"Welcome Home from the Crow Eaters"

In my upcoming book, The Candy Bombers, I tell the story of how Harry Truman's election campaign in 1948 intersected with the war scare surrounding the Soviet blockade of Berlin. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it was not economic populism or personality contrasts that were - first and foremost - responsible for the Truman Defeats Dewey upset. It was very real national security concerns that helped Truman turn back the challenge from far-left former Vice President Henry Wallace, reunite the Democratic Party, and recapture a White House that the pundits thought was lost.

We look back on 1948 now and laugh at the misguided pollsters and political professionals who all assumed that Truman's campaign was a hopeless cause. A survey of the top 50 political pundits by Newsweek showed a unanimous belief that Dewey was a shoo-in. As I write in The Candy Bombers:

In Albany, Dewey's legal counsel Charles Breitel and a large staff burned the lights in their Capitol offices late into the night as they poured over heavy, leather-bound volumes of federal statutes and regulations, studied elaborate charts of the executive branch's structure and configuration, and outlined the duties and reach of every agency, board, and commission that they needed to be prepared to stock with loyal Republican functionaries ready to serve after nearly two decades in the wilderness. The head of the United States Secret Service decided he should be in New York for the election rather than Missouri. The reference book, Who's Who, sent its 1949 edition to print listing Dewey's address as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. For its first election night coverage on television, NBC News built a large cardboard model of the White House with a tiny treadmill inside that would spin miniature elephants around for the camera once the results had been called. There were no miniature donkeys on hand.

But as we all now know, Dewey did not defeat Truman. I've been thinking often about this historical episode in the days since the results came through in New Hampshire. I was - along with every other observer on the ground in the Granite State - convinced that Senator Obama had the victory. Senator Clinton's own internal polls had her down 11 points. Her staff did not bother drafting a victory speech for that night. But it turned out that even though the science of polling has grown much more sophisticated in the 60 years since 1948, history can still have the last laugh on all of us.

When Harry Truman returned to Washington after his victory, he passed by the Washington Post building where the staff had hung up a sign reading, "Welcome Home from the Crow Eaters." All those of us who have chuckled about the misguided, mistaken politicians and journalists of 1948 - and all of us who believed that political polling was too sophisticated to make such a mistake again - should be helping ourselves to a heaping serving of crow in the aftermath of New Hampshire.

Comments

[gopindrag]

Here's THE question: do we really want an electronic vote with no paper ballot available for recount? Do you trust the Diebold, any electronic, touch screen, paperless vote?

I WON'T DON'T EVER NEVER TRUST THEM. If you could prove there were no irregularities with any one of those machines in 2004, I would still violently oppose them. Too easily manipulated, too unverifiable.

[tedeger]

And it could be - just maybe - that in spite of the evident disparity between hand-counted precincts and machine-counted precincts - and the fact that a known criminal "Tabulated" the results, that what really counted was electoral stupidity - or perhaps fear. You see, the Granite Staters have a long history of hatred of being told what to do. They also despise glib hucksters. So-o-o-o when it looked like Obama might be a shoo-in, Democrats in droves who wanted Obama for the Democrats, but were deathly afraid Mike Huckabee might get the Republican nod, ran to the Republican side and voted for McCain, in order to make sure that that snake oil salesman did not get the nod. That, coupled with possible fraud by Sylvestro and Hajjar(?) could have turned the tide. Of course, since there is no visible paper trail for the touch-screen machines, the recount is only going to give the same, possibly faulty, results - but it gives us a good warning for November! Cut Sylvestro out of the loop!

[navalvet]

The polling showed a large number of undecideds and I suspect that older voters, likely Clintons supporters, were less likely to answer pollsters than the younger voters, who favored Obama.

However, if one cannot believe that "scientific" polling is infallible then let's have a recount of 1948.

[Purple Girl]

This is exactly what they ae doing now
according to them as a Dem- I only really have 2 choices- Bullshit!!
My husbands an Edwards fan- I'M FOR KUCINICH!!!
The Lil' guy with the biggest Balls of 'em all!!
Did not support the invasion of Iraq
Pushed for Cheney's impeachment (where were the e'top tier on that?nowhere to be found)
Wants an immediate withdrawl from the fiasco we begin & perpetuate.
Understands what it is REALLY like to be 'down & out' in America
Basically supports everything we have wanted for at least the last 40 yrs.

