Talk:1948 United States presidential election

Electoral picture peculiarity

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tucker P. Smith

Residence question. What is the source for Smith's address? He is listed in "Ohio Elects the President" p. 120 as living in Michigan, not New York State. Chronicler3 21:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

The Political Graveyard indicates that Smith ran for Representative out of New York in 1930. He appears to have resided in Charlotte, Michigan, although whether that was before or after his New York run is unclear.

John Kenney added that information in the first place back in December 2003, and I have posted a message on his talk page to see if he can tell us where he got that information.

— DLJessup (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure where I got it from. As DLJ notes, Political Graveyard gives support to both options. Given that Thomas was from New York, Michigan might make more sense. Perhaps this Time article from 1948 settles it, calling Smith a Professor at a Michigan university in 1948. john k 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

More information on Smith's residence. The New York Times on 4/15/1948 stated that Smith, a professor at Olivet College (MI) was mentioned as a potential VP nominee of the Soclialist Party. On 3/5/1949, a later article in the Times states that the president of the college, Aubrey Ashby, dismissed a number of professors (leading to the resignation of five other professors). Smith was dismissed in 1/1949, after the election of 1948 was over. One of the complaints of the professors who resigned was that Ashby was making anti-Semitic remarks and openly criticizing the faculty. Chronicler3 17:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

I added the Progressives, but It's been messed up. Can someone clean up? Because I'm not an expert programmer, and... --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 02:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Henry Wallace Candidacy

Question. In the talk page of the 1996 election, there is a discussion of the use of minor party names in New York. In this race, almost half of Wallace's vote came from New York State, where he appeared on the ballot on the American Labor Party line. Should this party name be included in the table or mentioned in the text? Chronicler3 20:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Also Truman had the endorsement of the Liberal Party in New York State in '48. Chronicler3 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Per your remarks, I have:

• Added the ALP to Wallace's party
• Footnoted Truman as receiving the votes for two different electoral slates in New York

I have also footnoted Dewey as receiving the votes for two different electoral slates in Mississippi.

— DLJessup (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Love the pix at top of page of Truman, Dewey, and Thurmond, and yet...

President Truman

... there is a surrealistic effect -- aesthetically cutting-edge, but not entirely encyclopedic -- that arises from seeing 2000-era Strom next to 1948 Harry and 1948 Tom. Is there a photo of Thurmond that is closer to period? BYT 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Either the photos should be from the proper period, or they should be removed. -- Infrogmation 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should use the image at right for Truman... :-) -- Infrogmation 19:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pix zapped, until someone finds one of circa 1948 vintage for Thurmond... BYT 02:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed and looks great now, thanks. BYT 10:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry Wallace in the template??

Why is there a place in the template for Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats but none for Henry Wallace, who got almost exactly the same popular vote total that Thurmond did? Vidor (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Joseph martin.jpg

Image:Joseph martin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent coloring

The electoral vote map and the close states table use a reversed color scheme. I really don't care which it is, but it is not ok to alternate in the same article. Jd2718 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this too. He should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.238.167 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the colors on the list of close states to match the color on the map. Jd2718 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While Wallace did not carry any one state and therefore did not gain any electoral votes, there does not seem to be a provision on the Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy page requiring the presence of photos for all candidates who received electoral college delegates or the exclusion of photos of those who did not. Therefore, it seems to me, since Thurmond and Wallace received a similar tally in the national popular vote, if one of their pictures is present then both should be. Earohar (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Progressive Party???

I found that the Progressive Party headed by Henry Wallace is missing. Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I added the Progressives, but It's been messed up. Can someone clean up? Because I'm not an expert programmer, and... --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 02:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Henry A. Wallace

I was certain, Wallace had gotten some 'electoral votes' for President. If I'm correct, he needs to be added to the top of the article. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wallace did not receive any electoral votes for President. Thurmond received 38 electoral votes in four Southern states, and one elector pledged to Truman voted for Thurmond instead, giving him a total of 39 electors. Wallace received roughly the same popular vote as Thurmond, but carried no states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if former Vice President Henry A. Wallace received no electoral votes. He did receive 1,157,328 votes, fewer than 20,000 votes less than Strom Thurmond. His Progressive Party (United States, 1948) candidacy warrants mention in the table.Dogru144 (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The MIstake

