document_title: United States presidential election, 1948

question_text: who did the states rights party nominate for president in 1948

text: United States presidential election, 1948

text: Nominations[edit]

text: Republican Party nomination[edit]

text:
Republican Party Ticket, 1948

Thomas E. Dewey
Earl Warren

for President
for Vice President

47th
Governor of New York
(1943–1954)
30th
Governor of California
(1943–1953)

Campaign

text:
Governor
Thomas E. Dewey
of New York

Senator
Robert A. Taft
from Ohio

Former Governor
Harold Stassen
of Minnesota

President Pro Tempore
Arthur H. Vandenberg

Governor
Earl Warren
of California

General of the Army
Douglas MacArthur
from New York

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Joseph William Martin, Jr.,
from Massachusetts

Former Chief of Staff of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower
from New York
(Declined – Jan 24, 1948)

Senator
John W. Bricker
from Ohio
(Declined – Endorsed Taft)

text: As would be experienced by the Democrats, there was a boom for General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the most popular general of World War II and a favorite in the polls. Unlike the latter movement within the Democratic party, however, the Republican draft movement came largely from the grassroots of the party. By January 23, 1948, the grassroots movement had successfully entered Eisenhower's name into every state holding a Republican presidential primary, and polls gave him a significant lead against all other contenders. With the first state primary approaching, Eisenhower was forced to make a quick decision. Stating that soldiers should keep out of politics, Eisenhower declined to run and requested that the grassroots draft movement cease its activities. After a number of failed efforts to get Eisenhower to reconsider, the organization disbanded, with the majority of its leadership endorsing the presidential campaign of the former Governor of Minnesota, Harold Stassen.

text: With Eisenhower refusing to run, the contest for the Republican nomination was between Stassen, New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, Senator Robert A. Taft from Ohio, California Governor Earl Warren, General Douglas MacArthur, and Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg from Michigan, the senior Republican in the Senate. Dewey, who had been the Republican nominee in 1944, was regarded as the frontrunner when the primaries began. Dewey was the acknowledged leader of the Republican Party's Eastern Establishment. In 1946 he had been re-elected governor of New York by the largest margin in state history. Dewey's handicap was that many Republicans disliked him on a personal level; he often struck observers as cold, stiff, and calculating. Taft was the leader of the Republican Party's conservative wing, which was strongest in the Midwest and parts of the South. Taft called for abolishing many New Deal welfare programs, which he felt were harmful to business interests, and he was skeptical of American involvement in foreign alliances such as the United Nations. Taft had two major weaknesses: He was a plodding, dull campaigner, and he was viewed by most party leaders as being too conservative and controversial to win a presidential election.[7]

text: Both Vandenberg and Warren were highly popular in their home states, but each refused to campaign in the primaries, which limited their chances of winning the nomination. Their supporters, however, hoped that in the event of a Dewey-Taft-Stassen deadlock, the convention would turn to their man as a compromise candidate.

text: General MacArthur, the famous war hero, was especially popular among conservatives. Since he was serving in Japan as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers occupying that nation, he was unable to campaign for the nomination. He did make it known, however, that he would accept the GOP nomination if it were offered to him, and some conservative Republicans hoped that by winning a primary contest he could prove his popularity with voters. They chose to enter his name in the Wisconsin primary.[8]

text: The "surprise" candidate of 1948 was Stassen, a liberal from Minnesota.[9] In 1938, Stassen had been elected governor of Minnesota at the age of 31; he resigned as governor in 1943 to serve in the wartime Navy. In 1945 he served on the committee that created the United Nations. Stassen was widely regarded as the most liberal of the Republican candidates, yet during the primaries he was criticized for being vague on many issues. Stassen stunned Dewey and MacArthur in the Wisconsin primary; Stassen's surprise victory virtually eliminated General MacArthur, whose supporters had made a major effort on his behalf. Stassen defeated Dewey again in the Nebraska primary, thus making him the new frontrunner. He then made the strategic mistake of trying to beat Taft in Ohio, Taft's home state. Stassen believed that if he could defeat Taft in his home state, Taft would be forced to quit the race and most of Taft's delegates would support him instead of Dewey.

text: Taft defeated Stassen in his native Ohio, however, and Stassen earned the hostility of the party's conservatives. Even so, Stassen was still leading Dewey in the polls for the upcoming Oregon primary. Dewey, however, realized that losing another primary would end his chances at the nomination, and he decided to make an all-out effort in Oregon.[10] In April 1948 Dewey sent Paul Lockwood, one of his top aides, to build a strong grassroots organization in the state. Working with $150,000 sent by Dewey's powerful New York political organization (three times the previous record spent in an Oregon primary), Lockwood paid "for 126 billboards, hundreds of sixty-second radio spots on every station in the state, and half-hour broadcasts each noon...The daily Portland Oregonian carried five Dewey advertisements a day."[11] Dewey also extensively campaigned in Oregon, spending three weeks in the state. He "invaded every hamlet, no matter how isolated, speaking at rural crossroads and shaking hands in hamburger stands. One journalist commented that Dewey was the greatest explorer of Oregon since Lewis and Clark."[12]

text: Dewey also agreed to debate Stassen in Oregon on national radio. Held on May 17, 1948, it was the first-ever radio debate between presidential candidates. The sole issue of the debate concerned whether to outlaw the Communist Party of the United States. Stassen, despite his liberal reputation, argued in favor of outlawing the party, stating his belief that a network of Soviet-directed Communist spies "within the U.S. demanded immediate, and punitive, response...Why did Dewey oppose such a ban? Stassen wanted to know."[13] "We must not coddle Communism with legality", Stassen insisted. Dewey - while criticizing Communist totalitarianism and Soviet actions in the Cold War - still forcefully argued against banning the Communist Party: "This outlawing idea is nothing new...for thousands of years despots have tortured, imprisoned, killed, and exiled their opponents, and their governments have always fallen into the dust."[14] Dewey ended his turn in the debate by stating that "I am unalterably, wholeheartedly, and unswervingly against any scheme to write laws outlawing people because of their religious, political, social, or economic ideas. I am against it because it is a violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights...I am against it because I know from a great many years of experience in law enforcement that the proposal wouldn't work. Stripped to its naked essentials...this is nothing but the method of Hitler and Stalin. It is thought control...an attempt to beat down ideas with a club. It is a surrender of everything we believe in."[15] Surveys showed that from 40 to 80 million people nationwide listened to the debate, and most observers rated Dewey as the winner.[16] Four days after the debate, Dewey defeated Stassen in the Oregon primary.[17] From this point forward, the New York governor had the momentum he needed to win his party's second nomination.[18]

text: Republican Convention[edit]

text: The 1948 Republican National Convention was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was the first presidential convention to be shown on "national" television. (At this time there were 27 television stations in full operation in the US and an estimated 350,000 TV sets in the whole country.) As the convention opened, Dewey was believed to have a large lead in the delegate count.[19] His campaign managers - Herbert Brownell, Jr., Edwin Jaeckle, and J. Russell Sprague - were "as skillful a group of operators as ever manipulated a convention...it was said at the convention that the Dewey forces "could have won even with Taft" as their candidate."[20] His main opponent, Senator Taft, was hobbled by an ineffective campaign team that one writer called "bumblers", and another historian noted that Taft's campaign manager, Ohio Congressman Clarence J. Brown, "seemed no match for Herbert Brownell...while the Dewey forces were busy flattering delegates and hinting at promises of patronage, Brown was still worrying about such mundane matters as hotel rooms and seats in the gallery for his friends."[21]

text: Dewey's leading opponents – Taft and Stassen – met in Taft's hotel suite to plan a "stop-Dewey" movement. A key obstacle soon developed, however, as both men refused to unite behind a single candidate to oppose Dewey: "The essence of their impasse was simple. Neither Stassen nor Taft hated Dewey enough to withdraw [in favor of the other], and neither man thought he could get his delegates to follow if he did."[22] Instead, both Taft and Stassen, along with Senator Vandenberg, simply agreed to try to hold their own delegates in the hopes of preventing Dewey from obtaining a majority. This proved to be futile, as Dewey's efficient campaign team methodically gathered the remaining delegates they needed to win the nomination. Stassen tried to contact General Eisenhower to ask him to reconsider becoming a candidate, but Eisenhower "could not be reached."[23] After the second round of balloting, Dewey was only 33 votes short of victory. Taft then called Stassen and urged him to withdraw from the race and endorse him as Dewey's main opponent. When Stassen refused, Taft wrote a concession statement and had it read to the convention at the start of the third ballot; at this point the other candidates also dropped out, and Dewey was then nominated unanimously by acclamation.[24]

text: Dewey's campaign team originally wanted Illinois Governor Dwight Green to be his running mate, but the opposition of Colonel Robert R. McCormick, the powerful publisher of the Chicago Tribune, nixed his chances.[25] According to journalist Jules Abels, Dewey managers Brownell, Sprague, and Jaeckle then appeared to offer the vice-presidential nomination to influential Indiana Congressman Charles Halleck, in exchange for Halleck delivering the entire Indiana delegation to Dewey.[26] Halleck did so, but Dewey, who had not been present at the meeting between his managers and Halleck, decided to reject his candidacy, telling his aides "Halleck won't do." After Dewey told Halleck of his decision, Halleck "was first speechless with disbelief and then overcome with emotion." He told Dewey that "you're running out on the Eightieth Congress, and you'll be sorry!"[27] Abels wrote that Dewey's decision to deny Halleck the vice-presidential bid "may have been a fateful one...Halleck with his forceful personality might have changed the tone of the Dewey campaign, and certainly the issue of the record of the GOP-controlled Eightieth Congress would have to have been met heads on."[28] Instead, Dewey chose popular governor (and future Chief Justice) Earl Warren of California as his running mate. Following the convention, most political experts in the news media rated the Republican ticket as an almost-certain winner over the Democrats.[29]

text:
The tally

Ballot
1
2
3

Thomas E. Dewey
434
515
1094

Robert A. Taft
224
274
0

Harold Stassen
157
149
0

Arthur H. Vandenberg
62
62
0

Earl Warren
59
57
0

Dwight H. Green
56
0
0

Alfred E. Driscoll
35
0
0

Raymond E. Baldwin
19
19
0

Joseph William Martin, Jr.
18
10
0

B. Carroll Reece
15
0
0

Douglas MacArthur
11
8
0

Everett Dirksen
1
0
0

Abstaining
1
0
0

text: Democratic Party nomination[edit]

text:
Democratic Party Ticket, 1948

Harry S. Truman
Alben W. Barkley

for President
for Vice President

33rd
President of the United States
(1945–1953)
U.S. Senator from Kentucky
(1927–1949)

