All I'm doing is extrapolating how postwar FDR can't possibly regain his peak New Deal- or wartime-electoral prowess. And yet he'd need that old Midas Touch if he were to win a fifth term; he's neither got the room to move Truman had, nor is he in a superior position to Truman.
There is no evidence that Truman was in a superior position than FDR. In fact, much of Truman's race against Dewey was spent under the impression he would lose in a landslide. It is true Truman managed to win in the end, and campaigned like hell to get there, but go read his speeches - they were littered with doom & gloom about returning the White House back to a Hoover-Republican. Beyond that, there is no evidence FDR would be crippled (no pun intended) enough to actually lose that election.
I'm sorry, but this is liberal revisionism.
Yes, the "I'm just mild about Harry" sentiment within the party coalition (Dixiecrat wing excluded) was about the whole politics of postwar anxiety/fatigue being hung around Truman's neck, specifically. (And of course, the most enthusiastic liberal intelligentsia folk went as far as to split-off towards Wallace. They won't do so if Roosevelt were alive. But it's not like they were able to thwart HST's reelection chances by their withholding of support in OTL. So much for their electoral power one way or t'other.)
Is is absolutely not revisionist history. Truman's entire campaign was built on keeping FDR's ideals in place and it resonated with a great deal of Americans - especially those who lived in states that were the hardest hit by the Great Depression.
Bottom line: FDR still held a great deal of power, specifically in southern states that would certainly vote for him in that election (states that trended away from Truman) and, with the New Deal coalition, would prove every bit as viable - if not more so - than Harry Truman.
But in the mainstream electorate? There's a massive political crisis for any Democratic POTUS leading such a tired party, through postwar political setbacks from the 1946 midterms going into the POTUS race. The contraction; the industrial disputes; these are structural.
And our ASB Fit`n'Healthy Roosevelt is uniquely vulnerable in a way Truman wasn't; i.e. he really is too long in power.
This isn't about whether FDR was vulnerable in some areas - this is about whether he could win. You've failed to present a compelling case that it would be virtually impossible for Roosevelt to win if he chose to run for a fifth term. I disagree - I think, by that time, he had the political clout with average Americans to win over a candidate like Dewey, who he beat handily four years earlier and wasn't entirely rousing.
Check Roosevelt's Gallup ratings going through the last prewar midterm political crisis/economic contraction:
View attachment 231607
A dip that, of course, proved temporary and still wasn't significant enough to cost him any chance at reelection. His lowest approval rating on record came in 1938, during the early part of his second term, as you mentioned, and it was still only 46%. Even if, during his fourth term, his approval dips to that level again - it would certainly be good enough to lock him up reelection (his approval would still be at, or above, 50%).
Considering he's in his unprecedented fourth term in our W-I, not his second, and he doesn't have the looming threat of Hitler this time to help revive his fortunes going into the POTUS race (no, Stalin doesn't count that way, not before the Soviets get the bomb), then realistically he must surely head south somewhere towards Truman territory, no later than after those 1946 election results spur a GOP anti-admin bandwagon effect. Sure, he mightn't become as unpopular. And he mightn't be drastically weakened as early as Truman pre-midterm; but the postwar chickens are still coming home to roost after the midterms.
It's the American way. (And I don't believe that Roosevelt living can avert the election of a GOP congress.)
Everything you mentioned is built on the idea that FDR holds the same political clout with the American people as Truman. This just isn't true. Hell, he won reelection in one of the largest landslides in American history despite the fact the Great Depression was still devastating much of the country and unemployment, while it had dropped, was still a staggering 17% around the time of the 1936 presidential election. He overcame that because his personal popularity led many, most in fact, to believe in what he was doing. FDR might be the only president we've ever had who successfully built a cult of personality strong enough to weather nearly every storm.
Hell, let's just look at his second term, which, let's be honest, was a struggle. Not only did the U.S. dip back into recession, Roosevelt had to battle the perception he was a tyrant with his court packing scheme and when part of the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional. Even then, his approval didn't sink to awful numbers. In fact, I'd wager the current president, and the last president (along with his father) would have loved to experience an approval low of just 46%.
You can't blame that entirely on Hitler. Much of it was just blind faith the American people had in Roosevelt. Rightfully or not, that was the perception for a great deal of the country and it allowed him to go through political failures without seeing a massive drop in support.
Yes, and it helped Truman, but it wasn't at all clear until election day that this was the case. That's why the Jim Rowe "give `em hell Harry" strategy was an offensive political strategy, not a defensive one.
