WI: 32 Years of Democratic Presidents

OTL, the Democrats controlled the Presidency from 1933 to 1953. What if they stretched this dominance out another decade?

Perhaps if Eisenhower accepted Truman's offer of an Eisenhower-Truman ticket in 1948, that could stretch things out. Then VP Truman comes back in 1956.

Roosevelt: 1933 - 1945
Truman: 1945 - 1949
Eisenhower: 1949 - 1957
Truman: 1957 - 1965
 
OTL, the Democrats controlled the Presidency from 1933 to 1953. What if they stretched this dominance out another decade?

Perhaps if Eisenhower accepted Truman's offer of an Eisenhower-Truman ticket in 1948, that could stretch things out. Then VP Truman comes back in 1956.

Roosevelt: 1933 - 1945
Truman: 1945 - 1949
Eisenhower: 1949 - 1957
Truman: 1957 - 1965

Honestly I don't think this is feasible. 32 years straight would be longest that any one party has controlled the White House. In a free and fair democracy that is unlikely to happen. Remember that Truman only won in 1948 because the Republicans took the election for granted and this allowed him to narrowly win in an upset. Once the economy inevitably enters recession it will hurt the incumbent party, and in this case it would probably doom the Democrats after over two decades in the White House. If not 1949 or 1953, then certainly 1958 would see a recession that sees the Republicans returned to power. I doubt Truman becomes President again in this scenario, and if the Democrats somehow eek out a win in 1956 they are done in 1960 due to the poor economy.

But that said, I do agree that Eisenhower in 1948 is a good way to prolong Democratic control past 1952. Here is my take:

32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945), D-NY
33. Harry S. Truman (1945-1949), D-MO
34. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1949-1957), D-NY
35. Adlai Stevenson (1957-1961), D-IL
36. Nelson Rockefeller (1961-1969), R-NY

Truman gets sick of the Vice-Presidency and in 1952 he declines to seek re-election. A deadlocked 1956 convention nominates Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, who defeats Richard Nixon in the general election. Yet once the economy tanks Stevenson's popularity plummets and he loses to Rockefeller in 1960.

This is 28 years, not 32, but more feasible IMO.
 
Honestly I don't think this is feasible. 32 years straight would be longest that any one party has controlled the White House. In a free and fair democracy that is unlikely to happen. Remember that Truman only won in 1948 because the Republicans took the election for granted and this allowed him to narrowly win in an upset. Once the economy inevitably enters recession it will hurt the incumbent party, and in this case it would probably doom the Democrats after over two decades in the White House. If not 1949 or 1953, then certainly 1958 would see a recession that sees the Republicans returned to power. I doubt Truman becomes President again in this scenario, and if the Democrats somehow eek out a win in 1956 they are done in 1960 due to the poor economy.

But that said, I do agree that Eisenhower in 1948 is a good way to prolong Democratic control past 1952. Here is my take:

32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945), D-NY
33. Harry S. Truman (1945-1949), D-MO
34. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1949-1957), D-NY
35. Adlai Stevenson (1957-1961), D-IL
36. Nelson Rockefeller (1961-1969), R-NY

Truman gets sick of the Vice-Presidency and in 1952 he declines to seek re-election. A deadlocked 1956 convention nominates Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, who defeats Richard Nixon in the general election. Yet once the economy tanks Stevenson's popularity plummets and he loses to Rockefeller in 1960.

This is 28 years, not 32, but more feasible IMO.

Adlai Stevenson was something of an Eisenhower-Republican style of Democrat, no?

It'd be interesting to see continued Democratic rule coincide with a gradual move towards the center with the succeeding Democratic administrations.

Would Rockefeller be the likely 1960 nominee? Nixon will have been in Congress for 13 years come 1960. Earl Warren could be another contender if he isn't sent to the court. Rockefeller was only elected Governor in 1958 and even that may be butterflied here.


Democratic splits would be stronger TTL following Brown v Board if a Democrat is enforcing the ruling TTL. Although, if Eisenhower is a Democrat Warren may not end up on the court.
 
OTL, the Democrats controlled the Presidency from 1933 to 1953. What if they stretched this dominance out another decade?

Have Stalin die by the beginning of 1952. As in OTL, his successors move to end the Korean War. With a less tense international situation, Eisenhower decides not to run, so the general election is between Stevenson (we'll say Truman still decides not to run) and Taft, which Stevenson wins. Without the burden of the Korean War and with a much weaker GOP candidate than Ike, Stevenson wins in 1952 and is re-elected in 1956 (peace and prosperity). The 1960 election is likely to be close but a Democratic victory is possible, though unless the economy is better than in OTL (Stevenson is more willing to use fiscal stimulus in 1960 than Ike?) the odds are that the GOP wins, though not overwhelmingly.
 
Perhaps a WW3 that starts in the 1940s could get the Democrats over the hump in 1952 and 1956, I think it's still tight though.
 
There's probably some kind of No Vietnam scenario that gets us there. Something like:

1961-1963: John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson (DEM)
1963-1965: Lyndon B. Johnson/Vacant (DEM)
1965-1971: Lyndon B. Johnson/Hubert H. Humphrey (DEM/DFL)
1971-1973: Hubert H. Humphrey/Vacant (DFL)
1973-1977: Hubert H. Humphrey/Henry M. Jackson (DFL/DEM)
1977-1983: Henry M. Jackson/Edward M. Kennedy (DEM)
1983-1989: Edward M. Kennedy/Lloyd M. Bentsen (DEM)
1989-1991: Joseph R. Biden/Gary W. Hart (DEM)
1991-1993: Gary W. Hart/Tom Bradley (DEM)
1993-: Kirk Fordice/Pete DuPont (GOP)

Where the Democratic machine is held together by a mixture of welfare programs, porkbarrel spending, a perception as a "firm hand on the tiller" in foreign affairs, and a heaping helping of "don't talk about the social issues DON'T TALK ABOUT THE SOCIAL ISSUES".
 
Top