Campaign

text: Democratic candidates:

text:
President
Harry S. Truman

Senator
Richard Russell, Jr.
from Georgia

Senator
Claude Pepper
from Florida
(Withdrew – July 14, 1948)

Former Chief of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower
from New York
(Declined – July 10, 1948)

Associate Justice
William O. Douglas
from New York
(Declined – July 10, 1948)

text: On July 12, the Democratic National Convention convened in Philadelphia in the same arena where the Republicans had met a few weeks earlier. Spirits were low; the Republicans had taken control of both houses of the United States Congress and a majority of state governorships during the 1946 mid-term elections, and the public opinion polls showed Truman trailing Republican nominee Dewey, sometimes by double digits. Furthermore, some liberal Democrats had joined Henry A. Wallace's new Progressive Party, and party leaders feared that Wallace would take enough votes from Truman to give the large Northern and Midwestern states to the Republicans.

text: Conservatives dominated the party in the South, and they were angered by the growing voice of northern labor unions in the party. The hope that Truman would reverse course had faded by 1947, when he vetoed the Taft-Hartley Law to control union power. Truman's appointment of a liberal civil rights commission convinced Southern conservatives that to re-establish their voice they had to threaten third party action to defeat Truman in 1948.[30]

text: Truman was aware of his unpopularity. In July 1947 he offered to run as Eisenhower's running mate on the Democratic ticket if MacArthur won the Republican nomination, an offer which Eisenhower declined.[31]

text: As a result of Truman's low standing in the polls, several Democratic party bosses began working to "dump" Truman and nominate a more popular candidate. Among the leaders of this movement were Jacob Arvey, the head of the powerful Cook County (Chicago) Democratic organization; Frank Hague, the boss of New Jersey; James Roosevelt, the eldest son of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt; and liberal Senator Claude Pepper from Florida. The rebels hoped to draft Eisenhower as the Democratic presidential candidate. On July 10, however, Eisenhower officially refused to be a candidate. There was then an attempt to put forward Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, but Douglas also declared that he would not be a presidential candidate. Finally, Senator Pepper declared his intention to challenge Truman for the presidential nomination. His candidacy collapsed when the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and the Congress of Industrial Organizations withheld their support, partly due to concerns over Pepper's attacks on Truman's foreign policy decisions regarding the Soviet Union. As a result of the refusal by most of the dump-Truman delegates to support him, Pepper withdrew his candidacy for the nomination on July 14. Lacking a candidate acceptable to all sides, the leaders of the dump-Truman movement reluctantly agreed to support Truman for the nomination.

text: Democratic Convention[edit]

text: At the Democratic Convention, Truman initially proposed a civil rights plank to the party platform that moderated the strong vocal support for civil rights that he had expressed at the NAACP convention in 1947, and to Congress in February 1948. This proposal disappointed Northern and Western liberals who wanted more swift and sweeping reforms in civil rights, but it also failed to placate Southern conservatives, and both sides decided to present their own amendments and proposals to Truman's civil rights plank.[32][33] Former Texas Governor Dan Moody proposed a plank that supported the status quo of states' rights; a similar but shorter proposal was made by Cecil Sims of the Tennessee delegation.[34] On the liberal side, Wisconsin Representative Andrew Biemiller proposed a strong civil rights plank which was more explicit and direct in its language than Truman's convention proposal.[35] Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey led the support for the Biemiller plank. In his speech, Humphrey memorably stated that "the time has come for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!"[36]

text: Truman and his staff knew it was highly likely that any civil rights plank would lead to Southern delegates staging a walk-out in protest, but Truman believed that civil rights was an important moral cause and ultimately abandoned his advisers' attempts to "soften the approach" with the moderate plank; so the President supported and defended the "Crackpot" Biemiller plank, which passed by 651.5 votes to 582.5.[37] It also received strong support from many of the big-city party bosses, most of whom felt that the civil rights platform would encourage the growing black population in their cities to vote for the Democrats.[38] The passage of the civil rights platform caused some three dozen Southern delegates, led by South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond, to walk out of the convention. The Southern delegates who remained nominated Senator Richard Russell, Jr. from Georgia for the Democratic nomination as a rebuke to Truman. Nonetheless, 947 Democratic delegates voted for Truman as the Democratic nominee, while Russell received only 266 votes, all from the South.

text: Truman's first choice for his running mate was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, hoping that it might make the ticket more appealing to liberals. Douglas refused the nomination. Needing an alternative, Truman then selected Senator Alben W. Barkley from Kentucky, who had delivered the convention's keynote address, as his running mate, with this nomination being made by acclamation.[39] Truman gave a fighting acceptance speech, stating that "Senator Barkley and I will win this election and make the Republicans like it - don't you forget it!...We will do that because they are wrong and we are right."[40] He claimed that the Republican Party had, "ever since its inception...been under the control of special privilege; and they have completely proved it in the Eightieth Congress."[41] At the end of the speech the "delegates rose to their feet and cheered loudly for two minutes...for a moment Truman had created the illusion - few regarded it as more than an illusion - that the Democrats had a fighting chance in November."[42]

text:
The Balloting

Presidential Ballot

Vice Presidential Ballot

Harry S. Truman
947.5
Alben W. Barkley
1,234

Richard Russell, Jr.
266

James A. Roe
15

Paul V. McNutt
2

Alben W. Barkley
1

text: Progressive Party nomination[edit]

text:
Progressive Party Ticket, 1948

Henry A. Wallace
Glen H. Taylor

for President
for Vice President

33rd
Vice President of the United States
(1941–1945)
U.S. Senator from Idaho
(1945–1951)

Campaign

text: Meanwhile, the Democratic party fragmented. A new Progressive Party (the name had been used earlier by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and Robert M. La Follette in 1924) was created afresh in 1948, with the nomination of Henry A. Wallace, who had served as Secretary of Agriculture, Vice President of the United States, and Secretary of Commerce under Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1946, President Truman had fired Wallace as Secretary of Commerce when Wallace publicly opposed Truman's firm moves to counter the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Wallace's 1948 platform opposed the Cold War policies of President Truman, including the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine. The Progressives proposed stronger government regulation and control of Big Business. They also campaigned to end discrimination against blacks and women, backed a minimum wage, and called for the elimination of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was investigating the issue of communist spies within the U.S. government and labor unions. Wallace and his supporters believed that the committee was violating the civil liberties of government workers and labor unions.

text: The Progressives, however, also generated a great deal of controversy because of the widespread belief that they were secretly controlled by Communists who were more loyal to the Soviet Union than the United States. Wallace himself denied being a Communist, but he repeatedly refused to disavow their support and, at one point, was quoted as saying that the "Communists are the closest thing to the early Christian martyrs."[43] Walter Reuther, the president of the influential United Auto Workers union, strongly opposed Wallace's candidacy, stating that "people who are not sympathetic with democracy in America are influencing him."[44] Philip Murray, the president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), stated in April 1948 that "the Communist Party is directly responsible for the creation of the third party [Progressive Party] in the United States."[44]

text: Wallace was also hurt when Westbrook Pegler, a prominent conservative newspaper columnist, revealed that Wallace as vice president had written coded letters discussing prominent politicians such as Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to his controversial Russian New Age spiritual guru Nicholas Roerich; the letters were nicknamed the "Guru letters." In his book Out of the Jaws of Victory, the journalist Jules Abels wrote: "Personalities were referred to by symbolic titles—Roosevelt was 'The Flaming One', Churchill 'The Roaring Lion', and Cordell Hull 'The Sour One'... some of the letters were signed 'Wallace', others 'Galahad'", the name that Roerich had assigned Wallace in his cult.[45] This revelation—including direct quotes from the letters—led to much ridicule of Wallace in the national press.

text: The Progressive Party Convention, which was also held in Philadelphia, was a highly contentious affair; several famous newspaper journalists, such as H. L. Mencken and Dorothy Thompson, publicly accused the Progressives of being covertly controlled by Communists. The party's platform was drafted by Lee Pressman, the convention secretary, he later admitted that he had been a member of the Communist party.[46] John Abt served as legal counsel to the convention's permanent chairman, Albert Fitzgerald; he also testified years later that he was a Communist.[46] Rexford Tugwell, a prominent liberal in President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, served as the Chairman of the party's platform committee. He became convinced that the party was being manipulated by Communists, and was "so heartsick about Communist infiltration of the party that he discussed . . . with his wife disaffiliating [from the party] the night before the convention" started.[47] Tugwell later did disassociate himself from the Progressive Party and did not participate in Wallace's fall campaign.[46] A number of other Progressive Party delegates and supporters would quit the party in protest over what they perceived as the undue influence Communists exerted over Wallace, including the prominent American socialist Norman Thomas. In the fall, Thomas would run as the Socialist Party presidential candidate to offer liberals a non-Communist alternative to Wallace.[48]

text: Senator Glen H. Taylor from Idaho, an eccentric figure who was known as a "singing cowboy" and who had ridden his horse "Nugget" up the steps of the United States Capitol after winning election to the Senate in 1944, was named as Wallace's running mate. Although he was a member of the Democratic Party, Taylor accepted the Progressive Party's vice-presidential nomination, saying "I am not leaving the Democratic Party. It left me. Wall Street and the military have taken over the Democratic Party."[49] After receiving the vice-presidential nomination, Taylor told reporters that there was a difference between "pink" Communists and "red" Communists.[50] Taylor claimed that "pink" Communists would support the Wallace-Taylor ticket because they believed in a "peaceful revolution" to turn the government to left-wing beliefs, but "red" Communists would support the Republican ticket in the belief that they would cause another Great Depression, which would give Communists the chance to take over the government.[51]

text: In the fall campaign the Wallace-Taylor ticket made a Southern tour, where both Wallace and Taylor insisted on speaking to racially integrated audiences, in defiance of Southern custom and law at the time. In several North Carolina cities Wallace was hit by a total of "twenty-seven eggs, thirty-seven tomatoes, six peaches, and two lemons."[52] When he left the state he announced: "As Jesus Christ said, if at any time they will not listen to you willingly, then shake the dust off from your feet and go elsewhere."[53] He ate only in unsegregated restaurants, traveled with a black secretary, and in Mississippi had to be escorted by police for protection. His aide Clark Foreman admitted that Wallace wanted to stir up controversy for the publicity it would receive in more liberal areas in the North and West.[54] As the campaign progressed, however, Wallace's crowds thinned and his standing in the polls dropped. Wallace was hurt by the successful effort of labor unions to keep their members in the Democratic column, and by controversial statements from Progressives supporting "appeasement with Russia."[55] Wallace himself attacked Winston Churchill as a "racist" and "imperialist", and Senator Taylor earned criticism for a speech in which he claimed that the "Nazis are running the US government. So why should Russia make peace with them? If I were a Russian . . . I would not agree to anything . . . we are aggressively preparing for war."[56]

text: The Wallace-Taylor ticket finished in fourth place in the election, winning 1,157,328 votes (2.4%). This was slightly less than the States' Rights Party, but the Progressive Party received no electoral votes.

