Could Truman have won in 1948 without a pro-Civil Rights platform?

As the title says. Let's say Hubert Humphrey does not give the speech, either by a non-fatal car accident or anything. Could Truman have won the 1948 Presidential Elections without the Dems adopting a pro- Civil Rights platform at the time? Could the South have compensated for any lost vote in other states?

After all, the vote was close, and this was in the aftermath of Hubert Humphrey's speech: there 651 1/2 yeas and 581 1/2 nays.

What would have happened?
 
This is an interesting question. This could set up a situation where Truman wins in the Electoral College and Dewey wins the popular vote.

The obvious effect would be no Thurmond candidacy. So you start by adding Thurmond's 2.4% of the popular vote and his 39 electoral votes to the Truman totals.

IOTL, Truman's national popular vote percentage margin over Dewey was 4.5%, and his electoral vote margin was 114. With the Electoral College, the key is that Dewey got 189 votes, 77 short of the 266 needed to win. With Thurmond's 39 votes going to Truman, Dewey would need all 77 to close the gap. Adding in the Thurmond votes to Truman's total increases his nationwide popular vote percentage margin to 5.7%, but the increase all comes in states that Dewey has no chance to win.

Truman seems to have received over two thirds of the Black/ African-American vote IOTL. Assume this percentage drops by 25%, which is reasonable, and Truman loses 2% to 3% from his nationwide popular vote margin alone. This wipes out his entire gain from Thurmond and then some. probably bringing it down to about 2%. Loss of white liberal votes would wipe out the margin completely. Its difficult to calculate more exact numbers because some of these votes, particularly the white liberals, would have gone to Henry Wallace, not Dewey. But I think Dewey would have wound up with a very narrow nationwide popular vote lead.

As it happened, the three closest Truman states IOTL were California, Ohio, and Illinois, all of which he carried by less than 1% over Dewey. And the three states combined at the time for 78 electoral votes, one more than Dewey needed to win. If Dewey wins all three states he wins. With no civil rights plank, he almost certainly would have carried California and Illinois, both of which have enough African American and white liberal voters to make the difference. But Truman could have still managed to win Ohio, which has fewer voters in both of these categories.

Dewey's three closest states were Indiana, which he carried by less than 1%, and Maryland and Delaware, which he carried by 1.4%. Thurmond's percentage in Maryland, 1.6%, was bigger than Dewey's margin. So another possibility is California, Illinois, and Ohio moving into Dewey's column, but it not mattering because Truman grabs either Maryland or Indiana.

My suspicion is that the result would have been either a really narrow Dewey win in the nationwide popular vote and the Electoral College, due to his carrying California, Illinois, and Ohio, or a Dewey nationwide popular vote win and Truman winning in the Electoral College by some combination of either holding on to Ohio or losing it but winning either Maryland or Indiana.
 
This is an interesting question. This could set up a situation where Truman wins in the Electoral College and Dewey wins the popular vote.

The obvious effect would be no Thurmond candidacy. So you start by adding Thurmond's 2.4% of the popular vote and his 39 electoral votes to the Truman totals.

IOTL, Truman's national popular vote percentage margin over Dewey was 4.5%, and his electoral vote margin was 114. With the Electoral College, the key is that Dewey got 189 votes, 77 short of the 266 needed to win. With Thurmond's 39 votes going to Truman, Dewey would need all 77 to close the gap. Adding in the Thurmond votes to Truman's total increases his nationwide popular vote percentage margin to 5.7%, but the increase all comes in states that Dewey has no chance to win.

Truman seems to have received over two thirds of the Black/ African-American vote IOTL. Assume this percentage drops by 25%, which is reasonable, and Truman loses 2% to 3% from his nationwide popular vote margin alone. This wipes out his entire gain from Thurmond and then some. probably bringing it down to about 2%. Loss of white liberal votes would wipe out the margin completely. Its difficult to calculate more exact numbers because some of these votes, particularly the white liberals, would have gone to Henry Wallace, not Dewey. But I think Dewey would have wound up with a very narrow nationwide popular vote lead.

