Can Truman’s 1948 Not-So-Secret Weapon Elect Harris?
As the Harris/Walz ticket mirrors Truman’s 1948 campaign, strong Democratic candidates and reproductive rights referenda could provide a decisive edge in key swing states this November.
By Paul Stekler and Michael Cornfield
As the Harris/Walz ticket roared out of the Democratic Convention, it was fired up, confident...and likely, at best, in a dead heat, given the Electoral College advantage for Republicans and the recent history of polls underestimating GOP strength. As much as the pundits praised Harris’ debate performance a decisive victory over an angry and defensive Donald Trump, there’s little to no indication in the post-debate polls that this race won’t be a November nail-biter. So why draw a comparison between the Harris campaign and, Harry S. Truman, the patron saint of underdog candidates, in 1948? Popular history focuses on Truman's famous "give 'em hell" campaign vitality, but what was crucial in boosting his chances was the almost forgotten impact of Democratic down-ballot strength that year. In a 1948/2024 comparison, this year’s swing states feature a roster of experienced and popular statewide Democratic candidates—along with reproductive rights referenda on the ballot—which could once again provide the Democrats with a decisive edge.
In the political history of presidential elections, few stories are as mythic as Truman’s non-stop campaign across the country, the legend that propelled him to victory. He gave more than 250 speeches, many from the rear platform of trains, covering more than 20,000 miles, where as many as ten million people saw him. He railed against what he called a Republican “do-nothing” Congress, while his opponent, New York Governor Thomas Dewey, appeared to wait for his inevitable victory. Truman barnstormed across Ohio, thought to be hopeless for him, while Dewey, despite pleas from the state party, made only a single speech in Cleveland.
Left out of the mythology of ’48 was a powerful wind at Truman’s back: significantly more popular Democrats running in crucial states. None other than former Speaker Newt Gingrich, in his most recent book, “March to the Majority,” cites the Democratic efforts that year to recruit strong progressive candidates in crucial states. Truman’s margin of victory in Ohio was just 7,107 votes, while former Democratic Governor Frank Lausche reclaimed the office by 221,000 votes. Truman’s winning margin of 31,000 votes in Illinois paled in comparison to Senate and gubernatorial winners Paul Douglas and Adlai Stevenson, who trounced GOP incumbents by 407,000 and 572,000 votes, respectively. In Minnesota, the crusading young mayor of Minneapolis, Hubert Humphrey, was elected Senator by almost 180,000 more votes than Truman’s winning total. In Kentucky, Estes Kefauver, wearing a coonskin cap, ran and won for Senator by 91,000 more votes than Truman.
Take a closer look at the state dynamics this election year and there’s a similarity in strong Democratic candidates running in down-ballot statewide races. While the Democrats’ hold on the Senate could not be more precarious, especially with Joe Manchin’s retirement gifting the GOP his seat, incumbents in other endangered states are tested veterans: Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, Jacky Rosen in Nevada, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and even the most threatened Jon Tester in Montana. These aren’t the type of candidates easily toppled (except in landslide elections), and all of them have been polling significantly ahead of the national Democratic ticket. In the swing states with open Senate seats—Michigan and Arizona, where the state Republican parties are in disarray—the Democratic candidates, Elissa Slotkin—a former national security officer—and Ruben Gallego—a former combat Marine in Iraq—both Congressional veterans, have raised impressive war chests and are leading in the polls. Finally, the possible implosion of Lt. Governor Mark Robinson’s gubernatorial campaign in North Carolina, due to his posts on a porn site combined with years of extreme statements, has given a double-digit polling lead in that race to Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein.
Beyond that, there are numerous states where abortion is on the ballot. Referenda will be decided in the battleground states of Arizona and Nevada, as well as Florida, Colorado, New York, Maryland, Missouri, and South Dakota. Given the track record of abortion referenda to date, it seems unlikely that large numbers of voters supporting reproductive rights in November will help Donald Trump’s chances.
The huge difference with Biden passing the torch to Harris is that she has the energy and advantage of relative youth to run an all-out Truman-style campaign. Her commanding performance in her debate with Trump showed that. Of course, while the turnabout in Vice President Harris’ fortunes has been almost miraculous, potential campaign missteps, millions of dollars in negative advertising, and uncontrolled factors in the world economy could still swing the November result. But in a race where the focus may be on just seven “swing” states, six feature strong Democratic statewide candidates, reproductive rights referenda, or both. Any boost, where the margins are small, may well replicate for the Harris-Walz ticket what down-ballot strength did for Harry Truman seventy-six years ago.
Paul Stekler is a maker of documentaries about American politics and an emeritus professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Michael Cornfield is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Excellence in Public Leadership at George Washington University.
Jeremi, thanks for the important reminder that sometimes the coattails effect works from the bottom up as well as from the top down!
Very important to remember. Thanks!