There was a big mistake in 1948. I don't know what it is. Something about the election. Please tell me. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.115.142 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Boston Red Sox fans would say their team's choice of starting pitcher for theAmerican League playoff was 'the big mistake." :-)

Seriously, please read the article. Especially the pictures. You really don't need us to tell you; just your own work.Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

War leaders winning re-election

In the "Results" section, it says "It also refuted elections from across the world, as Truman was the war leader who managed to win re-election". Apart from the fact that "refute" seems a very odd choice of word, Truman wasn't the only one. Although he was only elected for the first time in late July 1945, a matter of a few weeks before Japan surrendered, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee managed (just) to win the next British general election, in 1950. 81.159.58.45 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Howard Hughes

Though this is little more than trivial, I thought it was worth mentioning and possibly including in the article. Before the 1948 election, millionaire-aviator Howard Hughes was floated as a possible candidate after he gained much public attention and support during his 1947 Senate investigation. Hughes, who had been accused of profiting from his war contracts, energetically denounced the Senate investigating committee that called him to testify in Washington, essentially making fools out of Senators R. Owen Brewster and Henry Fergusen. The hearings were the first-ever televised Senate hearings, and, combined with Hughes' already high profile, brought him much national public support. He recieved hundreds of letters suggesting that he run for president, but, ever the private man, he quickly denounced them. When asked about the matter by a Washington reporter, he tersely replied, "I think I've seen just about enough of this town." Though the movement quickly died, I find it fascinating that Howard Hughes, a figure who occupies such a unique place in American history, actually had some serious support for a presidential run in 1948, and I think the story would add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.31.167.228 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Odd Page Rendering

At the top of the page, the election overview box and the box containing the Democratic candidates overlap each other in the Safari 4 Beta. It is possible that this is a bug in Safari, but it is unlikely as I have encountered only one other unusual rendering. It was in OGame, which is still undergoing development. I will notify Apple of the incident. However, this does need to be looked into. It is likely that this is a matter of formatting, since Firefox has to literally push the Democrat box down because of the length of the election overview box. For those of you who understand HTML: I'm going to look at the z-indices. Therein may lie a clue. This, more than likely, has an easy fix. —un4v41l48l3 (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Z-indices are set to auto. No clues. I'm going to try to use returns to push the Democrat box down and then check it in Firefox to make sure I didn't cause any problems. Can someone check out the article in Internet Explorer?

—un4v41l48l3 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Added two <div> tags and two <br> tags to clean up the layout in Safari. The changes are minimal enough that Firefox (with a width of at least 1180 px) sees no change at all in the position of the Democrat box. The spacing between everything above it is more natural. Though, I could tweak the spacing there a little more if anyone would like. Smaller width windows do make things look a little strange. I tried a couple of different arrangements that looked a little better in the smaller widths, but I decided this one's benefits outweighed the nit-picky arrangements for the smaller widths. I really don't think it looks too shabby in the small windows, while the other options looked disjunct in the larger ones. Let me know what you think.

—un4v41l48l3 (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman image

I think the Harry S. Truman image is good, but I think the image "Harry S Truman, bw half-length photo portrait, facing front, 1945.jpg" is a better image and it would look good on the 1948 election page. I am not going to change it without discussing it from now on. Please consider changing the image and let me know what you think. Thank you.--82.16.113.24 {talk} 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply said, I disagree. The recent image is fine as is (and better than the one you're proposing).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Factual Error

In the opening paragraph, Truman is described as "the incumbent." He was not, as FDR was the president from 1944- 1948. I don't want to change this in case for whatever reason I'm wrong, but I had to point it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.74.34 (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

FDR died in 1945. Truman was the incumbent in the 1948 election. LarryJeff (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Add material from Truman?

