President Truman's historical reputation if he lost in 1948?

Glass Onion · Sep 17, 2016

How would President Truman be remembered had he been narrowly defeated by Governor Dewey in 1948? Presume for the moment that Dewey wins a narrow victory over Truman rather than the lopsided landslide that was anticipated.

How is President Truman remembered thereafter? How is his defeat viewed and to what extent would even an extremely narrow loss be blamed on Truman himself within his party?

How would Truman's brief administration be viewed if his term ended in January 1949?

Aaaaasima · Sep 17, 2016

I think he would be remembered as a caretaker president

Indicus · Sep 17, 2016

He'd be as forgettable as Gerald Ford.

Unless he only barely loses, in which case he'd be remembered as having turned a landslide defeat into a near victory.

Israel · Sep 17, 2016

fjihr said:
He'd be as forgettable as Gerald Ford.

Unless he only barely loses, in which case he'd be remembered as having
turned a landslide defeat into a near victory.

Same as Ford

Indicus · Sep 17, 2016

Israel said:
Same as Ford

If Truman loses the popular vote by three points (as could have happened), he'll be remembered as an almost-winner. And if Dewey is a failure, like in that excellent SW game, Truman will be a popular what if.

I feel that Dewey would have been a success, so in that case, Truman will be little more than a trivia question.

Beata Beatrix · Sep 17, 2016

fjihr said:
If Truman loses the popular vote by three points (as could have happened), he'll be remembered as an almost-winner. And if Dewey is a failure, like in that excellent SW game, Truman will be a popular what if.

I feel that Dewey would have been a success, so in that case, Truman will be little more than a trivia question.

Hey! I got namedropped!

Truman would be a very solid meh. He dropped the bomb, but his domestic policies floundered.

Dewey's administration could have gone either way, but '48 was a poor year to win.

Glass Onion · Sep 17, 2016

Dewey does not need to win a popular vote majority to win the Presidency. Truman can eak out a narrow popular vote majority and still lose the White House-becoming the first President to lose in such a way since 1888.

Presuming the difference is evenly distributed a 2 percent swing in his favor is enough to obtain 271 votes-but not enough for him to overcome President Truman in the popular vote.

Electoral Result:
Dewey/Warren: 271

Truman/Barkley: 222

Popular Vote:

Dewey/Warren: 47.05

Truman/Barkley: 47.55

(Yes I recognize that those numbers do not add up to 100-but there were other candidates in that race who split the remaining difference.)

Indeed Dewey could do even worse than that in the popular vote and still pick up Illinois, Ohio, and California-which would give him 267 votes and the Presidency. That outcome only requires a shift of .43 percent of the vote in those states if I have the math correct.

Of course such an outcome might tempt Harry Truman to make a comeback in 1952.

Even if he doesn't-which is the working presumption of this thread-that kind of outcome could impact how the 1948 election is viewed afterwards-particularly within the Democratic Party. He's even more of an "almost winner" in that case than if he loses the popular vote to Tom Dewey narrowly.

I'm also curious about how Truman is viewed by historians as well as by the general public. The public might forget about Truman-but eventually historians will have something to say about him.

Granted a lot of that depends on what happens under Dewey and subsequent administrations-but assessed on the merits of 1945-1949 how might that history look?

dw93 · Sep 17, 2016

Truman would be the President who dropped the bomb, transistioning the US from wartime to peace time, and perhaps for the Marshall Plan. Certainly more than a caretaker, I'd say Bush 41 would be a good comparison for Truman if he were to lose in 1948.

Beata Beatrix · Sep 17, 2016

I think Bush 41 is good, yeah. He's pretty good, but more meh.

Glass Onion · Sep 17, 2016

One thing to keep in mind is just how unpopular Truman was by 1952. Almost everything that hurt Truman's reputation by that point occured in his second term. By 1952 he might be much more popular than he historically was in 1952-or than he was for some time after he left office historically.

Presuming Truman is not personally blamed for the loss I can see him being rehabilitated much faster.

That's a part of this. How would the 1948 Republican victory be interpreted?