text: States' Rights Democratic Party nomination[edit]

text:
States' Rights Democratic Party Ticket, 1948

Strom Thurmond
Fielding L. Wright

for President
for Vice President

103rd
Governor of South Carolina
(1947–1951)
49th & 50th[57]
Governor of Mississippi
(1946–1952)

Campaign

text: Southern Democrats had become increasingly disturbed over President Truman's support of civil rights, particularly following his executive order racially integrating the U.S. armed forces and a civil rights message he sent to Congress in February 1948. At the Southern Governor's Conference in Wakulla Springs, Florida, on February 6, Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright proposed the formation of a new third party to protect racial segregation in the South. On May 10, 1948, the governors of the eleven states of the former Confederacy, along with other high-ranking Southern officials, met in Jackson, Mississippi, to discuss their concerns about the growing civil rights movement within the Democratic Party. At the meeting, South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond criticized President Truman for his civil rights agenda, and the governors discussed ways to oppose it.[58]

text: The Southern Democrats who had walked out of the Democratic National Convention to protest the civil rights platform approved by the convention, and supported by Truman, promptly met at Municipal Auditorium in Birmingham, Alabama, on July 17, 1948, and formed yet another political party, which they named the States' Rights Democratic Party. More commonly known as the "Dixiecrats", the party's main goal was continuing the policy of racial segregation in the South and the Jim Crow laws that sustained it. Governor Thurmond, who had led the walkout, became the party's presidential nominee after the convention's initial favorite, Arkansas Governor Benjamin Laney, withdrew his name from consideration. Governor Wright of Mississippi received the vice-presidential nomination. The Dixiecrats had no chance of winning the election themselves, since they could not get on the ballot in enough states to win the necessary electoral votes. Their strategy was to take enough Southern states from Truman to force the election into the United States House of Representatives under the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment, where they could then extract concessions from either Truman or Dewey on racial issues in exchange for their support. Even if Dewey won the election outright, the Dixiecrats hoped that their defection would show that the Democratic Party needed Southern support in order to win national elections, and that this fact would weaken the pro-civil rights movement among Northern and Western Democrats. The Dixiecrats were weakened, however, when most Southern Democratic leaders (such as Governor Herman Talmadge of Georgia and "Boss" E. H. Crump from Tennessee) refused to support the party. Despite being an incumbent president, Truman was not placed on the ballot in Alabama.[59] In the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, the party was able to be labeled as the main Democratic Party ticket on the local ballots on election night.[60] Outside of these four states, however, it was only listed as a third-party ticket.[60]

text: General election[edit]

text: Fall campaign[edit]

text:
"I'm Just Wild About Harry"

Instrumental version of "I'm Just Wild About Harry", used as a campaign song by the Truman campaign. Duration 3:54.

Problems playing this file? See media help.

text: Given Truman's sinking popularity and the seemingly fatal three-way split in the Democratic Party, Dewey appeared unbeatable. Top Republicans believed that all their candidate had to do to win was to avoid major mistakes; in keeping with this advice, Dewey carefully avoided risks. He spoke in platitudes, avoided controversial issues, and was vague on what he planned to do as president. Speech after speech was filled with non-political, optimistic assertions of the obvious, including the now infamous quote "You know that your future is still ahead of you." An editorial in The (Louisville) Courier-Journal summed it up as such: "No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead."[61] One writer noted that the "one broad issue that Dewey set forth in the campaign was unity...but [he] was oversold on an issue which had no visceral appeal to the average American. It was hard to understand what Dewey was driving at. Sometimes it seemed that he was asking Americans to achieve unity by being united behind him."[62]

text: Truman's campaign strategist, Clark Clifford, later said that Truman's campaign was "pitched to four distinct interest groups - labor, the farmer, the Negro, and the consumer. Every move had these four interest groups in mind."[63] Since he was trailing in the polls, Truman decided to adopt a slashing, no-holds-barred campaign. He ridiculed Dewey by name, criticized Dewey's refusal to address specific issues, and scornfully targeted the Republican-controlled 80th Congress with a wave of relentless and blistering partisan assaults. Truman claimed that "the Communists are rooting for a GOP victory because they know it would bring on another Great Depression."[64] In several speeches, Truman stated that "GOP" actually stood for "gluttons of privilege", and said that Republicans were "princes of privilege" and "bloodsuckers with offices on Wall Street."[65] He told one audience that "The Republicans have begun to nail the American consumer to the wall with spikes of greed."[66] At the National Plowing Contest in Dexter, Iowa, Truman told 80,000 farmers in attendance that "this Republican Congress has already stuck a pitchfork in the farmer's back."[67] He nicknamed the Republican-controlled Congress as the "worst", "do-nothing" Congress, a remark which brought strong criticism from Republican Congressional leaders (such as Taft), but no comment from Dewey. In fact, Dewey rarely mentioned Truman's name during the campaign, which fit into his strategy of appearing to be above petty partisan politics.

text: Under Dewey's leadership, the Republicans had enacted a platform at their 1948 convention that called for expanding Social Security, more funding for public housing, civil rights legislation, and promotion of health and education by the federal government. These positions were, however, unacceptable to the conservative Congressional Republican leadership. Truman exploited this rift in the opposing party by calling a special session of Congress on "Turnip Day" (referring to an old piece of Missouri folklore about planting turnips in late July) and daring the Republican Congressional leadership to pass its own platform. The 80th Congress played into Truman's hands, delivering very little in the way of substantive legislation during this time. Truman simply ignored the fact that Dewey's policies were considerably more liberal than most of his fellow Republicans, and instead he concentrated his fire against what he characterized as the conservative, obstructionist tendencies of the unpopular 80th Congress.

text: Truman toured much of the nation with his fiery rhetoric, playing to large, enthusiastic crowds. "Give 'em hell, Harry" was a popular slogan shouted out at stop after stop along the tour. The polls and the pundits, however, all held that Dewey's lead was insurmountable and that Truman's efforts were for naught. Indeed, Truman's own staff considered the campaign a last hurrah. Even Truman's own wife, Bess, had private doubts that her husband could win. The only person who appears to have considered Truman's campaign to be winnable was the president himself, who confidently predicted victory to anyone who would listen to him. Near the end of the campaign, Truman privately wrote a state-by-state electoral vote prediction and gave it to his aide, George Elsey. Truman believed that he would win the election with 340 electoral votes, to 108 for Dewey, 42 for Thurmond, and 37 marked doubtful (he accidentally left out four electoral votes).[68]

text: In the final weeks of the campaign, American movie theaters agreed to play two short newsreel-like campaign films in support of the two major-party candidates; both had been created by its respective campaign organization. The Dewey film, shot professionally on an impressive budget, featured very high production values but somehow reinforced an image of the New York governor as cautious and distant. The Truman film, hastily assembled on virtually no budget by the perpetually cash-short Truman campaign, relied heavily on public-domain and newsreel footage of the president taking part in major world events and signing important legislation. Perhaps unintentionally, the Truman film visually reinforced an image of him as engaged and decisive. Years later, historian David McCullough cited the expensive but lackluster Dewey film and the far cheaper but more effective Truman film, as important factors in determining the preferences of undecided voters.

text: As the campaign drew to a close, the polls showed Truman was gaining. Though Truman lost all nine of the Gallup Poll's post-convention surveys, Dewey's Gallup lead dropped from 17 points in late September to 9 points in mid-October to just 5 points by the end of the month, just above the poll's margin of error. Although Truman was gaining momentum, most political analysts were reluctant to break with the conventional wisdom and say that a Truman victory was a serious possibility. On September 9, nearly two months before election day, pollster Elmo Roper announced, "Thomas E. Dewey is almost as good as elected.... I can think of nothing duller or more intellectually barren than acting like a sports announcer who feels he must pretend he is witnessing a neck-and-neck race."[69] Roper stopped polling voters until the final week before the election, when he took another poll. It showed "a slight shift to Truman; it still gave Dewey a heavy lead, however, so he decided not to hedge his bet."[70] One poll showing strong Truman support in the rural Midwest was sponsored by the Staley Milling Company. They "polled farmers by giving them a choice of a donkey or an elephant on chicken feed sacks. When the results among 20,000 farmers showed up as fifty-four percent to forty-six percent for the donkey, the poll was abandoned."[71]

text: When Dewey considered adopting a more aggressive stance after noticing that his crowds were dwindling, Herbert Brownell contacted 90 GOP state committeemen and committeewomen in all 48 states. With one exception, they "urged [Dewey] to press forward on the high road" his campaign had taken and to continue to ignore Truman's attacks.[72] The sole exception was Kansas committeeman Harry Darby, who warned Dewey and his managers "that farmers were in a mutinous mood" and recommended for Dewey to take a tougher and more aggressive stance. However, given that all the polls still showed Dewey leading, and no other committee member supported Darby, his advice was rejected.[73]

text: In the campaign's final days, many newspapers, magazines, and political pundits were so confident of Dewey's impending victory they wrote articles to be printed the morning after the election speculating about the new "Dewey Presidency." Life magazine printed a large photo in its final edition before the election. Entitled "Our Next President Rides by Ferryboat over San Francisco Bay," the photo showed Dewey and his staff riding across the city's harbor.[74] Newsweek polled fifty experts; all fifty predicted a Dewey win.[75] Several well-known and influential newspaper columnists, such as Drew Pearson and Joseph Alsop, wrote columns to be printed the morning after the election speculating about Dewey's possible choices for his cabinet. The day before the election, Pearson wrote that Truman's election was "impossible," and his column printed the day after the election stated that Pearson had "surveyed the closely-knit group around Tom Dewey who will take over the White House 86 days from now."[76] Walter Winchell reported that gambling odds were 15 to 1 against Truman. More than 500 newspapers, accounting for over 78% of the nation's total circulation, endorsed Dewey. Truman picked up 182 endorsements, accounting for just 10% of America's newspaper readership, being surpassed by Thurmond, who got the remaining 12% from many Southern papers. Alistair Cooke, the distinguished writer for the Manchester Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, published an article on the day of the election entitled "Harry S. Truman: A Study of a Failure."[77] For its television coverage, NBC News constructed a large cardboard model of the White House containing two elephants that would pop out when NBC announced Dewey's victory; since Truman's defeat was considered certain, no donkeys were placed in the White House model.[78]

