Talk:1948 United States presidential election

message: ... 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)
replies: text: Agree completely. Either the photos should be from the proper period, or they should be removed. -- Infrogmation 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or perhaps we should use the image at right for Truman... :-) -- Infrogmation 19:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been fixed and looks great now, thanks. BYT 10:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love the pix at top of page of Truman, Dewey, and Thurmond, and yet... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Henry Wallace in the template??

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Joseph martin.jpg

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Henry A. Wallace

message: 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)
thread_title:  War leaders winning re-election 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Howard Hughes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Harry S. Truman image 

message: 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)
replies: text: FDR died in 1945.  Truman was the incumbent in the 1948 election. LarryJeff (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add material from ''Truman''? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Odd, unclear wording 

message: Substituted at 09:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Majority party" 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Catholic vote? 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Four way 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox image sizes