Which begs the question: why would he even consider running again if, as far as he can reasonably tell, all indications are his luck will well and truly have run out by 1948? (And in this era there are no examples of POTUSes suffering midterm catastrophe and winning a safe reelection, which shoud be considered in light of the midterm-polling-correlation graph I link to above.)
I've already said FDR running in '48 is probably not likely - and something I agree with you. However, I don't think he'd
not run because he feared losing - I think he'd not run because he completed the job he set out to do when elected president. It had nothing to do with luck, IMO.
Wait, are you sugesting he won't de-segregate the military? He won't defend the FEPC and other Dixiecrat-unfriendly initiatives from the postwar conservative coalition running congress? And he will reject the civil rights platform the Humphrey liberals pushed through at the convention? Because all those things need to occur for the Dixiecrat Split to go away.
Frankly, I don't know how FDR would have handled those policies. Above all, FDR was a politician and specifically led in a way that could be politically beneficial to him. Just look at how long it took him to fully push the banning of lynching, even though he campaigned on banning it during his first election. That was solely done as a political move because he knew he needed the southern Democrats to pass a great deal of his legislation.
Even still, even with FDR advancing a mild amount of support for civil rights (and Eleanor pushing it even more), Roosevelt's strongest region, in all four of his elections, remained the South. In his final election, he won Mississippi with 94% of the vote. It probably won't be nearly as high, but I'd wager many southern conservatives would still support FDR, even over Strom Thurmond because, as I've pointed out a great deal, he was infinitely more popular as president than Truman - especially in the South.
(Also, even with all that, Truman IOTL was better positioned than a living FDR to at least negate some of the resultant Rightwing backlash, simply thanks to his border state/midwest credentials. FDR doesn't have that advantage, natch.)
Overplayed in this era. FDR proved he was capable of dominating the south, even though he was a Northern-bred high society, snotty Yankee Roosevelt.
You're kidding. I admire the man, but let's not delude ourselves about him being inherently able to avoid a Churchill-style defeat-after-victory (even if I believe it couldn't be as severe as what the UK Tories suffered in 1945--the American equivalent of that would be a Hoover-sized drubbing, a real collapse. I don't see it being that bad.)
It's not about deluding ourselves - it's about pointing out the realities. FDR, even before his death, was immensely popular. So much so, that yes, I think he could overcome fatigue to win a fifth term. I see no reason to buy into the idea that his approval would just suddenly tank enough for the Americans to sour on his presidency. I guess it's possible, of course, but much of it is built on conjecture and, really, the numbers prove FDR was successful, more so than any president since (sans Eisenhower and Kennedy) at sustaining high approval throughout his presidency - a feat that is far more impressive when you realize he was president for so long.
Dude, one shouldn't worship FDR like he's the Democrat Reagan Chuck Norris Whatever.
Dude, it's not worship - it's an argument. I never once pretended Roosevelt was some God-like figure. I'm only saying he had an immensely powerful administration and a cult of personality that very well could have delivered him a fifth term if he ran again. Everything you've said is entirely speculation based around the idea that FDR's fourth term will go counter to his first three. Your case isn't strong enough for me to believe he would be DOA in '48. It's not worshiping him to say he would be very tough to beat in that election, and I doubt I'm the only person who believes this.
After you've basically declared here that F`n'H FDR can easily avoid the structural '45/'48 political troubles of the Truman administration, sorry, I can't take seriously any suggestion the Truman analogy somehow only possibly starts to kick in after 1949.
And I can't take seriously any argument that supports the idea of an uncertain shift that is large enough to erode all the good-will FDR banked in his first three terms - the point where his popularity evaporates so dramatically that he's a certain loser in 1948. If there had been a history of FDR's approval tanking during his first three terms (which, let's be honest, is enough of a sample size to really prove your point), I'd be more inclined to believe you. But look at FDR's approval compared to every president beyond Eisenhower and Kennedy and you'll see dramatic shifts, huge peaks and valleys, and a great deal of inconsistencies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
Roosevelt's approval actually rose during the length of his presidency, which defies almost every modern president - who generally starts out with a great deal of support and it slowly vanishes over the course of his one or two terms. The only exceptions appear to be Eisenhower (again) and Bill Clinton - two presidents who ended their presidency on a stable trajectory that didn't see a massive decline some time in their second term (or their first, for those one-termers).
Anyway, you still made no mention of the 1946 midterm GOP landslide. That's all one needs to know.
Funny, the fact you're stuck on pointing to Truman as the unmovable template of what FDR's fourth term would look like tells me much of what I need to know about your argument. But beyond that, midterm elections have proven a faulty forecast for a president's reelection chances - just ask Clinton and Obama.