text: As Truman made his way to his hometown of Independence, Missouri, to await the election returns, some among his inner circle had already accepted other jobs, and not a single reporter traveling on his campaign train thought that he would win.[79] A number of prominent Republicans, anticipating serving in a Dewey Presidency, had already bought homes in Washington.[80]

text: Results[edit]

text: On election night, Dewey, his family, and campaign staff confidently gathered in the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City to await the returns.[81] Truman, aided by the Secret Service, sneaked away from reporters covering him in Kansas City and rode to nearby Excelsior Springs, Missouri. There, he took a room in the historic Elms Hotel, had dinner and a Turkish bath, and went to sleep.[82] As the votes came in, Truman took an early lead that he never lost. The leading radio commentators, such as H. V. Kaltenborn of NBC, still confidently predicted that once the "late returns" came in Dewey would overcome Truman's lead and win. At midnight, Truman awoke and turned on the radio in his room; he heard Kaltenborn announce that while Truman was still ahead in the popular vote, he could not possibly win. At 4 a.m., Truman awoke again and heard on the radio that his popular-vote lead was now nearly two million votes, and that he was well ahead in the electoral vote.[82] He told the Secret Service agents guarding him to drive him back to Kansas City, "because it looks as if we're in for another four years."[83] For the rest of his life, Truman would gleefully mimic Kaltenborn's pedantic voice predicting his defeat throughout that election night. Dewey, meanwhile, realized that he was in trouble when early returns from New England and New York showed him running well behind his expected vote total. He stayed up for the rest of the night and early morning analyzing the votes as they came in. By 10:30 a.m., he was convinced that he had lost; at 11:14 a.m., he sent a gracious telegram of concession to Truman.[84]

text: The Chicago Daily Tribune, a pro-Republican newspaper, was so sure of Dewey's victory that on Tuesday afternoon, before any polls closed, it printed "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" as its headline for the following day. Part of the reason Truman's victory came as such a shock was because of as-yet uncorrected flaws in the emerging craft of public opinion polling. According to historian William Manchester, "many professional pollsters...believed in what some had come to call Farley's Law."[70] James Farley, President Franklin Roosevelt's successful campaign manager in 1932 and 1936, had stated that, in his opinion, the great majority of voters decided which candidate to support during the political conventions. The fall campaigns, Farley believed, were simply "ineffective carnivals" that swayed few voters.[70] In 1948 many pollsters, relying on Farley's Law, believed that the election was effectively over after the Republican and Democratic Conventions, and they discounted the impact of Truman's campaigning that fall.[70] Manchester noted that "Gallup's September 24 report foresaw 46.5% for Dewey to 38% for Truman. His last column, appearing in the Sunday papers two days before the election, showed Truman gaining sharply – to 44 percent – and the interviews on which it was based had been conducted two weeks earlier. The national mood was shifting daily, almost hourly."[70] After the election, a study by the University of Michigan revealed that "14% of Truman's voters, or 3,374,800, had decided to vote for him in the last fortnight of the campaign."[85] Gallup and Roper also did an analysis of the votes, they "learned that one voter in every seven (6,927,000), made up his mind in the last two weeks before the election. Of these, 75 percent picked Truman", which was more than his margin of victory over Dewey.[85] "Using either the Michigan figures or Gallup-Roper's, one finds that some 3,300,000 fence-sitters determined the outcome of the race in its closing days – when Dewey's instincts were urging him to adopt Truman's hell-for-leather style and slug it out with him, and when he didn't because all the experts told him he shouldn't."[85] After 1948, pollsters would constantly survey voters through election day.

text: The key states in the 1948 election were Ohio, California, and Illinois. Truman narrowly won all three states by a margin of less than one percentage point apiece. These three states had a combined total of 78 electoral votes. Had Dewey carried all three states, he would have won the election in the Electoral College, even if not winning the popular vote. Had Dewey won only two (any two) of the three states, Truman would have had the most electoral votes but the Dixiecrats would have succeeded in their goal of forcing the election into the House of Representatives. The extreme closeness of the vote in these three states was the major reason why Dewey waited until late on the morning of November 3 to concede. A similarly narrow margin garnered Idaho and Nevada's electoral votes for Truman. Dewey countered by almost as narrowly carrying New York and Pennsylvania, the states with the most electoral votes at the time, as well as his native state of Michigan, but this was too little to give him the election. Dewey would always believe that he lost the election because he lost the rural vote in the Midwest, which he had won in 1944 (the Kaltenborn predictions that Truman would joyously mock had, in fact, taken for granted that the "country vote" would go to Dewey).[86]

text: Journalist Sidney Lubell found in his post-1948 survey of voters that Truman, not Dewey, seemed the safer, more conservative candidate to the "new middle class" that had developed over the previous 20 years. He wrote that "to an appreciable part of the electorate, the Democrats had replaced the Republicans as the party of prosperity" during and after the war. Lubell quoted a man who, when asked why he did not vote Republican after moving to the suburbs, answered "I own a nice home, have a new car and am much better off than my parents were. I've been a Democrat all my life. Why should I change?" Dewey's promise of a "great house cleaning" in Washington worried an Iowa minister who wanted to retain farm subsidies for parishioners. Worried about the consequences of another depression, he voted Democratic for the first time in his church's history. 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.[87]

text: Another reason for Dewey's surprise defeat was his complacent, distant approach to the campaign, and his failure to respond to Truman's attacks. Journalist Jules Abels wrote that "the election was not thrown away by indifference or lack of effort. Preparation and more preparation had always been the distinguishing characteristic of Dewey and his team throughout his career...The truth is that Dewey's campaign was the result not of careless, but too careful and painstaking, calculation. The Dewey campaign was frozen into inertia not because it had been underthought, but because it had been overthought."[88] Other possible factors for Truman's victory included his aggressive, populist campaign style; broad public approval of Truman's foreign policy, notably the Berlin Airlift of that year; and widespread dissatisfaction with the institution Truman labeled as the "do-nothing, good-for-nothing 80th Republican Congress." In addition, after suffering a relatively severe recession in 1946 and 1947 (in which real GDP dropped by 12% and inflation went over 15%), the economy began recovering throughout 1948, thus possibly motivating many voters to give Truman credit for the economic recovery.[citation needed]

text: The year 1948 was a banner year for the Democrats, as they not only retained the presidency but also recaptured both houses of Congress. It was also an unprecedented fifth consecutive presidential victory for the party. Since 1948, the Democrats have not managed to win more than two consecutive presidential elections, while the Republicans have managed to win three consecutive elections only once.

text: The two third parties did not hurt Truman nearly as much as expected. Thurmond's Dixiecrats carried only four Southern states, a lower total than predicted. The civil rights platform helped Truman win large majorities among black voters in the populous Northern and Midwestern states and may well have made the difference for Truman in states such as Illinois and Ohio. Wallace's Progressives received only 2.4% of the national popular vote, well below their expected vote total and slightly less than the Dixiecrats, and Wallace did not take as many liberal votes from Truman as many political pundits had predicted. Some analysts, including author Zachary Karabell, have even argued that the separate candidacies of Wallace and Thurmond were beneficial to Truman by removing the separate taints of communism and racism from the Democratic Party.[citation needed] Thurmond’s 2.4% is the lowest popular vote percentage for a candidate who won all of a state’s electoral votes. [89]

text: The 1948 Presidential election contrasted with other elections across the world during this period, for Truman was a war leader who managed to win re-election (Churchill and de Gaulle both left office shortly after the end of the war).[90][91]

text:
Presidential candidate
Party
Home state
Popular vote
Electoral
vote
Running mate

Count
Percentage
Vice-presidential candidate
Home state
Electoral vote

Harry S. Truman (Incumbent)
Democratic[a]
Missouri
24,179,347
49.55%
303
Alben W. Barkley
Kentucky
303

Thomas E. Dewey
Republican[b]
New York
21,991,292
45.07%
189
Earl Warren
California
189

Strom Thurmond
States' Rights Democratic
South Carolina
1,175,930
2.41%
39[92]
Fielding L. Wright
Mississippi
39[92]

Henry A. Wallace
Progressive/American Labor
Iowa
1,157,328
2.37%
0
Glen H. Taylor
Idaho
0

Norman Thomas
Socialist
New York
139,569
0.29%
0
Tucker P. Smith
Michigan
0

Claude A. Watson
Prohibition
California
103,708
0.21%
0
Dale Learn
Pennsylvania
0

Edward A. Teichert
Socialist Labor
Pennsylvania
29,244
0.06%
0
Stephen Emery
New York
0

Farrell Dobbs
Socialist Workers
Minnesota
13,613
0.03%
0
Grace Carlson
Minnesota
0

Other
3,504
0.01%
—
Other
—

Total
48,793,535
100%
531

531

Needed to win
266

266

text: Source (Popular Vote): Leip, David. "1948 Presidential Election Results". Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Retrieved August 1, 2005. Source (Electoral Vote): "Electoral College Box Scores 1789–1996". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 1, 2005.

text:
Popular vote

Truman

49.55%

Dewey

45.07%

Thurmond

2.41%

Wallace

2.37%

Others

0.60%

text:
Electoral vote

Truman

57.06%

Dewey

35.59%

Thurmond

7.34%

text: Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote

text: Results by state[edit]

text:
States won by Truman/Barkley

States won by Dewey/Warren

States won by Thurmond/Wright

text:
Harry S. Truman
Democratic
Thomas E. Dewey
Republican
J. Strom Thurmond
Dixiecrat
Henry Wallace
Progressive
Norman Thomas
Socialist
Other
Margin
State Total

State
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
#

Alabama
11
-
-
-
40,930
19.04
-
171,443
79.75
11
1,522
0.71
-
-
-
-
1,085
0.50
-
-130,513
-60.71
214,980
AL

Arizona
4
95,251
53.79
4
77,597
43.82
-
-
-
-
3,310
1.87
-
-
-
-
907
0.51
-
17,654
9.97
177,065
AZ

Arkansas
9
149,659
61.72
9
50,959
21.02
-
40,068
16.52
-
751
0.31
-
1,037
0.43
-
1
0.00
-
98,700
40.71
242,475
AR

California
25
1,913,134
47.57
25
1,895,269
47.13
-
1,228
0.03
-
190,381
4.73
-
3,459
0.09
-
18,067
0.45
-
17,865
0.44
4,021,538
CA

Colorado
6
267,288
51.88
6
239,714
46.52
-
-
-
-
6,115
1.19
-
1,678
0.33
-
442
0.09
-
27,574
5.35
515,237
CO