Would the view be that the Democrats were inevitably going to lose-since they had held the White House for 16 years by that point.

Would the defeat be blamed on Henry Wallace?

Would the defeat be blamed on Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats-and thereby make Democrats wary to offend the South again on the issue of Civil Rights?

Would Truman himself be viewed as being responsible for his own defeat? That is are there decisions he made as President or during the campaign that would retrospectively explain the loss-even in a popular vote electoral vote mix match scenario?

Beata Beatrix · Sep 17, 2016

Glass Onion said:
One thing to keep in mind is just how unpopular Truman was by 1952. Almost everything that hurt Truman's reputation by that point occured in his second term. By 1952 he might be much more popular than he historically was in 1952-or than he was for some time after he left office historically.

Presuming Truman is not personally blamed for the loss I can see him being rehabilitated much faster.

That's a part of this. How would the 1948 Republican victory be interpreted?

Would the view be that the Democrats were inevitably going to lose-since they had held the White House for 16 years by that point.

Would the defeat be blamed on Henry Wallace?

Would the defeat be blamed on Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats-and thereby make Democrats wary to offend the South again on the issue of Civil Rights?

Would Truman himself be viewed as being responsible for his own defeat? That is are there decisions he made as President or during the campaign that would retrospectively explain the loss-even in a popular vote electoral vote mix match scenario?

Well, that depends on the circumstances of the loss. If Truman loses the popular vote, then they might be nicer to Dixie, but if he wins it, they'll just keep down the same course.

John Farson · Sep 17, 2016

Another question: With Truman losing in 1948, what would become of the 22nd Amendment? Would it still be ratified?

David T · Sep 18, 2016

Israel said:
Same as Ford

And unlike Ford, he would probably win the *popular* vote. (He won it by 4.5 percent in OTL; if you reduce his margin to 2.5 percent, and if the two point gain for Dewey is distributed evenly among the states, Dewey will win Illinois, Ohio, and California and therefore the election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948 This seems to me a much more plausible scenario than having Truman lose the popular vote.) OTOH, it would be noted that Truman lagged behind his party's congressional vote; indeed, the Democrats will still probably take control of Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1948
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1948_and_1949

Furthermore, historians will note that much of the foreign policy of the Dewey administration was simply a continuation of the Truman administration's initiatives, like the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine.

David T · Sep 18, 2016

John Farson said:
Another question: With Truman losing in 1948, what would become of the 22nd Amendment? Would it still be ratified?

Presumably, if Truman loses, the Republicans will do at least marginally better in the state legislatures, which means that if anything, ratification will be easier. (No, the fact that Dewey was in office would not make the Republicans back it any less. After all, when Congress passed the Amendment in 1947, the Republicans who passed it assumed they would retake the White House in 1948, so it's not like a Dewey victory would be a surprise to them. Second, the last thing many Republicans would want would be three Dewey terms in the White House. And anyway, the Amendment was not directed against Truman--he was specifically exempted. It was, as everyone recognized, a posthumous slap at FDR.)

David T · Sep 18, 2016

Blaming Thurmond would be irrational (which isn't to say that it won't be done!) because in this scenario Dewey wins a *majority* in the Electoral College (i.e., more electors than Truman and Thurmond *combined*)--and the only plausible way he can do that is by winning more states than in OTL in the *North* where Thurmond's vote was negligible. Dewey did not come really close to carrying any southern state. (The closest was Virginia, but even there he was 6.85 points behind.)

Blaming Wallace superficially makes more sense. Wallace wasn't on the ballot in Illinois, but if Dewey narrowly carries Ohio and California, Wallace's vote will probably exceed Dewey's margin of victory in those two states (especially California). Moreover, even if Truman doesn't come quite as close as he did in New York in OTL, Wallace's half million votes there will certainly be greater than Dewey's margin of victory in his home state. (The reason that this analysis is somewhat superficial is that it ignores that Wallace, though he doubtless took votes away from Truman, also unintentionally helped him by making it harder for the GOP to charge Truman with being soft on communism. In the same way, the Dixiecrat revolt helped Truman with the African American vote in the North.)