Hui folks,
I'd like to add a bit of material, and some page sourcing from David McCullough's Truman. Is that OK? Bearian (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Odd, unclear wording

I find the wording in a sentence of the "Democratic Convention" section to be odd and in need of clarification and citation. The first sentence of the section claims that Truman "moderated" his "radical" support of civil rights "with language that placed civil rights in the context of the Constitution." What exactly does this mean? It's an uncited statement, but it sounds suspiciously as if the person who wrote it disagreed with civil rights and is saying that Truman's earlier actions were somehow unconstitutional, when they were not (an executive order integrating the armed forces and appointing a presidential commission to investigate the status of civil rights in the USA is hardly outside of presidential powers). I think this sentence needs some clarification with more specific wording, and needs to be cited, or else it needs to be rewritten or simply deleted. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:691E:5A29:8485:F942:E003:C724 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1948 United States presidential election/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Several of the other elections have maps which show the voting by county, as this article has, but the other maps show the percentage Democrat or Republican. That's a terrific analytical tool. Also, most of the other election articles have a bar at the bottom which allows the reader to navigate to other elections. If somebody could add those two things it would make this article that much nicer.

Last edited at 14:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No longer biggest upset

Trump won despite modern day polling right up onto the final day, and early exit polls universally predicting a landslide Hillary Clinton win. Not a single poll by anybody predicted a Trump win. It has also been called the greatest upset of all time by the media. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No doubt Trump's win was an upset, but I do disagree about the "greatest upset" part. Actually, several polls showed Trump ahead at various points during the campaign, including the LA Times poll, which consistently showed Trump leading, the Investors Business Daily (IBD) poll, Rasmussen, and some others. At least two of these - the LA Times and IBD polls - showed Trump winning on election day. Many other polls showed Trump trailing, but within the poll's margin of error. Nate Silver has argued that Trump's win, while no doubt a surprise, should not have been especially shocking, given the relative closeness of the polls throughout the race, and the fact that Trump actually had the lead at several points during the campaign.

On the other hand, not a single poll taken during the entire 1948 presidential campaign showed Truman winning, and even some of Truman's own aides had taken other jobs in anticipation of him losing, and some Republicans had bought houses in Washington in anticipation of serving in a Dewey administration. If you actually read about the 1948 campaign I would argue that it was still the greater upset and shock, although Trump's upset will rank up there in the history books. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 70.145.229.162 -- 1948 still looks bigger to me. But lets wait for the RS to report in. Rjensen (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I read an article today that said gambling odds against Truman were at 15 to 1 before the 1948 election, while the betting odds against Trump were around 5 to 1 the day before the 2016 election. Not definitive, of course, but it does relate to the debate above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Majority party"

The lead concludes with the sentence, "Thus, Truman's election confirmed the Democratic Party's status as the nation's majority party." What does that mean? If it just means, "Thus, Truman won the election", shouldn't the article just say that? If it also alludes to them winning control of congress, it should say that. Adpete (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election, 1948. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402213551/http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2012/featured/isr-and-the-truman-dewey-upset/ to http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2012/featured/isr-and-the-truman-dewey-upset/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Catholic vote?

What does this mean: " Truman received a record number of Catholic votes, exceeding even the Catholic support of Al Smith in 1928, in part because Wallace drew leftists away from the Democrats.[77]"? This is in terms of raw number of votes, or percentage of Catholics? How does Wallace drawing voters away from the Democrats give Democrats more support among Catholics? Shuageo (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Catholics were historically 80-90% Dem but that dropped in 1940 and 1944 because of larger role of far-left in Dem Party and in CIO. In 1948 the far left was forced out of Dem Party (it supported Wallace) so Irish & German Catholics who had been worried were relieved and voted for Truman. Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC (Request for Comment): Should Henry Wallace be included at top?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Henry Wallace be included with an infobox at the top of the page (with portrait etc.), as Truman, Dewey, and Strom Thurmond have? Herostratus (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Negative – in my opinion he had such a small vote, and in no state was close to any electoral votes. Worst of all, Wallace lost control of the Progressive campaign, and just naming him as a factor exaggerates his importance. Rjensen (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. If Thurmond is in, Wallace should be. Wallace's vote count was almost identical to Thurmond's. As a former vice president, cabinet secretary, and most visible leader of the American left, he was a big player in politics. I believe (not 100% sure) that his campaign was as big a deal as Thurmond's in the general consciousness, and that he was considered as big a threat to Truman as Thurmond was. The overall long-term historical importance of his campaign was maybe less than Thurmond's, but not by a huge amount, IMO. The only real difference is that Thurmond won a lot of electoral votes while Wallace won none, but Thurmond's electoral votes didn't make a difference. Herostratus (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we all learned in 2016 that 39 electoral votes are much more important than two million popular votes. Thurmond came close to throwing the election into the House--would have done so but the GOP did poorly and did not deliver its expected electoral voters--Rjensen (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC).