Connecticut
8
423,297
47.91
-
437,754
49.55
8
-
-
-
13,713
1.55
-
6,964
0.79
-
1,790
0.20
-
-14,457
-1.64
883,518
CT

Delaware
3
67,813
48.76
-
69,588
50.04
3
-
-
-
1,050
0.75
-
250
0.18
-
372
0.27
-
-1,775
-1.28
139,073
DE

Florida
8
281,988
48.82
8
194,280
33.63
-
89,755
15.54
-
11,620
2.01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
87,708
15.18
577,643
FL

Georgia
12
254,646
60.81
12
76,691
18.31
-
85,055
20.31
-
1,636
0.39
-
3
0.00
-
733
0.18
-
169,591
40.50
418,764
GA

Idaho
4
107,370
49.98
4
101,514
47.26
-
-
-
-
4,972
2.31
-
332
0.15
-
628
0.29
-
5,856
2.73
214,816
ID

Illinois
28
1,994,715
50.07
28
1,961,103
49.22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11,522
0.29
-
16,706
0.42
-
33,612
0.84
3,984,046
IL

Indiana
13
807,833
48.78
-
821,079
49.58
13
-
-
-
9,649
0.58
-
2,179
0.13
-
15,474
0.93
-
-13,246
-0.80
1,656,214
IN

Iowa
10
522,380
50.31
10
494,018
47.58
-
-
-
-
12,125
1.17
-
1,829
0.18
-
7,912
0.76
-
28,362
2.73
1,038,264
IA

Kansas
8
351,902
44.61
-
423,039
53.63
8
-
-
-
4,603
0.58
-
2,807
0.36
-
6,468
0.82
-
-71,137
-9.02
788,819
KS

Kentucky
11
466,756
56.74
11
341,210
41.48
-
10,411
1.27
-
1,567
0.19
-
1,284
0.16
-
1,430
0.17
-
125,546
15.26
822,658
KY

Louisiana
10
136,344
32.75
-
72,657
17.45
-
204,290
49.07
10
3,035
0.73
-
-
-
-
10
0.00
-
-67,946
-16.32
416,336
LA

Maine
5
111,916
42.27
-
150,234
56.74
5
-
-
-
1,884
0.71
-
547
0.21
-
206
0.08
-
-38,318
-14.47
264,787
ME

Maryland
8
286,521
48.01
-
294,814
49.40
8
2,476
0.41
-
9,983
1.67
-
2,941
0.49
-
-
-
-
-8,293
-1.39
596,735
MD

Massachusetts
16
1,151,788
54.66
16
909,370
43.16
-
-
-
-
38,157
1.81
-
-
-
-
7,831
0.37
-
242,418
11.50
2,107,146
MA

Michigan
19
1,003,448
47.57
-
1,038,595
49.23
19
-
-
-
46,515
2.20
-
6,063
0.29
-
14,988
0.71
-
-35,147
-1.67
2,109,609
MI

Minnesota
11
692,966
57.16
11
483,617
39.89
-
-
-
-
27,866
2.30
-
4,646
0.38
-
3,131
0.26
-
209,349
17.27
1,212,226
MN

Mississippi[b][94]
9
19,384
10.09
-
5,043
2.62
-
167,538
87.17
9
225
0.12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-148,154
-77.09
192,190
MS

Missouri
15
917,315
58.11
15
655,039
41.49
-
42
0.00
-
3,998
0.25
-
2,222
0.14
-
12
0.00
-
262,276
16.61
1,578,628
MO

Montana
4
119,071
53.09
4
96,770
43.15
-
-
-
-
7,313
3.26
-
695
0.31
-
429
0.19
-
22,301
9.94
224,278
MT

Nebraska
6
224,165
45.85
-
264,774
54.15
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
0.00
-
-40,609
-8.31
488,940
NE

Nevada
3
31,291
50.37
3
29,357
47.26
-
-
-
-
1,469
2.36
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,934
3.11
62,117
NV

New Hampshire
4
107,995
46.66
-
121,299
52.41
4
7
0.00
-
1,970
0.85
-
86
0.04
-
83
0.04
-
-13,304
-5.75
231,440
NH

New Jersey
16
895,455
45.93
-
981,124
50.33
16
-
-
-
42,683
2.19
-
10,521
0.54
-
19,772
1.01
-
-85,669
-4.39
1,949,555
NJ

New Mexico
4
105,464
56.38
4
80,303
42.93
-
-
-
-
1,037
0.55
-
83
0.04
-
176
0.09
-
25,161
13.45
187,063
NM

New York[a][94]
47
2,780,204
45.01
-
2,841,163
45.99
47
-
-
-
509,559
8.25
-
40,879
0.66
-
5,532
0.09
-
-60,959
-0.99
6,177,337
NY

North Carolina
14
459,070
58.02
14
258,572
32.68
-
69,652
8.80
-
3,915
0.49
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
200,498
25.34
791,209
NC

North Dakota
4
95,812
43.41
-
115,139
52.17
4
374
0.17
-
8,391
3.80
-
1,000
0.45
-
-
-
-
-19,327
-8.76
220,716
ND

Ohio
25
1,452,791
49.48
25
1,445,684
49.24
-
-
-
-
37,596
1.28
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7,107
0.24
2,936,071
OH

Oklahoma
10
452,782
62.75
10
268,817
37.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
183,965
25.49
721,599
OK

Oregon
6
243,147
46.40
-
260,904
49.78
6
-
-
-
14,978
2.86
-
5,051
0.96
-
-
-
-
-17,757
-3.39
524,080
OR

Pennsylvania
35
1,752,426
46.92
-
1,902,197
50.93
35
-
-
-
55,161
1.48
-
11,325
0.30
-
14,039
0.38
-
-149,771
-4.01
3,735,148
PA

Rhode Island
4
188,736
57.59
4
135,787
41.44
-
-
-
-
2,619
0.80
-
429
0.13
-
131
0.04
-
52,949
16.16
327,702
RI

South Carolina
8
34,423
24.14
-
5,386
3.78
-
102,607
71.97
8
154
0.11
-
1
0.00
-
-
-
-
-68,184
-47.82
142,571
SC

South Dakota
4
117,653
47.04
-
129,651
51.84
4
-
-
-
2,801
1.12
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-11,998
-4.80
250,105
SD

Tennessee
12
270,402
49.14
11
202,914
36.87
-
73,815
13.41
1
1,864
0.34
-
1,288
0.23
-
-
-
-
67,488
12.26
550,283
TN

Texas
23
824,235
65.96
23
303,467
24.29
-
113,776
9.11
-
3,920
0.31
-
919
0.07
-
3,260
0.26
-
520,768
41.68
1,249,577
TX

Utah
4
149,151
53.98
4
124,402
45.02
-
-
-
-
2,679
0.97
-
-
-
-
73
0.03
-
24,749
8.96
276,305
UT

Vermont
3
45,557
36.92
-
75,926
61.54
3
-
-
-
1,279
1.04
-
585
0.47
-
35
0.03
-
-30,369
-24.61
123,382
VT

Virginia
11
200,786
47.89
11
172,070
41.04
-
43,393
10.35
-
2,047
0.49
-
726
0.17
-
234
0.06
-
28,716
6.85
419,256
VA

Washington
8
476,165
52.61
8
386,315
42.68
-
-
-
-
31,692
3.50
-
3,534
0.39
-
7,353
0.81
-
89,850
9.93
905,059
WA

West Virginia
8
429,188
57.32
8
316,251
42.24
-
-
-
-
3,311
0.44
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
112,937
15.08
748,750
WV

Wisconsin
12
647,310
50.70
12
590,959
46.28
-
-
-
-
25,282
1.98
-
12,547
0.98
-
702
0.05
-
56,351
4.41
1,276,800
WI

Wyoming
3
52,354
51.62
3
47,947
47.27
-
-
-
-
931
0.92
-
137
0.14
-
56
0.06
-
4,407
4.35
101,425
WY

TOTALS:
531
24,179,347
49.55
303
21,991,292
45.07
189
1,175,930
2.41
39
1,157,328
2.37
-
139,569
0.29
-
150,069
0.31
-
2,188,055
4.48
48,793,535
US

text: Close states[edit]

text: Margin of victory less than 1% (138 electoral votes):

text:
Ohio, 0.24%
California, 0.44%
Indiana, 0.80%
Illinois, 0.84% (tipping point state)
New York, 0.99%

tag: ol

text: Margin of victory less than 5% (131 electoral votes):

text:
Delaware, 1.28%
Maryland, 1.39%
Connecticut, 1.64%
Michigan, 1.67%
Iowa, 2.73%
Idaho, 2.73%
Nevada, 3.11%
Oregon, 3.39%
Pennsylvania, 4.01%
Wyoming, 4.35%
New Jersey, 4.39%
Wisconsin, 4.41%
South Dakota, 4.80%

text: Margin of victory between 5% and 10% (59 electoral votes):

text:
Colorado, 5.35%
New Hampshire, 5.75%
Virginia, 6.85%
Nebraska, 8.31%
North Dakota, 8.76%
Utah, 8.96%
Kansas, 9.02%
Washington, 9.93%
Montana, 9.94%
Arizona, 9.97%

text: Miscellaneous[edit]

text:
The 1948 election marked only the second time in American presidential election history that the winning candidate won despite losing both Pennsylvania and New York (the first time being in 1916; later such elections included 1968, 2000, and 2004.
Truman became the first Democrat ever to be elected president without carrying Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, or South Carolina (the Dixiecrats’ states).
Truman was also the last Democratic presidential candidate to win without carrying Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, or Delaware, and the 1948 election marked the last time that the Northeast acted as the “banner region” of the Republican Party.[95]

In fact, 1948 is the only presidential election since the founding of the Republican Party where a Democrat won without Maryland.

