Retrospective US Presidential Election Results Thread

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Originally Posted by Van555

Would you perfer a republican one party state instead?

Genuinely curious.

Of course not but it's boring to have Democrats win all the time.

[Van555]

Originally Posted by Cuāuhtemōc

Of course not but it's boring to have Democrats win all the time.

I can agree with that... unless of course we had actual socialists winning all the time

[stefanbl]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

3 AM? Wow, when do you sleep?

I've noticed quite a lot of Britishers are up at weird and wonderful times.

[Turquoise Blue]

Finished. Here. By the way, the next two elections are the last. What are your thoughts on this?


1796: Federalist, Democratic-Republican
1800: Federalist, Democratic-Republican
1804: Democratic-Republican, Federalist
1808: Federalist, Democratic-Republican
1812: Democratic-Republican, Federalist
1816: Federalist, Democratic-Republican
1820: Independent, Democratic-Republican
1824: Democratic-Republican
1828: National Republican, Democratic
1832: National Republican, Democratic
1836: Whig, Democratic
1840: Liberty, Whig, Democratic
1844: Whig, Liberty, Democratic
1848: Liberty, Free Soil, Whig, Democratic
1852: Whig, Free Soil, Democratic
1856: Republican, Democratic
1860: Republican, Democratic
1864: National Union, Democratic
1868: Republican, Democratic
1872: Republican, Democratic
1876: Greenback, Republican, Democratic
1880: Republican, Greenback, Democratic
1884: Greenback, Republican, Democratic
1888: Union Labor, Democratic, Republican
1892: Populist, Socialist Labor, Republican, Democratic
1896: To be determined
1900: Socialist, Republican, Democratic
1904: Republican, Socialist, Democratic
1908: Socialist, Republican, Democratic
1912: Progressive, Socialist, Republican, Democratic
1916: Republican, Socialist, Socialist Labor, Democratic
1920: Socialist, Democratic, Republican
1924: Progressive, Republican, Communist, Democratic
1928: Democratic, Republican, Socialist, Communist
1932: Democratic, Socialist, Republican
1936: Democratic, Republican, Socialist
1940: Democratic, Republican, Socialist
1944: Democratic, Republican, Socialist
1948: Democratic, Republican, Progressive, Socialist, Dixiecrat
1952: Republican, Democratic
1956: Republican, Democratic
1960: Democratic, Republican
1964: Democratic, Republican, Socialist Labor
1968: Democratic, Republican
1972: Democratic, Republican, Socialist Workers
1976: Republican, Democratic,
1980: Democratic, Republican, Independent
1984: Democratic, Republican
1988: Democratic, Republican
1992: Democratic, Independent, Republican
1996: Democratic, Green, Republican
2000: Democratic, Green, Republican
2004: Democratic, Green, Republican
2008: To be determined.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Finished. Here. By the way, the next two elections are the last. What are your thoughts on this?

Very pretty. I see you went with different colors for some of the parties than I did.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

Very pretty. I see you went with different colors for some of the parties than I did.

Yeah. And I think the Green Party is actually here to stay as a major party, since it didn't fall in popularity without Nader, but kept afloat with Cobb.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Yeah. And I think the Green Party is actually here to stay as a major party, since it didn't fall in popularity without Nader, but kept afloat with Cobb.

How about the Free Soil Party? It's not listed, but they came in 2nd place in both 1848 and 1852.

[JSmith]

Originally Posted by The Red

Which election would you like?

How about 1972

[JSmith]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

I'm supporting Bryan, although with great reluctance.

Well there was his role in the Scopes trial which is a huge negative to me. How was he on race?

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by JSmith

Well there was his role in the Scopes trial which is a huge negative to me. How was he on race?

He was brilliant on race. He fought Scopes because his opponents were supporters of Social Darwinism.

Having Bryan be Prez would mean an independent Philippines.

[Elessar267]

Originally Posted by JSmith

Well there was his role in the Scopes trial which is a huge negative to me. How was he on race?

As has been stated by Turquoise, the Scopes trial, as much as media have dramatized it as a fight between rational science and blind religion, was most critically a fight between the "liberal" advocates of pseudoscience (Social Darwinism being taught in schools as scientific fact) and the often progressive people of faith who opposed them. The latter, unfortunately, internalized Darwinism in general as being what was bad, not just Social Darwinism (which is understandable, given how the advocates of both generally conflated them as well), while the former were silenced in the anti-Nazi backlash of the '40s and '50s, with Social Darwinism dying the lonely death it truly deserved, but not until long after Scopes.

