Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10975360-20140421002559/@comment-10975360-20140428115008

im sorry, but i dont know where you got that from. They supported truman because the only realistic alternative by that point was james byrnes, a southerner and a segregationist, whereas truman was a moderate. Wallace came so close to keeping the nomination, he actually came first on the first ballot, and gave a great speech at the convention. The Progressive party would be more consistantly left of centre than the Democrats, so Wallace's views would be considered more mainstream,

True, the progressives would not be treated with the immediate anitpathy that the south felt for the republican party. But it would be very hard for the progressives to make serious inroads in the south, maybe a landslide like 1932 or 1936 might see the south go progressive, but otherwise the deep south would be solidly democratic.

He would, but as i said before, the progressives would be unelectable in 1952 after a spy scandal forced Wallace to resign (more details to be added). He would be a democrat, but in name only.

The south is broadly speaking conservative, the progressives push a civil rights platform under Henry Wallace, and that would alienate them in teh south. But like i just said, roosevelt could carry some southern states.

Reagan became governor in 1967, he would have won a solidly progressive state, he was a very good campaigner. He would have won the nomination, and the election.