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

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?
 
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?

If Truman's reputation is higher - and especially considering that the 22nd Amendment wouldn't apply to him - maybe he can run again in 1952? (Though at 68, he'd be the then-oldest person to run for a "first" term.)
 
As you note, he's probably too old, and probably not powerful enough within the party to try and run again. On the other hand, if Ike wants the presidency, his best shot at this point is as a Democrat...
 
The Democrats will respect Truman for his near-victory but will still note that he didn't do as well as the rest of the Democratic ticket. They would probably prefer someone younger like Adlai Stevenson (who in OTL won the governorship of Illinois by 57.11-42.59 so he should still win comfortably even if Truman narrowly lost Illinois).
 
I think if there's a huge deadlock between the candidates Truman might have a chance as a compromise pick.

But I suspect the 1952 Democratic Convention to have a different dynamic than what happened historically if Dewey is elected in 1948.

Dewey may not be as unpopular as Truman himself was-but he will not be as popular as Ike was-because no other political figure of that time was that popular in either party. Well-other than FDR but FDR was dead.

I think the Democrats will think Dewey's vulnerable. That makes the nomination that year much less of a poisoned chalice. Which in turn might mean they avoid the kind of deadlock that could lead to renominating Truman.

I wonder what lessons might be drawn from a 1948 campaign where Dewey wins. Everyone looks like a genius in victory. Would Dewey winning-even if he loses the popular vote-vindicate his say nothing approach to the campaign? Conversely would Truman's approach be criticized?

Will people believe that Dewey's victory was inevitable from 1945 on-but Truman's campaign held down the margins and helped to push the party as a whole towards victory on the Congressional level? Or will people think that Dewey's margin demonstrates that the election was winnable for Truman and claim his hostile campaign style somehow cost him.

In general will people think Truman or Dewey underperformed as a consequence of their campaign style?

As an aside I think Dewey's domestic policy agenda might be DOA if he loses the popular vote. The Democrats will have won back control of Congress-and Dewey will have received less votes than Truman. He'd have little leverage with which to work.

True George W. Bush also lost the popular vote and was successful with Congress. But he didn't have to deal with a resurgent Democratic Congress in 2001.

Of course there might be less distance between Dewey and Congress than party labels might suggest. Robert Taft he was not.

Judging Truman by his first term alone how does the decision to put him on the 1944 ticket look?

Will he be eventually seen as a worthwhile successor to FDR based on those years-or will Democrats lament that the wrong choice was made?

I don't mean in the sense that Wallace shouldn't have been dropped-but that someone else should have been put on the ticket that year such as William O Douglas.
 
Top