1948 also remains the last time a Democratic candidate won Arizona by a majority of the state’s popular vote, although Bill Clinton carried the state by a plurality in 1996.
This remains the last time the Democratic Party has won Maricopa and Yavapai Counties in Arizona, Davis and Uintah Counties in neighbouring Utah, Benton and Sebastian Counties in Arkansas, Seminole and Highlands Counties in Florida or Hamilton County, Tennessee.[c][96]
This was the last time that the Democrats won Arizona until 1996, the last time the Democrats won California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming until 1964, and the last time the Democrats won Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Texas until 1960.
The four states won by Thurmond also meant that this election was also the last time that the Democrats failed to win South Carolina until 1964, when it voted Republican, the last time they failed to win Alabama and Mississippi until 1960, when they voted for unpledged electors, and the last time they failed to win Louisiana until it voted Republican in 1956.
As of 2017, this remains the last election in which Illinois and New Jersey have not voted for the same candidate – and the only one since 1888.


document_title: Pharmacies in the United States

question_text: what is the largest drugstore chain in the us

root

text: Pharmacies in the United States

text: There are approximately 67,000 pharmacies in the United States. Almost half (33,000) are located within drug stores, grocery stores, hospitals, department stores, medical clinics, surgery clinics, universities, nursing homes, prisons, and other facilities. The remaining pharmacies are considered to be independent or privately owned. The top 25 pharmacy chain stores represent about 28,000 pharmacy locations in the U.S. and employ about 46,000 on-staff pharmacists.  California has 5,560 pharmacies, the most of any state.  Texas, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania round out the top five states for pharmacy locations.[1] Nationwide, the number of community pharmacies increased by 6.3% between 2007-2015, and the number of pharmacies per 10,000 people (2.11) did not change. However, the number of pharmacies per-capita varies substantially across counties, ranging from 0 to 13.6 per- 10,000 people in 2015.[2]

tag: p

text: Pharmacy chain[edit]

text: The table below shows the top 25 pharmacy chains in the United States per state ranked by the number of pharmacist in each location, according to the National  Pharmacy Market Summary done by SK&A 2010 [3]

text: Top 25 pharmacy chains ranked by the number of pharmacists

text:
Rank

Pharmacy Chains

City

State

Pharmacists

Store(s)

1

CVS Corporation

Woonsocket

RI

24,000

9,700

2

Walgreens

Deerfield

IL

10,578

8,232

3

Walmart Stores Inc

Bentonville

AR

6,358

3,646

4

Rite Aid Corporation

Camp Hill

PA

5,523

4,608

5

Kroger Company

Cincinnati

OH

1,866

1,156

6

Target Corporation now CVS Pharmacy

Minneapolis

MN

1,436

1,672

7

Kaiser Permanente (HMO)

Oakland

CA

1,298

290

8

Sears Holdings Corporation

Hoffman Estates

IL

1,169

1,002

9

Medicine Shoppe International

Earth City

MO

943

564

10

Dominick's Finer Foods

Pleasanton

CA

888

719

11

Publix Pharmacies

Lakeland

FL

835

710

12

Costco Pharmacies

Issaquah

WA

589

323

13

Hy-Vee Inc

West Des Moines

IA

563

202

14

Winn-Dixie Pharmacies

Jacksonville

FL

461

390

15

Giant Eagle Pharmacy

Pittsburgh

PA

403

187

16

Meijer Pharmacies

Grand Rapids

MI

344

167

17

Cardinal Health Inc

Houston

TX

320

131

18

H E Butt Drug Stores

San Antonio

TX

315

191

19

Fred's Inc.

Memphis

TN

315

259

20

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co

Quincy

MA

303

235

21

Giant Food Stores Llc

Carlisle

PA

297

204

22

Shopko Stores Inc

Green Bay

WI

288

131

23

Fred Meyer Pharmacy Division

Portland

OR

276

127

24

Smith's Food & Drug Centers Inc

Salt Lake City

UT

268

132

25

Shoprite Supermarkets Inc

Keasbey

NJ

236

153

tag: table


document_title: Andrey Kivilev

question_text: when did tour de france riders start wearing helmets

text: Andrey Kivilev

text: Career[edit]

text: Born in Taldykorgan, Almaty Province, Kivilev began his amateur racing career in Spain, before moving to France, where he wore the EC Saint-Etienne jersey.[1] In 1993, he had a successful Regio-Tour as part of a successful tour for the Kazakh team: Kivilev won the points competition; team mate Alexander Vinokourov won the combined competition; and the team won the team competition.[2] He secured a professional contract with Festina in 1998 and rode with them until the end of 1999. Kivilev had a modest time at Festina, where his best results were fifth at the Championship of Zurich[3] and seventh at the Critérium International.[4] Despite his lack of professional victories, Kivilev attracted admirers for his riding style, and despite interest from US Postal Service,[5] signed with Ag2r Prévoyance in 2000, before moving to Cofidis in 2001. It was at Cofidis that his career started to take off: in his first season, not only did he win the Route du Sud and stage five of the Dauphiné Libéré race, between Romans-sur-Isère and Grenoble,[6] but also had a sensational performance in the Tour de France. Having lost over eighteen minutes on a windswept and attritional stage 4 between Huy and Verdun,[7] Kivilev was allowed to form part of a fourteen-man breakaway on stage 8 between Colmar and Pontarlier and gained 33 minutes on the race favourites.[8] Kivilev was an able climber, and limited his losses on the big hills. His time trialling let him down when he lost a podium place to Joseba Beloki on the final time trial. Nevertheless, Kivilev finished the tour in 4th position.[9] In fact, with later doping scandals eliminating those ahead of him on the podium, the French newspaper Le Monde retroactively (and unofficially) named Kivilev winner of the 2001 Tour de France.[10]

text: Death[edit]

text: On 11 March 2003 Kivilev was racing in the second stage of Paris–Nice, between La Clayette and Saint-Étienne. Approximately forty kilometres from the stage finish, as the peloton passed through Saint-Chamond, Kivilev collided with Polish teammate Marek Rutkiewicz and German Volker Ordowski of Team Gerolsteiner. Rutkiewicz and Ordowski were not seriously hurt and finished the stage, but the helmetless Kivilev hit the ground and did not rise. Kivilev immediately fell into a coma, initially being taken to the Saint-Chamond hospital before being transferred via air to the intensive care unit at Saint-Étienne hospital, where he was diagnosed with a serious skull fracture and two broken ribs. His condition worsened overnight, and Kivilev died of his injuries at 10 a.m. on 12 March 2003. He was survived by his wife Natalia and six-month-old son Leonardo. A few days later, his friend Alexander Vinokourov won the race.

text: Legacy[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: After Kivilev's death, the UCI made the wearing of helmets compulsory.[11] They had previously tried to introduce this requirement in 1991, but some riders protested this at the Paris–Nice race, so the rule was not introduced. The nature of Kivilev's death, in that he was a lead rider, in one of the top French cycling teams, racing in a top stage race, coupled with advances in helmet technology, brought the debate back to the fore and conclusively so for the UCI. Whilst many riders were initially still against compulsory helmet use, the UCI ensured the rules requiring helmets to be worn at all times would be in place for the 2003 Giro d'Italia, which started just eight weeks after Kivilev's death. Dissension to the rule was initially high, but the new rules were affirmed in October 2003. Whilst at first the rule was loose and not tightly enforced, especially on mountain-top finishes, it has since been enforced more strictly and helmet-wearing is now ubiquitous in the peloton.

text: Major results[edit]


document_title: Instant replay

question_text: when did the nba start using instant replay

question_tokens: when did the nba start using instant replay

text: Instant replay

text: History[edit]

text: During a 1955 Hockey Night in Canada broadcast on CBC Television, producer George Retzlaff used a "wet-film" (kinescope) replay, which aired several minutes later. Videotape was introduced in 1956 with the Ampex Quadruplex system. However, it was incapable of displaying slow motion, instant replay, or freeze-frames, and it was difficult to rewind and set index points.

text: The end of the March 24, 1962 boxing match between Benny Paret and Emile Griffith was reviewed a few minutes after the bout ended, in slow motion, by Griffith and commentator Don Dunphy. In hindsight it has been cited as the first known use of slow motion replay in television history.[1]

text: CBS Sports Director Tony Verna invented a system to enable a standard videotape machine to instantly replay on December 7, 1963, for the network's coverage of the US military's Army–Navy Game. The instant replay machine weighed 1,300 pounds (590 kg).[2] After technical hitches, the only replay broadcast was Rollie Stichweh's touchdown. It was replayed at the original speed, with commentator Lindsey Nelson advising viewers "Ladies and gentlemen, Army did not score again!"[2] The problem with older technology was the difficulty of finding the desired starting point; Verna's system used audio tones activated as an interesting event unfolded, which technicians could hear during the rewinding process.

text: Replay from analog disk storage was tried out by CBS in 1965, and commercialized in 1967 by the Ampex HS-100, which had a 30-second capacity and freeze frame capability.[3]

text: Instant replay has been credited as a primary factor in the rise of televised American football, although it was popular on television even before then. While one camera was set up to show the overall “live” action, other cameras, which were linked to a separate videotape machine, framed close-ups of key players. Within a few seconds of a crucial play, the videotape machine would replay the action from various, close-up angles, in slow motion.[4]

text: Prior to instant replay, it was almost impossible to portray the essence of an American football game on television. Viewers struggled to assimilate the action from a wide shot of the field, on a small black-and-white television screen. However, with replay technology, “brutal collisions became ballets, and end runs and forward passes became miracles of human coordination.” Thanks in large part to instant replay, televised football became evening entertainment, perfected by ABC-TV’s Monday Night Football, and enjoyed by a wide audience[4]

text: Marshall McLuhan, the noted communication theorist, famously said that any new medium contains all prior media within it. McLuhan gave Tony Verna's invention of instant replay as a good example. "Until the advent of the instant replay, televised football had served simply as a substitute for physically attending the game; the advent of instant replay – which is possible only with the television – marks a post-convergent moment in the medium of television."

text: In television[edit]

text: In television broadcasting of sports events, instant replay is often used during live broadcast, to show a passage of play which was important or remarkable, or which was unclear on first sight.

text: Replays are typically shown during a break or lull in the action; in modern telecasts, it will be the next break, though older systems were sometimes less instant. The replay may be in slow motion, or from multiple camera angles.

text: Video servers, with their advanced technology, have allowed for more complex replays, such as freeze frame, frame-by-frame review, replay at variable speeds, overlaying of virtual graphics, instant analysis tools such as ball speed or immediate distance calculation. Sports commentators analyze the replay footage when it is being played, rather than describing the concurrent live action.

text: Instant replays are used today in broadcasting extreme sports, where the speed of the action is too high to be easily interpreted by the naked eye, using combinations of advanced technologies such as video servers and high-speed cameras recording at up to several thousand frames per second.

text: EVS Broadcast Equipment is the industry leader in Replay Production Servers [5] and is the preferred system of major broadcasters for large events such as the Olympics, Super Bowl, MLB Playoffs, and NBA Playoffs.

text: Evertz Microsystem's DreamCatcher [6] replay system is also widely used for lower level productions by College and Pro Sports clubs including the NBA, MLB.

text: Use by officials[edit]

text: It has been suggested that this section be split out into another article titled Video referee. (Discuss) (October 2016)

text: Some sports organizations allow referees or other officials to consult replay footage before making or revising a decision about an unclear or dubious play. This is variously called video referee, video umpire, instant replay official, television match official or third umpire. Other organizations allow video evidence only after the end of the contest, for example to penalize a player for misconduct not noticed by the officials during play.

