President Taft

Nothing good.

But I don't think Taft would win. Not even the 24 years of Democratic rule would help. Maybe if Truman ran against him--he was deeply unpopular at the time.
 
Nothing good.

But I don't think Taft would win. Not even the 24 years of Democratic rule would help. Maybe if Truman ran against him--he was deeply unpopular at the time.

Off topic, but Truman absolutely hated Taft. There's an anecdote, perhaps apocryphal, that Truman made a point of using the lavatory on the Independence (Truman's AF-1) whenever it flew over Taft's home state of Ohio in Taft's "honor".

However, had Taft somehow gotten the nomination and won in 1952, it would have been a short Presidency. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer in April 1953 and died at the end of July. Taft would have been a footnote in the history books -- the WH Harrison of the 20th Century. The true historical import would have been in his VP pick, which could well have been Richard Nixon. If Nixon was picked and exhibited the same measure of dishonesty and paranoia that overcame him 20 years later, the 1950s might have been very different than they turned out. It would make for a good TL; that coming on the still-fresh memories of Hoover might have done in the GOP for good, leading to a new party in its place.
 
I can't see Taft winning in 52. Ike won because he was a moderate. Both Democrats and Republicans wanted him to run with them. The right wing branch of the GOP was not strong like it is today. One reason was that most Americans remembered that the right wing branch of the GOP had economic policies that had lead to the Great Depression. Eisenhower was not a right winger. Plus he was trusted from WW2. The Right wing branch was not trusted then. It would not be until the 1980's and when liberals with their in fighting that the right wing would get a second chance. The big question who would be his VP? Would Eisenhower take it? Doubtful. Taft might have taken another right winger that would have made it even tougher for him to win. Maybe Earl Warren gets a second chance. But I think Taft was more like Goldwalter in 64 . The nomination was all he cared about. Truman was un popular at that time but he would beat Taft. But Truman would need a different VP. Who would that be?
 
We'd be out of NATO. This would likely mean no Warsaw Pact. (The Pact was founded in 1955, lest we forget- six years AFTER NATO, and one year after we let the Germans in.) This could actually mean a more peaceful Europe and world...
On the other hand, the New Deal state would be dismantled. This would change America drastically.
One thing is certain. Harry S. Truman would be far less liked by historians today- and that would be a very good thing.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Taft was basically assured the Republican nomination until Eisenhower threw his hat into the ring, and even then Ike's nomination wasn't assured; he only really won because of Nixon's "fair play" strategy which booted a huge chunk of Taft's supporters out of the convention. Taft getting the nod in 1952 is by no means unlikely.

Same thing with the 1952 election. While Taft wasn't a very good campaigner and a lot of work will fall on his running-mate's shoulders with regards to shoring up support, Stevenson and Sparkman have even less of a chance. Stevenson was completely out of touch with the voters, many of who saw him as an "egghead" at a time when being an egghead in America was a very bad thing, not to mention the fact that the Democrats in the 1950s were seen as the party of corruption, graft, being soft on communism, and responsible for the debacle in Korea. Sparkman didn't do a whole lot; he was just there to satisfy the Southern Dems. So while the election will be close, Taft will likely still win, even more so if MacArthur is his running-mate.

Taft's VP choice would have been between two people. If nominated he said he would pick Douglas MacArthur. That does not mean, of course, that MacArthur would accept it. A better choice (and the one Taft really wanted) was William Knowland of California, whose credentials are through the roof and even if he didn't get the VP slot, he would definitely have been given a Cabinet position. Nixon's another option. Any one of them is going to garner Taft a lot of votes since they are excellent campaigners and, in MacArthur's case, beloved by the American people (and a victim of the foul Democrats).

But as was mentioned, Taft's presidency would be short-lived. He died of cancer in the summer of '53. This leaves us with a POTUS MacArthur :)eek:), a POTUS Knowland :)o), or possibly a POTUS Nixon :)confused:) in 1952.
Tailgunner in the Pilot's seat 2.0 read it.
You I like ;):p:)
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
We'd be out of NATO. This would likely mean no Warsaw Pact. (The Pact was founded in 1955, lest we forget- six years AFTER NATO, and one year after we let the Germans in.) This could actually mean a more peaceful Europe and world...
On the other hand, the New Deal state would be dismantled. This would change America drastically.
Absolutely none of this could have possibly been accomplished, especially in the 192 Taft would be in office, and that isn't even counting the time he'd be out of commission while undergoing treatment for/dying of cancer.
 
Top