the same mistake ITTL (McFarland doesn't seem to have taken Goldwater seriously as an opponent until far too late in the campaign), but if that particular gaffe gets butterflied away than McFarland would almost certainly win.

It's all speculation, of course.

But given that Arizona trended GOP to begin with, and that Stevenson got absolutely clobbered by Ike in Arizona - well, Taft would still have won the state, albeit by a narrower margin. I still think the odds favor Goldwater squeaking it out. If his OTL margin had been tighter, I might think differently.

Part of me wonders, however, if the conservative movement would have been better off with Goldwater never reaching the Senate...

According to the James Patterson biography on Taft, he planned to pick California Senator William Knowland as his vice president. Knowland was ideologically similar to Taft but would have provided the ticket with geographic balance and was very good friends with Earl Warren (to the point that Knowland supported Warren's doomed 1952 presidential run).

The interesting thing about a President Knowland is that he was very pro-Taiwan. (To the point he was known as the Senator from Formosa.) So if Taft wins and then Knowland inherits the presidency, he might be much more aggressive against Communist China should they make any move against Taiwan.

Yes - it would almost certainly have been Knowland.

Of course, this removes two Republicans from the Senate. But the governors of the states in question were Republicans anyway.