Ok, I posted an idea like this awhile ago, but got stuck in the WWI question. So now I propose an idea which is purely American in politics.
Its POD is pre 1900s, but its 1896, so don't bug me.
William Jennings Bryan: Not a likely canidate anyway. He doesn't get to make his cross of gold speach (he almost wasn't anyway OTL) and a much more Cleavland like canidate gets the nomination. The election is even less close then OTL, with the Populists winning several western states with Watson as their canidate (Bryan is too late to go for them at this point.) McKinely wins.
Bryan then either becomese a senator or the governor of Nebraska as a Populists (there were severall Populist governors and senators). He becomes the figure head of the party, and their canidate in 1900, where he does his same grass roots get out the vote campaign he does OTL, and wins solidly in the West.
Democratic Party: Having lost its western support, and at this point having little power in the north, the party becomes completely dominated by the south again. Almost all Democratic senators and congressmen are from the south. The party takes a reactionary route rather then a progressive route.
McKinely: Bassically the same as OTL. Considering the popularity of the anarchists, lets assume he gets assasinated anyway.
Roosevelt: Here's the thing that many people just don't seem to realise: Labour is not necessarily always politicaly apposed to big bussiness. Roosevelt and McKinely to a lesser exstent were popular both with bussiness and the unions etc. Neither side got all they wanted, but it was a whole lot better then what was then the alternative. If the Republican party keeps up the way it was going, as a progressive right wing party, it could still maintain popularity among both the white collars and the blue collars. And of course the black vote will go for the Republicans or sometimes the Populists, who would be stronger in the west. My guess is that with less oposition thus more popularity, he would seek a third maybe fourth term. If not, I think he would still again be the choice canidate in 1912, going over Taft. The Democrats would choose a more conservative canidate then progressive Wilson. Just to stop arguments, lets say WWI happens about the same as OTL.
Pershing: In this more progressive Republican party, instead of turning to lessez-faire canidates, they would go for slightly more big government folks like Pershing, who was also very disciplined, and a war hero to boot. He would have made an excellent president, and would have been much more active in world politics. One thing about him was that he was certain that the Soviet Union was going to be a major threat in the future, and even considered taking them out militarily. Whatever the case, he would have had an active role in stopping both Communism and possibly some facism. (maybe not Italian, but possibly German.) He'd probably serve from 1920-28.
Then FDR comes in. I'll continue soon.
Its POD is pre 1900s, but its 1896, so don't bug me.
William Jennings Bryan: Not a likely canidate anyway. He doesn't get to make his cross of gold speach (he almost wasn't anyway OTL) and a much more Cleavland like canidate gets the nomination. The election is even less close then OTL, with the Populists winning several western states with Watson as their canidate (Bryan is too late to go for them at this point.) McKinely wins.
Bryan then either becomese a senator or the governor of Nebraska as a Populists (there were severall Populist governors and senators). He becomes the figure head of the party, and their canidate in 1900, where he does his same grass roots get out the vote campaign he does OTL, and wins solidly in the West.
Democratic Party: Having lost its western support, and at this point having little power in the north, the party becomes completely dominated by the south again. Almost all Democratic senators and congressmen are from the south. The party takes a reactionary route rather then a progressive route.
McKinely: Bassically the same as OTL. Considering the popularity of the anarchists, lets assume he gets assasinated anyway.
Roosevelt: Here's the thing that many people just don't seem to realise: Labour is not necessarily always politicaly apposed to big bussiness. Roosevelt and McKinely to a lesser exstent were popular both with bussiness and the unions etc. Neither side got all they wanted, but it was a whole lot better then what was then the alternative. If the Republican party keeps up the way it was going, as a progressive right wing party, it could still maintain popularity among both the white collars and the blue collars. And of course the black vote will go for the Republicans or sometimes the Populists, who would be stronger in the west. My guess is that with less oposition thus more popularity, he would seek a third maybe fourth term. If not, I think he would still again be the choice canidate in 1912, going over Taft. The Democrats would choose a more conservative canidate then progressive Wilson. Just to stop arguments, lets say WWI happens about the same as OTL.
Pershing: In this more progressive Republican party, instead of turning to lessez-faire canidates, they would go for slightly more big government folks like Pershing, who was also very disciplined, and a war hero to boot. He would have made an excellent president, and would have been much more active in world politics. One thing about him was that he was certain that the Soviet Union was going to be a major threat in the future, and even considered taking them out militarily. Whatever the case, he would have had an active role in stopping both Communism and possibly some facism. (maybe not Italian, but possibly German.) He'd probably serve from 1920-28.
Then FDR comes in. I'll continue soon.
