Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thomas Dewey instead of Harry Truman. The popular opinion at the time was that Dewey would win. Truman winning was a huge upset.
It should be noted that polling was in its infancy in 1948.
In 1936, Literary Digest - which had a history of predicting Presidential outcomes with some success - undertook a massive survey by sending out millions of questionaires. The results were that Alf Landon would destroy incumbent Franklin Roosevelt, 57% to 43%. In reality, FDR obliterated Landon by a margin of 62% to 38%. Literary stopped polling. And soon stopped publishing, period.
In 1948, not much had changed. Gallup's last poll was taken in mid-October, and showed Dewey beating Truman by 5%. But in August, Gallup had Dewey +12%. Furthermore, that election featured a major third-party candidate in the form of Strom Thurmond, an erstwhile Democrat. And what almost always happens to third-party candidacies come election day? A significant amount of their support evaporates, as supporters decide not to vote for someone who cannot win. The final Gallup poll in 1948 was Dewey 50%, Truman 45%, Thurmond 6% (101%, yes - due to rounding). Thurmond's support predictably collapsed, it logically flowed to Truman, the trend of votes away from Dewey to Truman continued (undetected due to non-polling down the stretch), and Truman won.
It was only an upset due to a lack of good information on the state of the race and a poor understanding of the dynamics of a three-way race in America's first-past-the-poll system.
But you don't explain would Dewey would have been 'the greatest President' - which is what this thread is ostensibly all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
The country would be in a far, far better place had Colin Powell decided to run in 2000.
And that makes President Powell 'the greatest' how, precisely?
Anyway, had pro-choice Powell run in 2008 he would have done about as well as pro-choice Giuliani in 2008: great in the polls early in the running, but falling far out of the race as soon as the party base began voting in primaries and caucuses.
Pat Buchanan, 1996. The Clinton's were taking campaign money from China, and Bill along with rival candidate Bob Dole, were both in favor of NAFTA which Pat was against. We later heard the giant sucking sound he described, from all the manufacturing jobs going away to Mexico, such as the closing of the Maytag plant in Newton, to give a local example, which occurred shortly after that election. Pat wanted more border security and was an "America First", populist candidate who gave great speeches, hosted a great political show "crossfire" on CNN, and also worked for the Nixon Administration and no doubt, gained a lot of valuable experience from those years, which gave him experience and something to draw upon in forming his own administration.
It would have been a lot easier back then to reverse the HW Bush policy of giving China most favored trading status and put the brakes on that, as they were doing nothing to earn that position. They were breaking all the rules in how they conducted business, stealing intellectual property, pirating CD's and computer software programs, targeting popular brands and producing fake/shoddy goods, lead toys, poison pet food, ect ect.
We also could have avoided all the scandals with the Clinton's, including Monica and the graphic details thereof, being played out on the nightly news for all the kids to watch.
I don't think that there is any way to determine whether or not their administrations would have been successful, much less great, so I think the best we can do is to identify who were the most distinguished among the election losers.
We have...
John Jay....author of the Federalist Papers
Charles Francis Adams Sr. ...distinguished career as diplomat
Winfield Scott...brilliant campaign to capture Mexico City
Stephen Douglas...of the Lincoln Douglas debates
George McClellan...built the Army of the Potomac, didn't fight it very well
Horace Greely...newspaper giant. (however, we may eliminate him as a candidate because he died before he could have taken office if he had won)
William Jennings Bryan...popular populist and religious fanatic
But the most distinguished of them all was Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, who lost in 1824, 1832 and 1844. Clay's credentials are impeccable, Speaker of the House in Congress, US Senator, Secretary of State, and the only man who may accurately be described as a founder of both the Whig and the Republican parties. He was the driving force behind both the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850.
As for what sort of president he would have made, who can say. It would have certainly depended a lot upon which year he was elected. Had he defeated President Jackson in 1832, we may be confident that the national bank would not have been destroyed, but how he would have handled the nullification crisis, who knows?
And that makes President Powell 'the greatest' how, precisely?
Anyway, had pro-choice Powell run in 2008 he would have done about as well as pro-choice Giuliani in 2008: great in the polls early in the running, but falling far out of the race as soon as the party base began voting in primaries and caucuses.
Greatest in terms of woulda, coulda, shoulda? Absolutely.
Actually, Colin Powell would have made mincemeat out of Bush in the primaries for a host of reasons. First, the man is incredibly well-spoken as opposed to W who came off as an inarticulate boob. Second he was a noted and respected military leader with a lifetime of honorable service to the country, which is catnip to Republican voters. Third, as an African-American, he would have likely attract a large degree of excitement from all quarters. Giuliani was seven years removed from 9/11 and the mayor's office by the time he tested the waters in 2008. Meanwhile, Powell was far more connected in inner circles in DC.
I have a hard time believing that Giuliani and Powell are anywhere close to equals in terms of gravitas. Remember that Giuliani was a polarizing figure before 9/11. Get Powell past the GOP primaries, and he would have absolutely steamrolled Gore in the general election. Al Gore was a cypher.
Then, with 9/11, Powell would have drawn upon his military background to offered a much more coherent response than what actually transpired. We almost certainly would not have invaded Iraq, which means that there wouldn't have been the power vaccuum that came with the collapse of Saddam Hussein, no protracted guerilla war, and no ISIS.
As more of a centrist, Powell would have probably fostered a more moderate GOP, and probably blunted a lot of the social divide that exists today. He would have been a two-termer.
he would have won if he didn't fall off the rails on 60 minutes...
I voted for him, I liked his plan to balance the budget (and what a joke the deficit has become). I think he would have made an incredibly bad president though, he put buddies instead of qualified people in important positions and folded in the face of adversity. I'm pretty sure he ran to get some points across without any serious aspirations for the presidency.
Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. He ended the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 by diplomacy; he would have done the same with the Great War in 1915, when both sides realized they weren't going to have the cheap, decisive victory they expected. As a personal friend of the former German ambassador, he also would not have allowed J. P. Morgan to finance the British war effort and drag us in to protect his investment.
Ross Perot would have been very interesting. Not sure he would have been a successful President though since too many politicians love the status quo.
I think a better question would be "what person who never ran for President would have been a good President"? As there would be a lot more choices.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