But see my addition below. Wallace came even closer to throwing the election into the House (actually into the Electoral College, where Thurmond would have been in the catbird seat, which would have been a very big deal I would think) -- Flip 12,487 votes in California and Ohio from Truman to Wallace, and that would've happened... that would've been an 8% gain for Wallace, moving him from 2.4% to about 2.6% of the national vote (if my math is right), which seems well possible. Quite a close call actually. Herostratus (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• No Failed to win a state and below the agreed 5% threshold for infobox listing. Number 57 12:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• No – Although I would be inclined to agree based on the similar vote totals between Thurmond and Wallace, I will say no based on the fact that he did not have any electoral votes (opposed to Thurmond's 39). I think Thurmond is the only "third party candidate" that should be up there. United States Man (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• No His low vote percentages, electoral college votes, and the fact that he didn't win any state doesn't make him significant enough for this. Baseballdad (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Herostratus' arguments in the discussion section below are convincing. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:56, 03 May 2019 (UTC)
• No If, as indicated above, the standard threshold for this is 5%, I would stick with that. It's just the infobox - the article itself has plenty of information regarding Wallace. Tchouppy (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• No. He did not win an electoral vote. You have to draw the line somewhere. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes He was a major figure in national politics and was not a fringe candidate, and his vote total was nearly equal to Thurmond's. Fidelity to the five percent vote minimum requirement would mean that Thurmond also should not be included. In this case, I will IAR and support inclusion of both for purposes of encyclopedic representation. DonFB (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Here're some of my thoughts on the matter:

CON (don't include Wallace)

• He didn't win any electoral votes (or come close).
• He won only 2.4% of the vote (1,157,328 votes)
• In comparison, Gary Johnson/Bill Weld in the United States presidential election won 3.3% (4.5 million votes), and they don't have an infobox in the 2016 election article. (Gene Debs who like Wallace won no electoral votes does have an infobox (1912 election) -- but after all he won 6% of the popular vote.)
• Wallace's best state was New York.. even there he won only 8%.

PRO (do include Wallace)

• He was, after all, a former Vice President (and secretary of two different departments). He missed becoming President (when Roosevelt died) only by bad timing (for him). He was a big deal in national politics and was quite well known, and remains so pretty much, relative to other politicians of his time.
• His presence in the race was perceived at the time as a big deal -- there was a legit fear that he would take enough votes from Truman to throw some states to Dewey, maybe enough to swing the election. (Polling was crude then, and there was really no way to know that this wasn't likely, so this was a reasonable fear at the time.)
• Comparing Wallace to Strom Thurmond (who does have an infobx):
  1. Wallace and Thurmond had almost identical vote totals, both at 2.4%.
  2. Wallace and Thurmond had similar effects on the election (both feared to throw the election to Dewey or into the House of Representatives, but ultimately having no effect).
  3. Wallace's and Thurmond's campaigns were both somewhat seminal in American history: Thurmond for jump-starting the eventual flip of the South from Democrat to Republican, Wallace for being pivotal part in the early history of how the "home front" part of the Cold War (which included the Second Red Scare (1947–60) involving McCarthyism, HUAC and the Hollywood blacklist etc., what attitude the unions would take toward communism, establishment support for the Truman Doctrine, and so on) would go. (One might give the edge to Thurman on this point.)
  4. However, Thurman got a lot of electoral votes and Wallace none. This's the big difference and if (and really only if) you consider this really important would you separate them, I think. And after all Thurmond's electoral votes didn't matter in the event. (Not to imply that valorizing electoral votes isn't a reasonable position; it is.)

POINTS ON BOTH SIDES

• Wallace's best state was New York.. even there he won only 8%. Evan McMullin won 21.5% in Utah in 2016, and he's not getting an infobox. On the other hand, New York is a whole lot bigger and more important than Utah, and I mean McMullin didn't really run much outside Utah (he got 0.53% of the national vote), so it's probably not a very useful comparison.
• Of course another valid position would be to subtract Thurman instead of adding Wallace.

