pretty straightforward.
Would like your votes. And your thoughts
Would like your votes. And your thoughts
Stevenson wins. Remember, contrary to popular belief, most Americans in the 50s were Democrats who loved FDR's New Deal and wanted more. The only reason Eisenhower won was because he was personally popular to such an extent that he basically transcended politics. Being relatively non-partisan himself assuredly helped. Taft is no Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson was a very good politician. Adlai takes it. Of course, if Eisenhower explicitly endorses Taft, or Stevenson for that matter...That could change things considerably.
Wonder the effect on the Republicans ITTL. A hard-right conservative has lost, and maybe the Republicans would still turn towards Eisenhowerian moderation?
Stevenson carries these states plus the southern and border states of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Florida, and Virginia.
I think the likeliest Taft running mates would be Driscoll, Martin, and Stassen, in that order.
So, I have tought my take of Taft vs Stevenson a bit more through. Taft would perform relatively well in midwest and reconquer most of the great plains as well as taking advantages of the divisions of the democrats in the south and the fact that he his far more palpable to many voters down there then the average republican to make some gains but the democrats, in part thanks to Russel. The looses they took in the south and elsewhere are gonna be more the upset by their gains in the west coast (Knowland wasn't enough to save Taft in CA) and in the populous and internationalist north east where the bitter fight with the Eisenhower had left Taft with very few true supporters in the region, Lodge in particular forgo the presidential campaign entirely to focus on Massachussets. Not that it did him the would be kingmaker much good as Stevenson victory there and the desertion of some local Taft supporter allowed Kennedy to pass like in OTL.![]()
Adlai Stevenson II (D-IL)/Richard Russel Jr. (D-GA)-347 EV (53,02%)
Robert Taft (R-OH)/William F. Knowland (R-CA)-184 (46,88%)
Wasn't Taft a moderate on civil rights? I'm aware we're already talking about the possibility of evolution on other positions, just wondering why he'd move backwards on that particular front?