TL-191 United States Presidential Elections Results Thread

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by Komodo20

You are really addicting me to your project, Turquoise. I've spent the past 30-50 minutes looking up running mates for you. For John St. John, how about William McKinley, Morgan Bulkeley or Henry Cabot Lodge (Sr)? McKinley is fun because he was actually President in OTL and Turtledove loves stuff like that (for example, Hoover as Coolidge's running mate), and Bulkeley adds geographic diversity.

For George McGovern, how about Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (Nixon's 1960 running mate), Stephen M. Young, Bob Dole, or something a bit more fun, Margaret Chase Smith (first female VP!)?

Hmm... I'll have McKinley and Smith. Thanks.

[Nerdlinger]

I'm not sure if the most conservative of the 3 major parties would have a black man as running mate in the 1968 presidential election. No offense to anyone, but that seems far too progressive for the Dems.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

I'm not sure if any of the 3 major parties, let alone the most conservative of them, would have a black man as running mate the 1968 presidential election. No offense to anyone, but that seems far too progressive for that era.

Yeah. Good point, and there was the Population Reduction. Considering Brooke was born in Washington D.C., I don't think the outcome for him looks good.

[Turquoise Blue]

1892

Alfred Thayer Mahan/Thomas Brackett Reed (Democratic)
?????????/?????? (Socialist)
John St. John/William McKinley (Republican)


1968

Marion Morrison/Terry DeFrancis (Democratic)
John V. Lindsay/Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (Socialist)
George McGovern/Margaret Chase Smith (Republican)

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Yeah. Good point, and there was the Population Reduction. Considering Brooke was born in Washington D.C., I don't think the outcome for him looks good.

He was born in DC in 1919, so he wouldn't have been a victim of population reduction.

Also, Margaret Smith was from Maine, but I thought the Republicans were still primarily located in the Midwest.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

He was born in DC in 1919, so he wouldn't have been a victim of population reduction.

Also, Margaret Smith was from Maine, but I thought the Republicans were still primarily located in the Midwest.

They probably chose Smith in an attempt to break out of regional status.

And, he would have been 30 by the time of the Second Great War, and he would have just finished university by the time of 1941. Probably flee to Massachusetts.

[Nerdlinger]

Where is Terry DeFrancis from? If he's analogous to Curtis LeMay, as Wikipedia suggests, that would mean he's from California, right? The trouble there is that John Wayne is also from California.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

They probably chose Smith in an attempt to break out of regional status.

And, he would have been 30 by the time of the Second Great War, and he would have just finished university by the time of 1941. Probably flee to Massachusetts.

The Rebs didn't reach DC in the SGW, anyhow.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

Where is Terry DeFrancis from? If he's analogous to Curtis LeMay, as Wikipedia suggests, that would mean he's from California, right? The trouble there is that John Wayne is also from California.

Hmm... He can be from Missouri.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

The Rebs didn't reach DC in the SGW, anyhow.

Oh yes. I should really read the books sometime. He'll probably flee to Massachusetts anyway.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Oh yes. I should really read the books sometime. He'll probably flee to Massachusetts anyway.

Yes, you should, TL-191 election project-runner....

[bguy]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

Also, Margaret Smith was from Maine, but I thought the Republicans were still primarily located in the Midwest.

I considered recommending Smith for Morrison's veep, but it turns out she is 71 in 1968. Pretty long in the tooth for a Vice Presidential run.

I'm not sure if the most conservative of the 3 major parties would have a black man as running mate in the 1968 presidential election. No offense to anyone, but that seems far too progressive for the Dems.

In Craigo's Filling the Gaps thread he had President Dewey push through a Civil Rights bill in his first term. I think that is a reasonable prediction on what would have happened. Racial discrimination will have been completely discredited in the US by the Destruction and without a host of southern Senators holding all the key committee positions, it should be fairly easy for Dewey to get a strong civil rights bill through Congress. A civil rights bill that passes in 1945 means the TL-191 US should be much more racially tolerent by 1968 than OTL US since they are almost 20 years ahead of us on granting civil and voting rights. Also if Dewey did pass a Civil Rights bill then the Democrats should be competitive for black votes, especially since their subsequent presidential candidates were Morell (who smashed the hated CSA and enforced racial equality after the war), Rockefeller (a strong supporter of civil rights) and Nixon (who also supports civil rights.) Thus I think Brooke is a reasonable pick for Morrison. He should nail down the black vote for the Democrats, he cuts into Lindsay's appeal on urban issues, and he provides geographical and idealogical balance to Morrison.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by bguy

I considered recommending Smith for Morrison's veep, but it turns out she is 71 in 1968. Pretty long in the tooth for a Vice Presidential run.



