WI: Eisenhower (I) vs. Stevenson (D) vs. Taft (R)

What if Dwight Eisenhower decides not to seek the Republican nomination in 1952 and runs as an Independent against Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson and the Republican nominee Robert Taft? How would a likely election with no candidate receiving the needed 266 electoral votes end?

Gov. Adlai Stevenson/Sen. John Sparkman - 213 electoral votes
Sen. Robert Taft/Sen. Richard Nixon - 115 electoral votes
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower/Gov. Harold Stassen - 203 electoral votes

(266
electoral votes needed to win)


genusmap.php
 
I think he'd do better than that. He's fucking Eisenhower, for goodness sakes. He had supermassive popularity.
 
What if Dwight Eisenhower decides not to seek the Republican nomination in 1952 and runs as an Independent against Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson and the Republican nominee Robert Taft? How would a likely election with no candidate receiving the needed 266 electoral votes end?

Gov. Adlai Stevenson/Sen. John Sparkman - 213 electoral votes
Sen. Robert Taft/Sen. Richard Nixon - 115 electoral votes
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower/Gov. Harold Stassen - 203 electoral votes

(266
electoral votes needed to win)


genusmap.php

The House was narrowly Republican at the time. Given Taft's relatively poor performance, and Eisenhower's position as a relatively moderate, popular, and independent candidate, I'd say that it would be relatively easy for them to settle on him as a compromise candidate with the Democrats.
 
I think he'd do better than that. He's fucking Eisenhower, for goodness sakes. He had supermassive popularity.

But no party bosses behind him. That meant more back then.

Anyways, if it went like that map, then the Democratic House would elect Stevenson, although I foresee some nasty shenanigans coming from the Southern delegations wanting concessions on civil rights.
 
I think if Eisenhower ran as an Independent, he would seek a Democratic VP since Ike was a Republican, and it would give his run even more credence as a unifying bipartisan ticket. Maybe Senator Paul Douglas of Massachusetts, who had suggested that both parties nominate Eisenhower for VP in 1952? Or W. Averell Harriman, as a ticket of two strong foreign policy men?
 
The House was narrowly Republican at the time. Given Taft's relatively poor performance, and Eisenhower's position as a relatively moderate, popular, and independent candidate, I'd say that it would be relatively easy for them to settle on him as a compromise candidate with the Democrats.

The House only became narrowly Republican after the 1952 elections. Without Eisenhower as their candidate, I don't think the Republicans would have won as many seats, and even if they did, the sitting House would decide things, not the new people.
 
I think if Eisenhower ran as an Independent, he would seek a Democratic VP since Ike was a Republican, and it would give his run even more credence as a unifying bipartisan ticket. Maybe Senator Paul Douglas of Massachusetts, who had suggested that both parties nominate Eisenhower for VP in 1952? Or W. Averell Harriman, as a ticket of two strong foreign policy men?

Ike was widely considered a nonpartisan figure before 1952.
 
Ike was widely considered a nonpartisan figure before 1952.
Even so, he openly declared he was a Republican since at least 1947, though the conversation with Roy Roberts wasn't disclosed until 1951. Having a Democratic running mate would cement his non-partisan credentials a lot more than a ticket that could be made to appear as representing the anti-Taft wing of the GOP.

EDIT: I suppose Eisenhower could also choose Earl Warren as his VP. One nominee who could win either the Democratic or Republican nomination if he wanted, and the other nominee who actually did. :D
 
The House only became narrowly Republican after the 1952 elections. Without Eisenhower as their candidate, I don't think the Republicans would have won as many seats, and even if they did, the sitting House would decide things, not the new people.

The House doesn't have a straight up and down vote on who should be the president, they vote by state delegations. Even if the GOP didn't gain a single seat in the Congressional elections, the Democrats still don't have a majority of state delegations, as their majority is built on controlling every seat in the Deep South. The Republicans actually control more delegations, but they don't have a majority either.

Eisenhower's the obvious compromise candidate for them to vote in here; I have no doubt they'd do so.
 
Top