text: The role of the video referee differs varies; often they can only be called upon to adjudicate on specific events. When instant replay does not provide conclusive proof, rules may say whether the original call stands, or whether a specific call must be done (most usually no score).

text: Leagues using instant replay in official decision making include the National Hockey League, National Football League, Canadian Football League, National Basketball Association, and Major League Baseball. It is used international in field hockey and rugby union as well.

text: Due to the cost of television cameras and other equipment needed for a video referee to function, most sports only employ them at a professional or top-class level.

text: Gridiron football codes[edit]

text: In American and Canadian football, instant replay can take place in the event of a close or otherwise controversial call, either at the request of a team's head coach (with limitations) or the officials themselves. There are restrictions on what types of plays can be reviewed. In general, most penalty calls or lack thereof cannot be reviewed, nor can a play that is whistled dead by the officials before the play could come to its rightful end.

text: American and Canadian football leagues vary in their application and use of instant replay review. In the National Football League, each coach is allowed two opportunities per game to make a coach's challenge, and get a third challenge if both of the original two challenges were successful. A challenge can only be made on certain reviewable calls on plays that begin before the two-minute warning and only when a team has at least one time-out remaining in the half. The Canadian Football League uses similar rules as the NFL, except the game has a three-minute warning near the end of each half instead of two. In NCAA football, each team only has one challenge per game, and gets a second challenge if the first one is successful.

text: Basketball[edit]

text: This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. (October 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In NBA basketball, the officials must watch an instant replay of a potential buzzer beater to determine if the shot was released before time expired. Since 2002, the NBA has mandated installation of LED light strips on both the backboard and the scorer's table that illuminate when time expires, to assist with any potential review.

text: Instant replay first came to NBA in the 2002–03 season. In Game 4 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals, Los Angeles Lakers forward Samaki Walker made a three-point field goal from the half court at the end of the second quarter. However, the replay showed that Walker's shot was late and that the ball was still in his hand when the clock expired. The use of instant replay was instituted afterward.[7]

text: Beginning with the 2007–08 season, replay also can be used in determining players being ejected from contests involving brawls or flagrant fouls. In the 2008–09 season, replay may also be used to correctly determine whether a scored field goal is worth two or three points. It may also be used to determine the correct number of free throws awarded for a missed field goal. It may also be used in cases where the game clock malfunctions and play continues to decide how much time to take off the clock.[8]

text: In college basketball, the same procedure may also be used to determine if a shot was released before time expired in either half or an overtime period. In addition, NCAA rules allow the officials to use instant replay to determine if a field goal is worth two or three points, who is to take a free throw, whether a fight occurred and who participated in a fight. The officials may also check if the shot was made before the expiration of the shot clock, but only when such a situation occurs at the end of a half or an overtime period. Such rules have required the NCAA to write new rules stating that, when looking at instant replay video, the zeros on the clock, not the horn or red light, determine the end of the game.

text: In Italy, host broadcaster Sky agreed with Serie A to the adoption of instant replay for special tournaments and playoff games, and in 2005, for the entire season. Instant replay would be used automatically on situations similar to the NCAA, but coaches may, like the NFL, have one coach's challenge to challenge a two or three point shot. Officials may determine who last touched the ball in an out-of-bounds situation or back-court violations.

text: The adoption of instant replay was crucial in the 2005 Serie A championship between Armani Jeans Milano and Climamio Bologna. Bologna led the best-of-five series, 2-1, with Game 4 in Milan, and the home team leading 65-64, as Climamio's Ruben Douglas connected on a three-point basket at the end of the game to apparently win the Serie A championship.

text: Officials, knowing the 12,000 fans on both sides would learn the fate of the series on their call, watched replays of the shot before determining it was valid.

text: The Euroleague Basketball (company) adopted instant replay for the 2006 Euroleague Final Four and made a rule change determining the lights on the backboard, not the horn, will end a period, thus assisting with instant replay.[9]

text: On April 6, 2006, FIBA announced instant replay for last-second shots would be legal for their competitions.

text: "The referee may use technical equipment to determine on a last shot made at the end of each period or extra period, whether the ball has or has not left the player's hand(s) within the playing time."[10]

text: Before the beginning of the 2013-2014 NBA season, new instant replay rules were put into effect, saying that it can be used for: block/charge plays; to determine if an off-ball foul occurred before or after a shooting motion began in a successful shot attempt, or if the ball is released on a throw in. They also began to use instant reply to determine correct penalties for flagrant fouls.[11]

text: Ice hockey[edit]

text: The video goal judge reviews replays of disputed goals. As the referee does not have access to television monitors, the video goal judge's decision in disputed goals is taken as final. In the NHL, goals may only be reviewed in the following situations: puck crossing the goal line completely and before time expired, puck in the net prior to goal frame being dislodged, puck being directed into the net by hand or foot, puck deflected into the net off an official, and puck deflected into the goal by a high stick (stick above the goal) by an attacking player. All NHL goals are subject to review, and although most arenas have a video goal judge, often officials in the Situation Room (also known as the "War Room") at the NHL office in Toronto make the final decision.

text: Review challenges[edit]

text: Beginning in the 2015-16 NHL season, instant replay reviews have been expanded to include a coach's challenge. Each coach receives one challenge per game, which requires the use of a timeout. Coaches may only challenge over situations whether the goal should have been disallowed because of goaltender interference or an offside, or whether a goal disallowed because of goaltender interference should be allowed instead. The challenging team retains its timeout and its challenge after every goaltender interference call that has been overturned. There are two situations that happen when a challenge is upheld:

text:
If an offside review is upheld, the challenging team receives a minor penalty for delay of game.
If a goaltender interference review is upheld, the challenging team loses its timeout.

tag: ul

text: Challenges are not allowed during the final minute of regulation, as well as at any point during overtime. In this situation, officials in the Situation Room reviews all instances where the puck entered the net, and then determines the final ruling. However, for reviews that take place during coach's challenges, the on-ice officials determine the final ruling.

text: Field hockey[edit]

text: In field hockey, the International Hockey Federation allows the match umpire to request the opinion of a video umpire as to whether or not a goal has been validly scored, and whether there was a violation in the build-up to a goal.[12] The video umpire can advise on whether the ball crossed the line there was a violation.[12] Ordinarily, teams are not allowed to make such a request or to press the match umpire to do so.[12] On a trial basis, the 2009 Men’s Champions Trophy allows for "team referral" by each team captain, to query a goal, penalty stroke, or penalty corner decision. The team retains the right to a referral if its previous referrals were upheld.[13]

text: Baseball[edit]

text: In Major League Baseball, instant replay has been introduced to address "boundary calls," which include questions on whether or not a hit should be considered a home run (HR). Among reviewable plays are: Fair Ball-HR; Foul Ball, Ball Clearing Wall-HR; Ball Staying in Play-Live Ball; Ball Leaving Field of Play-HR; and, Ball or Player interfered with by spectators (called Spectator Interference). The latest MLB collective bargaining agreement, pending agreement by the umpires' union, expands instant replay to include: Fair Ball; Foul Ball along foul lines, or Ball Caught for Out; Ball Trapped Against Ground or Wall; as well as expanding Interference calls to all walls regardless of whether it is a "boundary call" or not.

text: In Little League Baseball, Instant Replay was adopted for the Little League World Series only, and includes all "boundary call" plays reviewable at the Major League Level, in addition to adding review to plays involving force outs, tag plays on the basepaths, hit batters, and for defensive appeals regarding whether a runner missed touching a base.[14]

text: Tennis[edit]

text: In tennis, systems such as Hawk-Eye and MacCAM calculate the trajectory of the ball by processing the input of several video cameras. They can play a computer rendering of the path and determine whether the ball landed in or out. Players can appeal to have the system's calculation used to override a disputed call by the umpire. In March 2008, the International Tennis Federation, Association of Tennis Professionals, Women's Tennis Association and Grand Slam Committee agreed unified challenge rules: a player can make up to three unsuccessful challenges per set, and a fourth in a tie-break.[15] Television broadcasts may use the footage to replay points even when not challenged by a player.

text: Fencing[edit]

text: Video-refereeing is compulsory at World Championships, Grand Prix competitions and at the Olympic Games, and is used when the referee cannot decide if a touch is to be awarded, at request of a player (although only two incorrect video appeals are allowed per player in individual competitions) or if the score is tied in the last point and both lights turn on. There is an assistant official, called "video-referee", who is watching the live match and helps the referee on the decision through a slow motion replay on a monitor close to the piste. It is specially used to decide the right of way in foil and sabre. To appeal, a player must make a gesture in the form of a rectangle (monitor) to the referee. In individual matches, if the player has appealed twice incorrectly, he/she can no longer appeal again.

text: Rugby league[edit]

text: Since being introduced by Europe's Super League in 1996,[16] video referees have been adopted in Australia's National Rugby League and international competition as well. In rugby league the video referee can be called upon by the match official to determine the outcome of a possible try. The "video ref" can make judgements on knock-ons, offside, obstructions, hold-ups and whether or not a player has gone dead, but cannot rule on a forward pass. If a forward pass has gone un-noticed by the on-field officials it must be disregarded by the video ref, as such judgements cannot reliably be made due to camera angle effects.

text: Rugby union[edit]

text: Use of video referee by referees was introduced to rugby union in 2001.[17] The laws of the game allow for "an official who uses technological devices" to be consulted by the referee in decisions relating to scoring a try or a kick at goal.[18] The decision to call on the video referee (now called "Television Match Official (TMO)") is made by the referee, then the call is made by the replay referee, who takes his place near the press box, the Television Outside Broadcast van, or in more recent years, a centralised office by the organising league. He either tells the pitch referee by radio link-up or by the use of a big screen during televised matches. Unlike in the NFL, a coach cannot challenge a call made by the pitch referee.

text: Cricket[edit]

text: Cricket also uses an instant replay. It is used in the areas of run outs, stumpings, doubtful catches and whether the ball has crossed the boundary for a six or short of a four.

text: The International Cricket Council[19] decided to trial a referral system during the Indian tour of Sri Lanka through late July and August 2008. This new referral system allows players to seek reviews, by the third umpire, of decisions by the on-field umpires on whether or not a batsman has been dismissed. Each team can make three[citation needed] unsuccessful requests per innings, which must be made within a few seconds of the ball becoming dead; once made, the requests cannot be withdrawn. Only the batsman involved in a dismissal can ask for a review of an "out" decision; in a "not out", only the captain or acting captain of the fielding team. In both cases players can consult on-field teammates but signals from off the field are not permitted.