As it happened, the three closest Truman states IOTL were California, Ohio, and Illinois, all of which he carried by less than 1% over Dewey. And the three states combined at the time for 78 electoral votes, one more than Dewey needed to win. If Dewey wins all three states he wins. With no civil rights plank, he almost certainly would have carried California and Illinois, both of which have enough African American and white liberal voters to make the difference. But Truman could have still managed to win Ohio, which has fewer voters in both of these categories.

Dewey's three closest states were Indiana, which he carried by less than 1%, and Maryland and Delaware, which he carried by 1.4%. Thurmond's percentage in Maryland, 1.6%, was bigger than Dewey's margin. So another possibility is California, Illinois, and Ohio moving into Dewey's column, but it not mattering because Truman grabs either Maryland or Indiana.

My suspicion is that the result would have been either a really narrow Dewey win in the nationwide popular vote and the Electoral College, due to his carrying California, Illinois, and Ohio, or a Dewey nationwide popular vote win and Truman winning in the Electoral College by some combination of either holding on to Ohio or losing it but winning either Maryland or Indiana.

I think Truman would have lost Ohio without the civil rights plank. In OTL he won the state by only 7,107 votes--0.24% of the vote--a smaller percentage than Illinois (0.84%) or California (0.44%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948 The 1950 census would list 513,072 African Americans in Ohio. http://blackdemographics.com/states/ohio/ If just 3,600 of them switched from Truman to Dewey, Dewey would have won the state.

As for Maryland, any benefit that Truman would get by not having Thurmond on the ballot there would be offset by his losses among the state's large African American voting population, especially in Baltimore. In Indiana, Thurmond wasn't on the ballot, and even if we assume that a few normally Democratic Hoosiers voted for Dewey because of the civil rights plank, they would be more than offset by African Americans who voted for Truman because of it.
 
Are you assuming Truman only won by having a pro-civil rights platform?

Close elections tend to be "overdetermined"--that is, any number of things could have made them go differently. And while 1948 wasn't all that close in terms of the national popular vote, it was very close in Ohio, Illinois, and California--three states which, had Dewey carried, he would have won the election. So any number of things *even by themselves* could have been enough to change the outcome.
 
Close elections tend to be "overdetermined"--that is, any number of things could have made them go differently. And while 1948 wasn't all that close in terms of the national popular vote, it was very close in Ohio, Illinois, and California--three states which, had Dewey carried, he would have won the election. So any number of things *even by themselves* could have been enough to change the outcome.
I see.
 
Close elections tend to be "overdetermined"--that is, any number of things could have made them go differently. And while 1948 wasn't all that close in terms of the national popular vote, it was very close in Ohio, Illinois, and California--three states which, had Dewey carried, he would have won the election. So any number of things *even by themselves* could have been enough to change the outcome.
I see.
 
Could somebody ratch up a mini-TL about a Truman win? A Dewey win?

I wonder how recounts will be conducted in close states.

Would liberal Republicans skew Progressive ITTL?
 
Another question: could Goldwater still rise?

If this happens, it woul be interesting to see a GOP that is pro-racial rights but conservative in other aspects.
 
One problem is this: If the Democrats had adopted a watered-down civil rights platform, Dewey *could* have taken advantage of that fact to win crucial African American votes in states like California, Illinois, and Ohio. (He might also have won some white liberal votes--or at least persuaded more white liberals that the Republicans were no more conservative than the Democrats, so why not cast a protest vote for Henry Wallace or Norman Thomas?) But *would* he have done so? In OTL, he said very little about civil rights during his campaign, and that might be the case in this ATL as well. In which case, most African Americans would probably stick with the Democrats on economic grounds, since the Republicans showed no signs of being more liberal on civil rights. (Though, to be sure, some might defect to Wallace.)

Just why Dewey was so silent on civil rights is not clear. It might have been because of hopes for Virginia and other southern state (both the Crossley and Gallup polls had Dewey leading in Virginia), though both Dewey and his campaign manager Herbert Brownell later disclaimed any such expectation. https://books.google.com/books?id=GkcL4Hwpi4YC&pg=PA138. But more likely it was just a part of Dewey's general complacency and belief that he would easily win if he didn't get too specific on controversial issues....
 