EMTSATX · Sep 18, 2016

From my point of view it would suck. I'm a big fan of Truman. I also think integrating the Military is just a brilliant. I also like New Deal people who are not a bunch of pussies.

For example when I joined I had not been around black people I knew a lot of black guys who had not been around white people. You get to be friends, then trust etc.. you can't be prejudiced, you get to see the BS it is. So props to give 'em hell Harry.

As an aside I liked the military not even using racial terms such as black or white (you were "dark blue or light blue")

David T · Sep 18, 2016

EMTSATX said:
From my point of view it would suck. I'm a big fan of Truman. I also think integrating the Military is just a brilliant. I also like New Deal people who are not a bunch of pussies.

For example when I joined I had not been around black people I knew a lot of black guys who had not been around white people. You get to be friends, then trust etc.. you can't be prejudiced, you get to see the BS it is. So props to give 'em hell Harry.

As an aside I liked the military not even using racial terms such as black or white (you were "dark blue or light blue")

Dewey would probably have been at least as pro-civil-rights as Truman. As governor of New York, he signed the first state FEPC law. https://news.google.com/newspapers?...ljAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XysMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1143,15918572 And the 1948 Republican platform came out against racial segregation in the armed forces *before* Truman's order:

"Lynching or any other form of mob violence anywhere is a disgrace to any civilized state, and we favor the prompt enactment of legislation to end this infamy.

One of the basic principles of this Republic is the equality of all individuals in their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This principle is enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution of the United States; it was vindicated on the field of battle and became the cornerstone of this Republic. This right of equal opportunity to work and to advance in life should never be limited in any individual because of race, religion, color, or country of origin. We favor the enactment and just enforcement of such Federal legislation as may be necessary to maintain this right at all times in every part of this Republic.

We favor the abolition of the poll tax as a requisite to voting.

We are opposed to the idea of racial segregation in the armed services of the United States." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25836

EMTSATX · Sep 18, 2016

I understand. to quote Rachel Madow "I'm a liberal Democrat, which puts me square in line to be an Ike Republican.

Hard to believe you had the time where the Republicans were liberals.

David T said:
Dewey would probably have been at least as pro-civil-rights as Truman. As governor of New York, he signed the first state FEPC law. https://news.google.com/newspapers?...ljAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XysMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1143,15918572 And the 1948 Republican platform came out against racial segregation in the armed forces *before* Truman's order:

"Lynching or any other form of mob violence anywhere is a disgrace to any civilized state, and we favor the prompt enactment of legislation to end this infamy.

One of the basic principles of this Republic is the equality of all individuals in their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This principle is enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution of the United States; it was vindicated on the field of battle and became the cornerstone of this Republic. This right of equal opportunity to work and to advance in life should never be limited in any individual because of race, religion, color, or country of origin. We favor the enactment and just enforcement of such Federal legislation as may be necessary to maintain this right at all times in every part of this Republic.

We favor the abolition of the poll tax as a requisite to voting.

We are opposed to the idea of racial segregation in the armed services of the United States." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25836

Indicus · Sep 18, 2016

EMTSATX said:
From my point of view it would suck. I'm a big fan of Truman. I also think integrating the Military is just a brilliant. I also like New Deal people who are not a bunch of pussies.

For example when I joined I had not been around black people I knew a lot of black guys who had not been around white people. You get to be friends, then trust etc.. you can't be prejudiced, you get to see the BS it is. So props to give 'em hell Harry.

As an aside I liked the military not even using racial terms such as black or white (you were "dark blue or light blue")

I believe Dewey was, in fact, more pro-civil rights than Truman.

David T · Sep 18, 2016

One thing that has somewhat obscured Dewey's generally good civil rights record is that he virtually ignored the civil rights issue during the 1948 campaign. It might have been because of hopes for Virginia and other southern states (both the Gallup and Crossley polls incorrectly predicted Dewey would carry Virginia https://books.google.com/books?id=GkcL4Hwpi4YC&pg=PA138) though both Dewey and his campaign manager Herbert Brownell later disclaimed any such expectation. 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.