Post-WW2 Presidential Election: Dwight Eisenhower Vs. Franklin Roosevelt

[Zyobot]

Having guided the nation through the Great Depression and led it to the cusp of victory during World War Two, Franklin D. Roosevelt had--time and again--proven himself as an insurmountable candidate, having won all four times that he ran for office and building a legacy as one of America's greatest and most revered presidents long after his death. Though his unexpected death in April 1945 rendered such a match-up impossible, assuming that he lived long enough to run for a fifth (or perhaps sixth) time after war's end, how would he do against a Republican challenger in the form of General Dwight D. Eisenhower? Because if there's anyone that I think stands a chance of unseating the New Dealer-in-chief, it's probably Ike. Especially with factors like voter fatigue and Roosevelt's ailing health at play, which I imagine will become more and more apparent leading up to the next election.

For those more inclined to depict the election results in a more visual form, perhaps you'll find these interactive maps for 1948 (and maybe 1952) useful.

Thank you in advance,

Zyobot

[Zyobot]

For one, I suppose that because of both voter fatigue and his increasingly obvious health problems, even an FDR who makes it through his fourth term won't run again. But hand-waving that likelihood for the sake of discussion, due to both FDR's disadvantages and Ike's popularity and ability to redeem the GOP's image, Eisenhower crushes Roosevelt handily. He'll easily take well over 300 electoral votes and a solid majority of the popular vote, though whether he'll rack up a 442+ electoral victory like he did against Adlai Stevenson IOTL 1952, I'm less certain of.

[gillan1220]

FDR was planning to resign around 1946. Had he remained President for longer, probably we avoid the Vietnam War in OTL. I'm just curious how he will handle post-war relations with the USSR.

[stevep]

Oct 27, 2020 11:18:39 GMT gillan1220 said:

FDR was planning to resign around 1946. Had he remained President for longer, probably we avoid the Vietnam War in OTL. I'm just curious how he will handle post-war relations with the USSR.

  Agree with the 1st bit.  Can't see him standing again in 48 even if somehow his health allowed it.  To stand in 52 would have meant he's been President for 20 years and would be standing for a 6th term.  By that time apart from his health and age as Zyobot said voter fatigue with him would have been high.

  In terms of the Soviets he seemed to have totally misjudged Stalin but possibly events such as the suppression of democratic attempts in Poland and Czechoslovakia, the Berlin Airlift and the Korean war - possibly even the heavy Soviet support for Mao in the Chinese civil war before this, might chance this position.

[gillan1220]

Oct 27, 2020 12:22:08 GMT stevep said:

Oct 27, 2020 11:18:39 GMT gillan1220 said:

FDR was planning to resign around 1946. Had he remained President for longer, probably we avoid the Vietnam War in OTL. I'm just curious how he will handle post-war relations with the USSR.

  Agree with the 1st bit.  Can't see him standing again in 48 even if somehow his health allowed it.  To stand in 52 would have meant he's been President for 20 years and would be standing for a 6th term.  By that time apart from his health and age as Zyobot said voter fatigue with him would have been high.

  In terms of the Soviets he seemed to have totally misjudged Stalin but possibly events such as the suppression of democratic attempts in Poland and Czechoslovakia, the Berlin Airlift and the Korean war - possibly even the heavy Soviet support for Mao in the Chinese civil war before this, might chance this position.

This alternate scenario where FDR only suffers a minor stroke sums it up. Though just like this one Zyobot posted, I'd agree he would have resigned.

[Zyobot]

Oct 27, 2020 12:22:08 GMT stevep said:

Oct 27, 2020 11:18:39 GMT gillan1220 said:

FDR was planning to resign around 1946. Had he remained President for longer, probably we avoid the Vietnam War in OTL. I'm just curious how he will handle post-war relations with the USSR.

  Agree with the 1st bit.  Can't see him standing again in 48 even if somehow his health allowed it.  To stand in 52 would have meant he's been President for 20 years and would be standing for a 6th term.  By that time apart from his health and age as Zyobot said voter fatigue with him would have been high.

  In terms of the Soviets he seemed to have totally misjudged Stalin but possibly events such as the suppression of democratic attempts in Poland and Czechoslovakia, the Berlin Airlift and the Korean war - possibly even the heavy Soviet support for Mao in the Chinese civil war before this, might chance this position.

Regarding your second point, I wonder if the Republicans will attack Roosevelt over "flip-flopping" once it's too late to stop the Soviets from occupying Eastern Europe? Even without that as one of their talking points, voter fatigue and his ailing health are already obvious lines of attack the GOP can exploit. With a popular New-Dealer like Eisenhower as their nominee...yeah. I think at that point, FDR will have overstayed his welcome with the voting public. How the exact electoral map will look--other than Ike easily receiving at least 300 electoral votes and sweeping FDR aside on election night--remains uncertain to me.

[Zyobot]

For reasons discussed up-thread, I think there's little doubt that if the stars were to magically align and a post-WW2 electoral match-up between the two were to materialize, Eisenhower would prevail without much trouble. Aside from repeating my question about how the electoral map might look, I'm also curious as to the likely popular-vote differentials? Ike would take a respectable plurality/majority of it for sure, and part of me even leans toward him exceeding the 55% share he achieved against Adlai Stevenson in OTL 1952.

[gillan1220]

Nov 1, 2020 2:34:33 GMT Zyobot said:

For reasons discussed up-thread, I think there's little doubt that if the stars were to magically align and a post-WW2 electoral match-up between the two were to materialize, Eisenhower would prevail without much trouble. Aside from repeating my question about how the electoral map might look, I'm also curious as to the likely popular-vote differentials? Ike would take a respectable plurality/majority of it for sure, and part of me even leans toward him exceeding the 55% share he achieved against Adlai Stevenson in OTL 1952.