One problem is this: If the Democrats had adopted a watered-down civil rights platform, Dewey *could* have taken advantage of that fact to win crucial African American votes in states like California, Illinois, and Ohio. (He might also have won some white liberal votes--or at least persuaded more white liberals that the Republicans were no more conservative than the Democrats, so why not cast a protest vote for Henry Wallace or Norman Thomas?) But *would* he have done so? In OTL, he said very little about civil rights during his campaign, and that might be the case in this ATL as well. In which case, most African Americans would probably stick with the Democrats on economic grounds, since the Republicans showed no signs of being more liberal on civil rights. (Though, to be sure, some might defect to Wallace.)

Just why Dewey was so silent on civil rights is not clear. It might have been because of hopes for Virginia and other southern state (both the Crossley and Gallup polls had Dewey leading in Virginia), though both Dewey and his campaign manager Herbert Brownell later disclaimed any such expectation. https://books.google.com/books?id=GkcL4Hwpi4YC&pg=PA138. But more likely it was just a part of Dewey's general complacency and belief that he would easily win if he didn't get too specific on controversial issues....

Interesting... so if Dewey is mum on Civil Rights (racial), then Truman could win with a larger margin and Electoral College votes.
 

Towelie

Banned
I'd think he would have had a more dominant win if he would have avoided the issue. No Dixiecrat revolt means an additional 39 EV, and probably Indiana and Maryland as well.
 
So something like this:

genusmap.php


(D) Truman/Barkley - 363 EVs 51.4%
(R) Dewey/Warren - 168 EVs 44.1%
 
Dewey hardly campaigned on anything to avoid offending anybody, so any civil rights push from him would be passive at best.
 
I think Truman would have lost Ohio without the civil rights plank. In OTL he won the state by only 7,107 votes--0.24% of the vote--a smaller percentage than Illinois (0.84%) or California (0.44%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948 The 1950 census would list 513,072 African Americans in Ohio. http://blackdemographics.com/states/ohio/ If just 3,600 of them switched from Truman to Dewey, Dewey would have won the state.

As for Maryland, any benefit that Truman would get by not having Thurmond on the ballot there would be offset by his losses among the state's large African American voting population, especially in Baltimore. In Indiana, Thurmond wasn't on the ballot, and even if we assume that a few normally Democratic Hoosiers voted for Dewey because of the civil rights plank, they would be more than offset by African Americans who voted for Truman because of it.

This analysis omits the possible effect of civil rights plank and no Dixiecrat candidacy on the appeal of Henry Wallace's "Progressive" candidacy. Wallace drew a million votes by leftists and liberals dissatisfied with Truman, mainly over foreign policy. However, Truman's civil rights stand (and its confirmation by the Dixiecrats) was a powerful appeal to that segment. It seems very likely that without it, Wallace would have run significantly stronger - perhaps by as much as a million votes.

Another factor is that with the Dixiecrats splitting the vote in the South, the Dewey campaign thought that Dewey might have a chance of carrying some Upper South states. So Dewey soft-pedalled the traditional Republican civil rights position. With no Dixiecrats and no civil rights plank for the Democrats, Dewey would probably be aggressive on the issue, winning not only black votes, but also some white liberal voters for whom it was becoming an important issue.

Finally, the double split of the Democrats seemed to lock in the election for Dewey, who "played it safe". Removing one of those splits would reduce Republican complacency, and perhaps mobilize more Republican voters. Something depressed turnout in 1948 by about 8M, compared to the trend line established by 1936, 1940, 1952, and 1956. (Turnout was depressed in 1944, for an obvious reason; but that reason no longer applied in 1948.)

If 7.5M additional voters turned out, and broke 2/1 for Dewey, and Truman lost 1M to Wallace, and 0.5M black voters flipped... Dewey wins by about 27.3M to 26.2M. Not a landslide, but a very solid victory.

So IMO Dewey would have a good chance of winnng both the electoral and popular votes.
 
Top