How long could Democrats of held onto the White House after WWII?

[american2006]

FDR won four terms, and Truman won a full term in addition to the remainder of FDR's fourth term. However, Eisenhower was able to win back the White House to the GOP. How long could Democrats have held onto the White House had someone else, say Nixon, ran instead of Eisenhower?

[stevep]

Dec 7, 2020 23:45:26 GMT american2006 said:

FDR won four terms, and Truman won a full term in addition to the remainder of FDR's fourth term. However, Eisenhower was able to win back the White House to the GOP. How long could Democrats have held onto the White House had someone else, say Nixon, ran instead of Eisenhower?

  Probably not much longer unless the Republicans really screwed things up royally.  There would be a degree of voter fatigue with the party and issues like the growing threat from the USSR, coupled with their spying, the 'loss of China' as it was termed as well as with the US economically looking unchangeable probably a desire to peg back the 'big government' needed in the crisis of the depression and WWII.

[american2006]

Dec 8, 2020 15:30:30 GMT stevep said:

Dec 7, 2020 23:45:26 GMT american2006 said:

FDR won four terms, and Truman won a full term in addition to the remainder of FDR's fourth term. However, Eisenhower was able to win back the White House to the GOP. How long could Democrats have held onto the White House had someone else, say Nixon, ran instead of Eisenhower?

  Probably not much longer unless the Republicans really screwed things up royally.  There would be a degree of voter fatigue with the party and issues like the growing threat from the USSR, coupled with their spying, the 'loss of China' as it was termed as well as with the US economically looking unchangeable probably a desire to peg back the 'big government' needed in the crisis of the depression and WWII.

Considering how bad they lost the White House the first time, would a watergate in the 50s be enough for to screw them until the 60s?

[stevep]

Dec 8, 2020 15:54:21 GMT american2006 said:

Dec 8, 2020 15:30:30 GMT stevep said:

  Probably not much longer unless the Republicans really screwed things up royally.  There would be a degree of voter fatigue with the party and issues like the growing threat from the USSR, coupled with their spying, the 'loss of China' as it was termed as well as with the US economically looking unchangeable probably a desire to peg back the 'big government' needed in the crisis of the depression and WWII.

Considering how bad they lost the White House the first time, would a watergate in the 50s be enough for to screw them until the 60s?

  If you mean the Republicans possibly although don't forget that Watergate only really affected one election.  It was a major factor ion 76 but was largely forgotten by 80 and Reagan, who had his policies criticised by many Republicans as unrealistic managed to win fairly easily.

[Zyobot]

I'm not sure how plausible it is, but one interesting suggestion I've seen is getting General Eisenhower to run as a Democrat in 1952. Which is a big boost by itself, though there's also voter fatigue for him to worry about.

Well, unless we go all-in on that suggestion and trot out Robert Taft as the Republican nominee. As such, this is the electoral map that's been put forward (though how likely it is that he'd lose by these proportions, I don't know).

[american2006]

Dec 9, 2020 16:57:59 GMT Zyobot said:

I'm not sure how plausible it is, but one interesting suggestion I've seen is getting General Eisenhower to run as a Democrat in 1952. Which is a big boost by itself, though there's also voter fatigue for him to worry about.

Well, unless we go all-in on that suggestion and trot out Robert Taft as the Republican nominee. As such, this is the electoral map that's been put forward (though how likely it is that he'd lose by these proportions, I don't know).

It’s most certainly possible, even plausible. Eisenhower was a moderate and further his career was in the army not politics. He would of held onto it until 1960 for sure. As to voter fatigue, sure, maybe? But voters are pretty resilient, 1984 was 12 years after watergate. It was 20 years almost of GOP control of the White House (making an exception for Carter.)

[Zyobot]

Dec 9, 2020 21:44:32 GMT american2006 said:

Dec 9, 2020 16:57:59 GMT Zyobot said:

I'm not sure how plausible it is, but one interesting suggestion I've seen is getting General Eisenhower to run as a Democrat in 1952. Which is a big boost by itself, though there's also voter fatigue for him to worry about.

Well, unless we go all-in on that suggestion and trot out Robert Taft as the Republican nominee. As such, this is the electoral map that's been put forward (though how likely it is that he'd lose by these proportions, I don't know).

It’s most certainly possible, even plausible. Eisenhower was a moderate and further his career was in the army not politics. He would of held onto it until 1960 for sure. As to voter fatigue, sure, maybe? But voters are pretty resilient, 1984 was 12 years after watergate. It was 20 years almost of GOP control of the White House (making an exception for Carter.)

I suppose there's also precedent for mostly one-party rule even if the conservative resurgence brought about by Reagan is butterflied, with Republican domination after the Civil War having still occurred in both TTL and IOTL. Of course, I'm also unsure whether events would diverge so much that Ike suffers a heart attack that actually kills him sometime during his presidency, or at least incapacitates him to the point where his VP has to take over. Though, I suppose that depending on precisely who Ike's VP is ITTL, the sympathy vote would help keep the Democrats in charge for at least a few more years, should they run for reelection (and with incumbency on their side, to boot).

Moreover, even if the Republicans eventually get their act together and break a twenty-or-more-year string of Democratic victories, my guess is that they'll have to basically become a New Dealer party that's only marginally to the right of the Democrats. Well, unless the Democrats get cocky and take their mandate too far (e.g. the Keynesian regulatory apparatus somehow overstretching on their watch).