EDIT: It has been, due to various media portrayals, redefined in terms of progressive, rational scientists opposing thoughtless religious people; while, as a person of faith, I agree with opposing religious anti-intellectualism and anti-scientific actions, in the actual, real Scopes trial, one side was a clear advocate of progress, while neither side was a true advocate of science. Given the choice, I'll go with the progressives.

[JSmith]

Well I must admit that I was unaware about this aspect of the Scopes trial. So if he opposed only Social Darwinism that raises his stock considerably IMO.
I forgot about Wing and Machette wanting to abolish the presidency So without proff that Machette had a radically different idea in 1896 I have moved towards Bryan.

[Abhakhazia]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

He was brilliant on race. He fought Scopes because his opponents were supporters of Social Darwinism.

Having Bryan be Prez would mean an independent Philippines.

What's so superb about in independent Philippines? The US didn't do too badly in the Philippines, did they?

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

What's so superb about in independent Philippines? The US didn't do too badly in the Philippines, did they?

If you consider causing the deaths of 1.5 million Filipinos to be "not too bad" of a job... but I'll admit that aside from the horrific, unnecessary war, the war crimes, massacres, etc, the eventual civil administration of the Philippines was "not too bad..."

[The Red]

Originally Posted by Evan

Yes, I agree, absent an actual dictatorship, this's what'd probably be happening. Though, I still think it's safer to structure political debate around legally-protected elections rather than an organization that's technically a private social club.

Legally protected elections remain though, and the Democrats have only ever won with pluralities since 1972 (with a pathetic third of the vote on that occasion) in other words the Democrats aren't as popular as their dominance might imply, merely their opposition is too diverse and divided (1980 was the last election that was even close, I'm looking at you righties...) to ever actually defeat them.

[Abhakhazia]

Originally Posted by rcduggan

If you consider causing the deaths of 1.5 million Filipinos to be "not too bad" of a job... but I'll admit that aside from the horrific, unnecessary war, the war crimes, massacres, etc, the eventual civil administration of the Philippines was "not too bad..."

Oh. I didn't know that.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by The Red

Legally protected elections remain though, and the Democrats have only ever won with pluralities since 1972 (with a pathetic third of the vote on that occasion) in other words the Democrats aren't as popular as their dominance might imply, merely their opposition is too diverse and divided (1980 was the last election that was even close, I'm looking at you righties...) to ever actually defeat them.

This is an excellent point that I wish I'd thought of.

[Abhakhazia]

So, Nerdlinger, for the amount of people that want to write timelines on this, after the 1896 and 2008 votes are tallied and read to the masses, are you going to create a "Retrospective US Election Timeline Contest Thread" and create a poll to determine the winner, or will we all have to make our own timelines, and not have a contest.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

So, Nerdlinger, for the amount of people that want to write timelines on this, after the 1896 and 2008 votes are tallied and read to the masses, are you going to create a "Retrospective US Election Timeline Contest Thread" and create a poll to determine the winner, or will we all have to make our own timelines, and not have a contest.

This is a good idea, although could I ask that the 'OTL political beliefs' rule be removed or at least diminished? Whilst not making it much harder than it is to string these wacky results together, it does limit the ability of the writer to play around with the Universe. Eugene V. Debs shouldn't turn out to be a National Socialist or anything but I'm sure we can come to some compromise.

How about this (roughly):

An OTL Socialist (including social democrat, communist etc) can become a Liberal (Classical or Social) and vice versa.

An OTL Liberal can become a Centrist (The American Centre) and vice versa.

An OTL Centrist can become a Conservative (American style, Christian Democracy would fall under liberalism or possibly centrism) and vice versa.

Essentially butterflies can lead to a gradual change in an individuals or parties politics but not a fundamental one.

[Turquoise Blue]

No More Whistling Dixie: How Greenbacks Ruined the South

Southern Discrimination: How Woodrow Wilson Lost the Elections of 1912 and 1916

Lyndon B. Johnson: The First Southern President in a Century

Casting off the Confederate Shadow: The Election of Jimmy Carter

Legacy of the War Between the States: George W. Bush and the Elections of 2000 and 2004.