In Craigo's Filling the Gaps thread he had President Dewey push through a Civil Rights bill in his first term. I think that is a reasonable prediction on what would have happened. Racial discrimination will have been completely discredited in the US by the Destruction and without a host of southern Senators holding all the key committee positions, it should be fairly easy for Dewey to get a strong civil rights bill through Congress. A civil rights bill that passes in 1945 means the TL-191 US should be much more racially tolerent by 1968 than OTL US since they are almost 20 years ahead of us on granting civil and voting rights. Also if Dewey did pass a Civil Rights bill then the Democrats should be competitive for black votes, especially since their subsequent presidential candidates were Morell (who smashed the hated CSA and enforced racial equality after the war), Rockefeller (a strong supporter of civil rights) and Nixon (who also supports civil rights.) Thus I think Brooke is a reasonable pick for Morrison. He should nail down the black vote for the Democrats, he cuts into Lindsay's appeal on urban issues, and he provides geographical and idealogical balance to Morrison.

Good point about Smith. As for Brooke, the Dems wouldn't want to alienate their conservative base by placing a black man next in line to the presidency. Not in 1968, anyway. Americans may be more racially tolerant overall than in OTL, but I don't think they'll have progressed that far by then. And there's not much of a black vote to appeal to, for any party really.

[bguy]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

Good point about Smith. As for Brooke, the Dems wouldn't want to alienate their conservative base by placing a black man next in line to the presidency. Not in 1968, anyway. Americans may be more racially tolerant overall than in OTL, but I don't think they'll have progressed that far by then.

Maybe though I think having a holocaust occur right next door would dramatically alter American racial views. Racial prejudice against blacks is now forever linked with Jake Featherston, TL-191 USA's most hated enemy. Every American despises Featherstone and everything he stands for, so no public figure or media institution is going to say anything critical about Brooke because of his race; they would be pilloried as a Featherston wannabe if they did.

And there's not much of a black vote to appeal to, for any party really.

Well that depends. If large numbers of blacks moved to the northern United States after the war (which seems likely since the South is a devestated wasteland filled with a genocidally hostile majority populace) then black voters could provide a critical margin in any number of key states despite their total numbers being relatively small. 10,000 or so votes in New York or Pennsylvania could easily decide a tight election.

At any rate DeFrancis is a fine veep pick (especially if it a foreign policy election), and it looks like he got the call, so there it is. Maybe Brooke will make it onto a future ticket.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by bguy

Maybe though I think having a holocaust occur right next door would dramatically alter American racial views. Racial prejudice against blacks is now forever linked with Jake Featherston, TL-191 USA's most hated enemy. Every American despises Featherstone and everything he stands for, so no public figure or media institution is going to say anything critical about Brooke because of his race; they would be pilloried as a Featherston wannabe if they did.

Well that depends. If large numbers of blacks moved to the northern United States after the war (which seems likely since the South is a devestated wasteland filled with a genocidally hostile majority populace) then black voters could provide a critical margin in any number of key states despite their total numbers being relatively small. 10,000 or so votes in New York or Pennsylvania could easily decide a tight election.

At any rate DeFrancis is a fine veep pick (especially if it a foreign policy election), and it looks like he got the call, so there it is. Maybe Brooke will make it onto a future ticket.

Nearly all of the black population in the CSA was wiped out in the Southern Holocaust and there weren't many blacks in the US to begin with. They'll only make up a very small constituency. And while it would be very un-PC for the media to say anything bad about Brooke due to his race, there will still be many, many white conservative Americans (far more than the entire black population) who in 1968 would still not want to vote for the Dems because of him. If ignorant bigotry is going to give the Democrats a lot of votes, it's not a sound political move for them to sacrifice that, especially considering that the former CS states -- chock full of potential Democrat voters -- are gradually being readmitted to the union.

[bguy]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

Nearly all of the black population in the CSA was wiped out in the Southern Holocaust and there weren't many blacks in the US to begin with. They'll only make up a very small constituency..

Hmmm, per Flora the Destruction killed somewhere from 8-10 million blacks (we don't have any numbers for how many of those were Haitians.) There's no way of knowing what the black population of the USA and CSA was in TL-191, but if we go off of the OTL population it would be somewhere above 13 million. Thus there are likely from 3-5 million surviving blacks. Not very many, but not an insignificant voting block either (especially if the survivors congregate in key northern states). And it's also been a full 24 years since the war ended, enough time for an entirely new generation to be born and reach voting age.

And while it would be very un-PC for the media to say anything bad about Brooke due to his race, there will still be many, many white conservative Americans (far more than the entire black population) who in 1968 would still not want to vote for the Dems because of him. If ignorant bigotry is going to give the Democrats a lot of votes, it's not a sound political move for them to sacrifice that, especially considering that the former CS states -- chock full of potential Democrat voters -- are gradually being readmitted to the union.