HAS MADE THE RIGHT DECSIONS AT THE RIGHT TIME- NO OOPS DID I VOTE FOR THAT BULLSHIT!

KUCINICH FOR PRES
BOYCOTT MSNBC!!

[wsblake]

However those "very real" security concerns were as manufactured as are much of the contemporary concerns over " Islamofascism." Post- World War II had its own PNAC and neocons- and they were just as powerful, just as influential as the current breed of warmongers. John Foster Dulles was the real power broker of 1948, and he was a rabid anti-communist, a Christian fundamentalist and a paranoid warmonger with tentacles everywhere including in the White House. The real candidate should have been Henry Wallace- a true progressive , insightful and intelligent statesman. The world would have been a far better place with his presidency.

[dragbunt]

The MSM does not like to dwell in the past - So I don't think its strange that its not covering the Kucinich NH recount story.

I think the word "recount" is partially responsible. Say it and you're branded a sore loser. Maybe we could come up with a new sort of republican double speak term for recount?

Like "Voter Challenge" - Like a coach's challenge in pro football - Shouldn't the voters have the same right to throw the red flag and have the refs take a second look at it in the booth?

When the outcome of a pro football game rests in the balance we go the extra mile to get it right, but apparently the outcome of a presidential election is not as vitally important as who plays in the Super Bowl.

Assuming that to be true, I think we as americans should try to put a better face on the right to vote and maybe even the act of voting. Teach kids at an early age that voting is cool. Give them the right to vote about school issues and have vote on them often. Make the act of democracy mean enough to them that when the outcome is in doubt, they will throw the red flag.

[Counterglow]

Whatever the motive, or even if there isn't one, there's a reasonable case to be made that the voting machines screwed up again.

[DoorsOfMyFace]

"Kucinich asks for New Hampshire recount in the interest of election integrity"

"DETROIT, MI " Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday"s election because of "unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.""

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5544#more-5544

[pfc1369]

You miss the beauty of it in the 2nd sentence.

Should read: the Dewey Defeats Truman upset.

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

The pollsters did a professional job in a situation that was in flux. The commentators are the culprits for their naive and incompetent use of polling data. BTW, is anyone questioning the veracity of the vote for manipuation and fraud?!...surely not those commentators.

[altohone]

I will laugh long and hard if all these posts, op-ed's and pundits writing and commenting on the "Where did we go wrong" stories end up needing to be retracted.

Sure, all 9 polls may have been wrong...

... or all the talking heads may be struggling to spew anything to distract from the possibility the polls were right and the vote count was manipulated.

The corporate media blackout on the calls for a recount suggests fraud isn't even being considered despite years of evidence it is both possible and a strong motive exists.

Sure, I'm a cynic, but not for no reason.

[jqcitizen]

The MSM is Newspapers, Radio and TV stations owned by none other than Big Business. But, don't blame the honest business owners, go straight to the Federal Communications Administration. This is the "Watch-Dog" group that allows your Newspaper, Radio and TV stations to spill out propaganda by the same corporations that funnel plenty of their ill-gotten dollars to their favorite Politician.

Do some homework. Which political party has had absolute control of the FCC since before Bagdad got blown to pieces? The MSM did exactly what the 'Decider' et al wanted. LIE.

[avergejoe]

you forgot to mention what a pathetic, incompetent president he was - almost makes bush look good.

[Pdubya]

diebold won new hampshire: obama and paul lose


perhaps that is why there is a re-count by both parties for new hampshire??

yes.

[Impeachthechimp]

This country has a long history of media attacks against Democrats. Whether it is calling the election against Truman, going after Gary Hart, Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton, or the witch hunts against her husband.

People need to realize the MSM is Republican and they do everything possible to harpoon Democrats each election cycle. Republicans almost always get a free pass.

The MSM is a partisan group and they know what side their bread is buttered on.