It basically comes down to what is the greater service to the reader: including Wallace implies to the reader that he was more or less as important as Thurmond, not including Wallace implies to the reader that he wasn't. Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

. On Debs--he ran five times and worked very hard to build a party. Hard to see anyone who could have done a better job with Socialism in USA. Not so Wallace--he proved surprisingly poor at campaigning -- he lost control of his party, and lost his base of support among liberals, farmers and labor unions. FDR took him off the ticket in 1944 because he was a poor VP in wartime, Truman fired him in 1946 for being too soft on Stalin, and now strike three from the same voters who gave him 27 million votes in 1940. He felt he was a failure --historians all agree--and he quit politics entirely. (Wallace then made $$$$ in business--using his mastery of statistics to invent new seeds for corn) Thurmond has all sorts of longevity records--he was just getting started and made a name for himself across the South. (In 1964 he cashed in, by leading the move to the GOP across the South). So Debs and Thurmond were much more important. No such luck for other folks mentioned--they did not have any impact regionally, nationally or with major groups nor on ideas. Rjensen (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair points. Thurmond's long-term longevity and importance matters some... but IMO not really much for the purpose of describing this particular election, IMO. "Truman fired him in 1946 for being too soft on Stalin" is a point in considering him an important figure, in 1948 and generally. He represents/led a faction of American political society that was anti-Cold War. A faction that ultimately lost badly and was pushed far to the side, but still of historical importance in understanding political currents at work in postwar America. And Wallace's failed campaign was both a demonstration of, and maybe to some degree a cause of, the failure of this faction. So, an important campaign, maybe. Herostratus (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Mnmh, looking at vote totals, here's something: It seems very likely that Wallace's presence threw New York to Dewey. That's 47 electoral votes, which is more than Thurmond got. So his potential to have upset the race was as big as Thurmond's, if the electoral vote had been closer. (He also might have turned Michigan to Dewey, but probably not (Dewey carried that state by 35147; Wallace got 46,515 votes there; I doubt that 35,148 of these votes would have switched to Truman rather than staying home or voting Socialist or other. But you never know.)

Wallace also almost moved Ohio to Dewey (Truman won there by just 7,107 votes, Wallace had 37,596.), ditto California (Wallace got 190,381 there, Truman won by 17,864). If Wallace had done just a bit better in those two states, Truman would have had 253 electoral votes, not enough to win. Strom Thurmond would have had the whip hand in the Electoral College, or if he had no luck there the election would have gone to the House and Dewey would have won; either way, American history going forward would have been quite different. Thurmond, on the other hand, had no possible effect in states other than the ones he won; his 39 electoral votes was all he was going to get, and did his votes come nowhere close to flipping any other states to Dewey. These are might-have-beens... do they matter? It's a matter of opinion I guess.

At the right is a cartoon, from the Eastern-establishment Washington Star; note that it mentions Wallace but not Thurmond. On the other hand, according to this article, Thurmond was endorsed by 12% (!) of big newspapers while Wallace got zero. But on the other other hand, Thurmond's endorsements were all or virtually in the South. I see that Thurmond was on almost no state ballots outside the South. His candidacy was regional; Wallace ran nationwide. Does that matter? It's a matter of opinion I guess. Herostratus (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't think the Con argument is convincing enough. Thurmond also did not get five percent of vote, so I see a clear double standard here. As said before both Wallance and Thurmond represnet renegate factions of the Democratic Party. To include Thurmond but not Wallance seems to be a political choice to not aknowdlege the diversity of the Democrats at the time OR to ignore the far-left Anti Cold War faction that existed then. I will also restate another user's comment that Wallace's performance likely gave New York state to Dewey

So seriously, a better argument as to why Wallace is not here should be stated. Because here, it seems nothing less than bias that violates NPOV. 47.133.107.157 (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit: If Wallace cannot be include than Thurmond should also be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.133.107.157 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thurmond won electoral votes, so it makes sense to include him. Wallace did not. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Four way

Every time I visit the page, I'm troubled by the contradiction between the phrase "winning election in a four-way contest" and the appearance of only three candidate photos/blurbs in the Infobox. The phrase was added when, in fact, four photos were in the Infobox. I'm not arguing to add Wallace to the box (although I would not object if he were), but I'd like to suggest that we resolve the contradiction, which must look strange to readers. How about:

"In one of the greatest election upsets in American history,[2][3][4] incumbent President Harry S. Truman, the Democratic nominee, won the election, defeating heavily-favored Republican Thomas Dewey and other nationally-known candidates".

