WI: Estes Kefauver nominated in 1956?

[The Hawk]

What would happen if Estes Kefauver manages to win the Democratic nomination in 1956 instead of Adlai Stevenson again? Would he win the election or get absolutely steamrolled by Ike? What would the effects be on the Southern Democrats and their influence in the party and who would he pick as his running mate?


PS:This is my first thread and any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Amadeus]

What would happen if Estes Kefauver manages to win the Democratic nomination in 1956 instead of Adlai Stevenson again? Would he win the election or get absolutely steamrolled by Ike? What would the effects be on the Southern Democrats and their influence in the party and who would he pick as his running mate?


PS:This is my first thread and any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Kefauver easily loses to Ike - as would any Democrat. Eisenhower was a widely beloved war hero and a popular incumbent running on a strong economy and his (many) foreign policy accomplishments. There is no way that Kefauver beats him. Not even Eisenhower's health would help Kefauver. Remember that Ike had suffered a heart attack in 1955, but still went on to crush Stevenson a year later.

As for the future of Southern Democrats, probably not much changes. There is still a consensus (as in OTL) that a Southerner can't win. The South is still extremely powerful in the Senate. So LBJ is still likely to be JFK's VP in 1960, assuming that Kefauver doesn't tap Kennedy in 1956. That IMO is where things can really change: if Kennedy loses the Vice-Presidency in 1956, he isn't elected President in 1960 (if ever).

 

[The Hawk]

Kefauver easily loses to Ike - as would any Democrat. Eisenhower was a widely beloved war hero and a popular incumbent running on a strong economy and his (many) foreign policy accomplishments. There is no way that Kefauver beats him. Not even Eisenhower's health would help Kefauver. Remember that Ike had suffered a heart attack in 1955, but still went on to crush Stevenson a year later.

As for the future of Southern Democrats, probably not much changes. There is still a consensus (as in OTL) that a Southerner can't win. The South is still extremely powerful in the Senate. So LBJ is still likely to be JFK's VP in 1960, assuming that Kefauver doesn't tap Kennedy in 1956. That IMO is where things can really change: if Kennedy loses the Vice-Presidency in 1956, he isn't elected President in 1960 (if ever).

Thanks for the response. What different states could Kefauver have won that year, other than Tennessee and possibly a few other Outer South states? Could he have won much in the North, especially if someone like JFK, Hubert Humphrey or W. Averell Harriman is selected as the Vice Presidential nominee to balance the ticket?

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Checking the Wikipedia page on the election, Tennessee was Eisenhower's closest win, with a 0.6% margin, so Kefauver carries Tennessee. He might lose Missouri, which Stevenson carried by 0.2%, but this is unlikely because I think Kefauver was a stronger candidate overall. But not much stronger, he cuts Eisenhower's nationwide popular vote margin by only 1% or so and Tennessee and Missouri are the only states that have any chance of voting differently. There would be butteflies if JFK is Kefauver's running mate, otherwise no effect.

 

[The Hawk]

bump

 

[Landmass Wave]

Thanks for the response. What different states could Kefauver have won that year, other than Tennessee and possibly a few other Outer South states? Could he have won much in the North, especially if someone like JFK, Hubert Humphrey or W. Averell Harriman is selected as the Vice Presidential nominee to balance the ticket?

Louisiana might go for Kefauver with him being a Southerner. Especially if JFK is the VP nominee - that gives the ticket a boost in south Louisiana.

 

[1940LaSalle]

That IMO is where things can really change: if Kennedy loses the Vice-Presidency in 1956, he isn't elected President in 1960 (if ever).

I'll agree wholeheartedly with the notion that if Kennedy is the losing VP candidate in 1956, he won't be elected president in 1960 (indeed, he may not even be a candidate). I'd suggest, though, that he'd do something analogous to what FDR did IOTL: build his credentials on the sidelines as senator and bide his time for a future run--perhaps 1968 or 1972, assuming his health would permit that. Those dates might move up depending upon the prognosis of his Addison's disease.

Sidebar I: without Kennedy in the mix for '60, that race among the Dems will be fascinating. You'd probably have Lyndon Johnson slugging it out with Hubert Humphrey for openers--with, say, Adlai Stevenson on the sidelines as a possible compromise candidate. None of them, of course, is friendly to the prevailing southern school of thought about race relations and civil rights, so southerners may feel shut out to the point of possibly bolting (Smathers for president, maybe?). The Dems are going to have a knock-down, drag-out battle for the nomination that would likely yield some fairly hard feelings and divisions (the losers may be lukewarm about support the winners, perhaps) such that the GOP nominee--presumably VP Nixon--would have a much less difficult time than he did IOTL. So...probably looking at a Nixon presidency from 1961 to 1969, which in turn means a significantly different Nixon than we knew.

Sidebar II: a Nixon presidency in these years likely obviates the southern strategy, and the Goldwater wing of the GOP remains relatively small. At the same time, Rockefeller's recent divorce might well shelve him as a candidate also. Wouldn't be surprised if Bill Scranton would be the 1968 GOP candidate. If so, then you'd have two relatively young (both approximately 51) attractive, articulate moderate candidates, assuming Kennedy gets the Dem nomination. That might take honors as one of the most issue-based, thoughtful elections in decades. And the butterflies from that are the size of B-52s.

 

[David T]

What would happen if Estes Kefauver manages to win the Democratic nomination in 1956 instead of Adlai Stevenson again? Would he win the election or get absolutely steamrolled by Ike? What would the effects be on the Southern Democrats and their influence in the party and who would he pick as his running mate?


PS:This is my first thread and any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Of course Ike wins easily. Peace, prosperity, and Ike's own personal popularity guarantee that. Suez and Hungary came too late to have much effect, but to the extent they had any, it was most likely to strengthen Ike--so far as the public was concerned, he had more credibility on national security than probably any other individual in America.

At least Kefauver will probably carry TN, which Stevenson narrowly lost (the state was very close in both 1952 and 1956; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_United_States_presidential_election_in_Tennessee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_United_States_presidential_election_in_Tennessee) But that is the only state that went for Eisenhower in OTL that I cam see Kefauver winning.

The Republicans were not totally without weaknesses in 1956. There was some dissatisfaction with Secretary of Agriculture Benson's policies in the farm states. But all that resulted in was farm states being a little less overwhelmingly Republican than in 1952--e.g., Iowa going from 63.75 percent for Ike in 1952 to "only" 59.06 percent for him in 1956. The only state the farm revolt may have cost Eisenhower was MO, which went from a narrow Eisenhower state in 1952 to a narrow Stevenson state in 1956. This presumably would have happened with Kefauver as well (indeed, the folksy "coonskin" Kefauver may have been a bit more to rural Missourians' taste than the "egghead" Stevenson.)

 

[Mikestone8]

If I recall my Theodore H White correctly, there was quite a bit of Stevenson sentiment in 1960. TTL he isn't a two-time loser, so maybe gets a second nomination. Could well beat Nixon.