text: A review request can be made by the player with a 'T' sign; the umpire will consult the TV umpire, who will review TV coverage of the incident before relaying back fact-based information. The field umpire can then either reverse his decision or stand by it; he indicates "out" with a raised finger and "not out" by crossing his hands in a horizontal position side to side in front and above his waist three times.

text: The TV umpire can use regular slow-motion, or high-speed camera angles usually called ultra-motion or super-slow replays, the mat, sound from the stump mics and approved ball tracking technology, which refers to Hawk-Eye technology that would only show the TV umpire where the ball pitched and where it hit the batsman's leg and it is not to be used for predicting the height or the direction of the ball. Snicko and Hot Spot can also be used.

text: Ultra Motion or Slo-mo is the predecessor of Hi Motion, its superior and easier-to-use successor which was started in 2006, Ultra Motion shot at 1000 frames a second to produce some remarkable images. For the first time viewers could see the amazing way that bats bent and twisted as they made contact with the ball, and even the way the bones in the hand reverberate when a catch is made. Perhaps it is at its most useful when used to show just where on the batsman's bat or body a ball glanced, rarely does a replay fail to clear that issue up. Often used by TV productions during closing sequences or musical interludes. The latest addition that is not yet widespread used is the super slow motion cameras, showing the frames that are missed out by the regular cameras.

text: Rodeo[edit]

text: The Professional Bull Riders organization, beginning with the 2006–07 season, has instituted an instant replay system in cooperation with the Versus network.

text: A bull rider, a fellow competitor, or a judge may request a replay review by filing a protest to the replay official within 30 seconds of any decision.

text: Any competitor (it does not have to be the rider who is riding the bull in question, as fellow riders can observe the action and spot fouls by bull or rider) may file the complaint to the replay official by sounding a signal at the arena and pay a fee of $500 to PBR before explaining to the replay official why he is filing the request.

text: The replay official (usually a former bull rider) may request different angles and/or slow motion, as well as freeze particular frames. The replay judge will use all available technology to assess the call in question and supply his ruling. This includes using his own hand-held stopwatch to time bull rides, as the official eight-second clock used in PBR competition starts when the bull usually exits the bucking chute.

text: The replay will be used to evaluate timing issues, fouls against the rider for touching the bull or ground with his free hand or using the fence to stay on the bull, or fouls by the bull, such as dragging the rider across the fence.

text: If an appeal is successful, the $500 is returned to the competitor filing the request. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the $500 is forfeited and sent to PBR charities such as the Resistol Relief Fund to assist injured bull riders.

text: Motor sports[edit]

text: In international motorsport championships, race stewards often use instant replay to decide whether to penalize competitors for avoidable contact or pitlane infractions.

text: NASCAR utilizes instant replay to supplement their electronic scoring system. Video replays are used to review rules infractions and scoring disputes.

text:
Video replay supplements electronic scoring at the finish line (particularly the race winner) in "photo finish" situations.
Video replay supplements electronic scoring to determine the final positions when a race ends with a caution flag on the last lap or under a green-white-checker finish.
Video replay is used to determine if a car has crossed the pit entrance before the pit was closed for a yellow flag. It also determines if drivers are following pit road speed limits.
Video replay supplements electronic scoring to determine the positions in which cars exit the pits (during cautions).

text: IndyCar also utilizes instant replay for similar reasons.

text:
The most notable use of replay in recent years occurred during the 2008 Peak 300 at Chicagoland Speedway. On the final lap, Scott Dixon and Hélio Castroneves crossed the finish line side by side, with computer scoring showing Dixon the winner by a margin of 0.0010 seconds. However, video replay evidence clearly showed that the nose of Castroneves' car touched the line first. Castroneves was declared the winner officially by 0.0033 seconds or 12⅛ inches, in the second closest finish in the twelve-year history of the series.[20] It was later determined that the deliberate improper installation of Dixon's scoring transponder was the source of the scoring error.
Video replay was also used extensively in the aftermath of the controversial 2002 Indianapolis 500. However, fully conclusive evidence was lacking.

text: Broadcast stations utilize replays to show viewers a crash in greater detail.[21]

text: Association football[edit]

text: In association football, FIFA does not permit video evidence during matches, although it is permitted for subsequent disciplinary sanctions.[22] The 1970 meeting of the International Football Association Board "agreed to request the television authorities to refrain from any slow-motion play-back which reflected, or might reflect, adversely on any decision of the referee".[23] In 2005, Urs Linsi, general secretary of FIFA, said:[24]

text: There have been allegations that referees had made or changed decisions on the advice of a fourth official who had seen the in-stadium replay of an incident. This was denied by FIFA in relation to the Zidane headbutt of Materazzi in the 2006 World Cup final,[25] and in relation to the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup match between Brazil and Egypt, in which Howard Webb signalled initially for a corner kick but then a penalty kick.[26][27]

text: It has been said that instant replay is needed given the difficulty of tracking the activities of 22 players on such a large field,[28] FIFA officials approached researchers at the University of Glasgow in Scotland for help, but came up with nothing that could satisfy the league's stringent requirements.[29] Opponents of instant replay like FIFA President Sepp Blatter argue that refereeing mistakes add to the "fascination and popularity of football."[30] It has been proposed that instant replay be limited to use in penalty incidents, fouls which lead to bookings or red cards and whether the ball has crossed the goal line, since those events are more likely than others to be game-changing.[31]

text: In 2007, FIFA authorized tests of two systems, one involving an implanted chip in the ball and the other using a modified version of Tennis's Hawk-Eye system, to assist referees in deciding whether a ball had crossed over the goal line.[32] The following year, however, the IFAB and FIFA halted testing of all goal-line technology, fearing that its success would lead to its possibly expansion to other parts of the game. Sepp Blatter claimed the technologies were flawed and too expensive to be implemented on a widespread basis, adding, "Let it be as it is and let's leave (soccer) with errors. The television companies will have the right to say (the referee) was right or wrong, but still the referee makes the decision — a man, not a machine." This sudden change of course surprised and angered Paul Hawkins, as the inventor of the Hawk-Eye system had invested a great deal of money into adapting the Hawk-Eye technology to football.[30] In 2009, Hawkins sent an open letter to Blatter refuting the FIFA president's assertion that the Hawk-Eye goal line technology was flawed and arguing that Hawk-Eye met all of the criteria established by the IFAB for a suitable goal line technology system.[33]

text: The controversy over goal line technology was re-ignited in 2009 after Brazil had a potential equalizing goal disallowed during the 2009 Confederations Cup Final; and during the 2010 FIFA World Cup after England's Frank Lampard's shot off the underside of the crossbar during a 4-1 defeat against Germany was not ruled a goal, despite replays clearly showing it was 60 centimetres over the line.[34][35]

text: In July 2012, International Football Association Board voted unanimously to officially amend the Laws of the Game to permit (but not require) goal-line technology.[36] The technology was used at the 2014 FIFA World Cup.[37]

text: In April 2016, it was announced that Serie A was selected by the International Football Association Board to test video replays, which were initially private for the 2016–17 season, allowing them to become a live pilot phase, with replay assistance implemented in the 2017–18 season.[38] On the decision, FIGC President Carlo Tavecchio said, "We were among the first supporters of using technology on the pitch and we believe we have everything required to offer our contribution to this important experiment."[39]

text: In September 2016, the video review system known as Video Assistant Referees (VARs), were first used in an international friendly between Italy and France for testing, with plans to implement the system at the 2018 FIFA World Cup.[40]

text: Major League Soccer in the United States introduced VARs in competitive matches during its 2017 season after the 2017 MLS All-Star Game on 2 August 2017.[41][42]


document_title: Running in the Family (memoir)

question_text: michael ondaatje writing style in running in the family

text: Running in the Family (memoir)

text: This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Running in the Family is a fictionalized memoir, written in post-modern style involving aspects of magic realism, by Michael Ondaatje. It deals with his return to his native island of Sri Lanka, also called Ceylon, in the late 1970s.

text: It also deals with his family. Much of the focus falls on his father Mervyn Ondaatje and his scandalous drunken antics. Michael's grandmother Lalla is another family member that is explored in detail. Many themes are explored in the lives of his family, particularly luxurious frivolity (especially in the 1920s) and dipsomania. The book often seems to blur the lines of fiction and history by offering diverse accounts of certain incidents and retellings of isolated events about which the author couldn't logically know so many intimate details. It is ultimately about a man's quest to reconcile himself with the father he scarcely knew and come to terms with the loss of not knowing that man.

text: Some important themes include: memory (its reliability, importance, and what makes it valuable), assumptions about others, the importance of family, and societal expectations. This book also contains many motifs including maps, nature and money.

text: Ondaatje writes, "A literary work is a communal act. [...] I must confess that the book is not a history but a portrait or 'gesture'. [...] In Sri Lanka a well-told lie is worth a thousand facts."

text: Significant people mentioned[edit]

text:
Michael Ondaatje – the author of the memoir and thus the narrator. He was born in Sri Lanka and, at the time of the recounting, lives in Canada.
Mervyn Ondaatje – Michael's father; a dipsomaniac. He was also in the Ceylon Light Infantry.
Lalla – Lalla is Michael’s maternal grandmother. She did not really blossom as a woman until her husband died. She doesn’t really care what people think about her. She is ahead of her time and always trying the newest things. She is comfortable lying to people (pg 109) and she is unashamed even though she is poor. She loves the people who love her, she even hid a murderer and helped him escape because she believed he was a good man. She doesn’t seem to have a very firm grasp on the concept of reality and what is appropriate. She loves playing practical jokes and messing around with people. As a young woman, she was very promiscuous (page 111). “She could read thunder” (page 113). Serial flower stealer. Had a masectomy and gets into hijinks involving a fake breast she wears.
Willie – Lalla's husband. Bought the "Palm Lodge" in the heart of Colombo and began a dairy. He died shortly thereafter, when Lalla was not yet thirty.
Doris Gratiaen – Doris is Michael's mother. She and Mervyn met because her brother was good friends with Mervyn. They were married for fourteen years. She later divorced Mervyn, and he remarried.
Philip - Philip is Michael's grandfather. He owns the rock hill estate.
Gillian - Michael's sister. She sometimes travels with him during his trips to Sri Lanka/Ceylon.

text: Other characters include:

text:
Rene de Saram - Lalla's friend and next door neighbor. Both women "blossom" after their husbands' deaths. This impacts their lives greatly.
Noel Gratiaen - Doris' brother, Lalla's son.
Phyllis - one of Michael Ondaatje's aunts.
Dolly - another aunt who smokes, and is half deaf, half blind.
Aelian - Philip's brother.
Dickie - Lalla's sister whose husband drowned.
Maureen - Mervyn's second wife, mother of Jennifer and Susan. Mervyn was very different around his second family.