I would say "two other nationally-known candidates", but that would perpetuate the contradiction. (Or, "two third-party candidates", but that would also perpetuate the contradiction and introduce another weird one.)

DonFB (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image sizes

Despite the removal of Strom Thurmond from the infobox, Truman and Dewey's images remain smaller than the ones in the elections before and after this one. Due to the lack of a third-party candidate being shown, this just looks weird and inconsistent. Shouldn't we change the images to larger ones? YeetusDeletusYT (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are people keeping adding back Storm Thurmond?

Why? He literally only on 2% of the Vote and nowhere does it say the amount of EVs he won as an exception. This is why Harry Byrd isn't in the 1960 United States presidential election article. Meanwhile we don't have people like Ralph Nader or Gary Johnson in 2000 or 2016 in their infoboxes. It's just stupid Hypocrisy Qutlooker (talk) 02:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Harry Byrd, even if we say the faithless electors would keep him out of the infobox, didn't win 5% of the electoral vote. Thurmond, on the other hand, did. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that 5% of EVs is needed, it says 5% of the Popular Vote. Qutlooker (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say "popular vote"? It just says 5% of the "vote"; it is ambiguous about which vote is relevant for presidential elections. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

[1] It clearly shows when they mean "vote" they mean the Popular Vote. Qutlooker (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, it has also been the case of either winning (5%) of the popular vote OR winning any electoral votes. Byrd isn't included under this rule as he wasn't actually a candidate for the Presidency, he was nominated by electors that had been voted in without a prior preference. Thurmond, on the other hand, did indeed run for the Presidency, and the electors that voted for him were voted in as electors with a preference for Thurmond. --Ariostos (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Qutlook To the contrary: the one place "popular vote" is mentioned, it's in the context of "popular or electoral vote". —C.Fred (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Where? Cause I don't see it there Qutlooker (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Qutlook From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_12#RfC_on_5%_threshold, which you cited: For question 2: B, but only for U.S. presidential election articles where the candidate won over 5% of the popular vote or electoral votes nationally. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The rule has always been either 5 percent popular vote OR you won electoral votes outright. That was why Henry Wallace isn't on here, because he had neither. Thurmond had the latter. Then for instance, Eugene Debbs and John Anderson in 1912 and 1980 respectively had the former. And to be honest, their showings in the popular vote were far less important than Thurmond's because neither were anywhere close to winning states, despite getting a ton of votes. So if we're being completely real, Thurmond's actual poll in the race warrants a spot more than those two guys do, because an extra say 150,000 Wallace votes would have been enough for Trumon to have few enough electoral votes, to win. And don't even pretend like a house election would not warrant a Thurmond spot in the infobox because he "had less than 5 percent of the popular"

Plus had he won the democratic nomination in Arkansas and Georgia, two states he very well realistically could have, he would have FIFTY NINE electoral votes, the second most for a third party ever. Plus, it's also worth mentioning Thurmond did win 17 percent of the ballot in all the states he was actually on the ballot in, well beyond 5.

Besides, let's be real, you can't deny it looks incredibly strange to see a massive block of the southern map be orange, with no context on who the orange is for. 96.65.201.38 (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There is Context provided. But two States went for Harry Byrd who isn't listed in 60. So that argument is useless. Qutlooker (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction: 15 faithless electors voted for Harry Byrd in '60. Also, one was in Oklahoma, so they were in three states. That aside, if your logic were correct, we'd be showing seven candidates total for the 2016 election. One of which received absolutely no popular votes whatsoever. And this is only the most extreme example of what would happen if we included candidates which got faithless electoral votes. We'd also be showing additional candidates in 1820, 1872, 1956, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2004. Needless to say, not a good idea. YeetusDeletusYT (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)