If the Democrats have a realistic chance at winning over white Southern voters I might agree with you. I remain skeptical though that they can. Remember this is the party of Remembrance, the party of Theodore Roosevelt, the party of Irving Morell. The white southerners hate them. And even putting aside the historical animosity between the Democrats and the CSA what exactly are the Democrat policies that will be popular with white southerners?
-A strong American military? The white southerners hate the US Army. It's the force occupying their homeland. They certainly won't want to see it strengthened.
-A hardline in occupying the South? Obviously they will hate this one.
-Conservative economic policy? The south is destitute after the Second Great War. They are going to be begging for massive federal aid to help rebuild. Aid the economy conscious Democrats are not likely to provide.
And if President Dewey did push through a Civil Rights bill then the southerners will also hate the Democrats for that.

The things the southerners are going to want: an end to the military occupation, billions of dollars in reconstruction funding, and regional autonomy (if not outright independence) are all things the Democrats will never give the South. Thus the white southerners will have to form their own party to pursue their goals. And if the white southerners aren't going to vote Democrat then the Democrats have nothing to lose by pursuing the black vote. It may only be 1 or 2 percent of the electorate, but sometimes elections are decided by that close a margin.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by bguy

Hmmm, per Flora the Destruction killed somewhere from 8-10 million blacks (we don't have any numbers for how many of those were Haitians.) There's no way of knowing what the black population of the USA and CSA was in TL-191, but if we go off of the OTL population it would be somewhere above 13 million. Thus there are likely from 3-5 million surviving blacks. Not very many, but not an insignificant voting block either (especially if the survivors congregate in key northern states). And it's also been a full 24 years since the war ended, enough time for an entirely new generation to be born and reach voting age.

I don't know how many blacks there were to begin with, but I got the impression that there were very few left. If there are 3-5 million blacks left and a significant portion of them have migrated to the US during the period from 1944 to 1968, then that would be a sizable constituency worth pandering to. So, yes, by fielding Brooke the Dems might pick up some of the black vote that would likely have otherwise have gone to the Socialists, who would cater better to the needs of the relatively impoverished blacks. The question is whether or not pandering to the blacks will gain the Dems more votes than they'd lose by not pandering to their base.

Originally Posted by bguy

If the Democrats have a realistic chance at winning over white Southern voters I might agree with you. I remain skeptical though that they can. Remember this is the party of Remembrance, the party of Theodore Roosevelt, the party of Irving Morell. The white southerners hate them. And even putting aside the historical animosity between the Democrats and the CSA what exactly are the Democrat policies that will be popular with white southerners?
-A strong American military? The white southerners hate the US Army. It's the force occupying their homeland. They certainly won't want to see it strengthened.
-A hardline in occupying the South? Obviously they will hate this one.
-Conservative economic policy? The south is destitute after the Second Great War. They are going to be begging for massive federal aid to help rebuild. Aid the economy conscious Democrats are not likely to provide.
And if President Dewey did push through a Civil Rights bill then the southerners will also hate the Democrats for that.

The things the southerners are going to want: an end to the military occupation, billions of dollars in reconstruction funding, and regional autonomy (if not outright independence) are all things the Democrats will never give the South. Thus the white southerners will have to form their own party to pursue their goals. And if the white southerners aren't going to vote Democrat then the Democrats have nothing to lose by pursuing the black vote. It may only be 1 or 2 percent of the electorate, but sometimes elections are decided by that close a margin.

The white Southerners hate all damnyankees, I would think regardless of party. They have reason to hate the Democrats (for the reasons you mention) the Republicans (Lincoln and Blaine, although that goes back a ways), and the Socialists (the party in charge during the SGW, which most sympathizes with blacks and the Red revolution, and which would be even more inclined to pass civil rights legislation than the Democrats). If OTL is any indication (many white southerners who are not rich even today vote Republican), conservative voters will often vote against their economic interests in favor of their chosen party's social platform. The Democrats more so than the Socialists are going to capitalize on race-phobia and other reactionary social tendencies, which will put the readmitted ex-CS states pretty solidly in the Democratic camp.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

The white Southerners hate all damnyankees, I would think regardless of party. They have reason to hate the Democrats (for the reasons you mention) the Republicans (Lincoln and Blaine, although that goes back a ways), and the Socialists (the party in charge during the SGW, which most sympathizes with blacks and the Red revolution, and which would be even more inclined to pass civil rights legislation than the Democrats).

By that logic, isn't there likely to be something like a "State's Rights Party" forming? Obviously nothing too brazenly re-separatist (that would probably be banned), but a party formed to appeal to voters that would never vote for any of the three parties, and which might hope to throw an election to the House for southern interests...

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

?????????/?????? (Socialist)

Edward Bellamy, maybe? He'd published his book four years previously OTL...

[Turquoise Blue]

So, you're saying, that the Solid South would exist in ATL, only much later?