Ike would probably serve as OTL. He is a popular war hero after all.

[Zyobot]

Nov 1, 2020 2:46:52 GMT gillan1220 said:

Nov 1, 2020 2:34:33 GMT Zyobot said:

For reasons discussed up-thread, I think there's little doubt that if the stars were to magically align and a post-WW2 electoral match-up between the two were to materialize, Eisenhower would prevail without much trouble. Aside from repeating my question about how the electoral map might look, I'm also curious as to the likely popular-vote differentials? Ike would take a respectable plurality/majority of it for sure, and part of me even leans toward him exceeding the 55% share he achieved against Adlai Stevenson in OTL 1952.

Ike would probably serve as OTL. He is a popular war hero after all.

So, more or less the same results against a different Democratic nominee, then? That sounds fair to me, and I can imagine Roosevelt's iconic status being overshadowed by baggage that OTL Stevenson didn't have--obvious frailty, voter fatigue, and conceding too much to Stalinist Russia. Adlai may not have been another FDR in the making, but at least he didn't have those other factors I listed weighing him down in either of his OTL presidential bids.

[gillan1220]

Nov 1, 2020 2:56:35 GMT Zyobot said:

Nov 1, 2020 2:46:52 GMT gillan1220 said:

Ike would probably serve as OTL. He is a popular war hero after all.

So, more or less the same results against a different Democratic nominee, then? That sounds fair to me, and I can imagine Roosevelt's iconic status being overshadowed by baggage that OTL Stevenson didn't have--obvious frailty, voter fatigue, and conceding too much to Stalinist Russia. Adlai may not have been another FDR in the making, but at least he didn't have those other factors I listed weighing him down in either of his OTL presidential bids.

I'm curious though what FDR surviving has impact on Berlin, Indochina, the Chinese Civil War, and Korea. Probably we see the First Indochina War being butterflied away since FDR would have pushed for independence earlier.

[stevep]

Oct 27, 2020 12:56:52 GMT gillan1220 said:

Oct 27, 2020 12:22:08 GMT stevep said:

  Agree with the 1st bit.  Can't see him standing again in 48 even if somehow his health allowed it.  To stand in 52 would have meant he's been President for 20 years and would be standing for a 6th term.  By that time apart from his health and age as Zyobot said voter fatigue with him would have been high.

  In terms of the Soviets he seemed to have totally misjudged Stalin but possibly events such as the suppression of democratic attempts in Poland and Czechoslovakia, the Berlin Airlift and the Korean war - possibly even the heavy Soviet support for Mao in the Chinese civil war before this, might chance this position.

This alternate scenario where FDR only suffers a minor stroke sums it up. Though just like this one Zyobot posted, I'd agree he would have resigned.

  Interesting but even with a minor stroke I can' really see him going on to be elected in 48.  Both for health reasons as he was reportedly in a bad way even before his stroke and because I think he realised his peak popularity was waning.  Someone said he was planning on stepping down in 46 so that could have been a suitable time.  The war has been won and it gives 2 years for Truman to stamp his identity on the government and get ready for 48.  He did win in 48 so would probably do so again.

  If either under FDR or Truman a war developed as a result of say the Berlin blockade I can't see the US not using nukes as without a massive rearmament the western powers don't have the strength to stop the Red Army overwhelming most of the continent and probably supporting communists elsewhere, such as in Korea.

  However that's getting away from the thread topic.

  Steve

[gillan1220]

Nov 1, 2020 13:04:36 GMT stevep said:

Oct 27, 2020 12:56:52 GMT gillan1220 said:

This alternate scenario where FDR only suffers a minor stroke sums it up. Though just like this one Zyobot posted, I'd agree he would have resigned.

  Interesting but even with a minor stroke I can' really see him going on to be elected in 48.  Both for health reasons as he was reportedly in a bad way even before his stroke and because I think he realised his peak popularity was waning.  Someone said he was planning on stepping down in 46 so that could have been a suitable time.  The war has been won and it gives 2 years for Truman to stamp his identity on the government and get ready for 48.  He did win in 48 so would probably do so again.

  If either under FDR or Truman a war developed as a result of say the Berlin blockade I can't see the US not using nukes as without a massive rearmament the western powers don't have the strength to stop the Red Army overwhelming most of the continent and probably supporting communists elsewhere, such as in Korea.

  However that's getting away from the thread topic.

  Steve

So going back, FDR would probably have no chance against Ike because people will be tired of him even though he was the President during WW2.

[Zyobot]

Nov 1, 2020 15:22:35 GMT gillan1220 said:

Nov 1, 2020 13:04:36 GMT stevep said:

  Interesting but even with a minor stroke I can' really see him going on to be elected in 48.  Both for health reasons as he was reportedly in a bad way even before his stroke and because I think he realised his peak popularity was waning.  Someone said he was planning on stepping down in 46 so that could have been a suitable time.  The war has been won and it gives 2 years for Truman to stamp his identity on the government and get ready for 48.  He did win in 48 so would probably do so again.

  If either under FDR or Truman a war developed as a result of say the Berlin blockade I can't see the US not using nukes as without a massive rearmament the western powers don't have the strength to stop the Red Army overwhelming most of the continent and probably supporting communists elsewhere, such as in Korea.

  However that's getting away from the thread topic.

  Steve

So going back, FDR would probably have no chance against Ike because people will be tired of him even though he was the President during WW2.

Yep. However, that alone doesn't point to much as far as his actual margins of victory are concerned. Aside from Eisenhower winning a solid plurality/majority of the popular vote, does the Electoral College give him a modest but respectable victory more akin to 1992 Bill Clinton, or a blowout like that achieved by Ronald Reagan thirty-ish years after?