Retrospective US Presidential Election Results Thread

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Heh. I just saw the Debs-Roosevelt-Debs-Roosevelt dealo we have. I'm declaring them the American equivalent to Gladstone and Disraeli.

If Hughes didn't get in the way, it'd be Debs-Roosevelt-Debs-Roosevelt-Debs.

[Turquoise Blue]

True, true.

I'm listing which one won over the other

1900: Eugene V. Debs/Job Harriman (Socialist) over William McKinley/Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)
1904: Theodore Roosevelt/Charles W. Fairbanks (Republican) over Eugene V. Debs/Benjamin Hanford (Socialist)
1908: Eugene V. Debs/Benjamin Hanford (Socialist) over William Howard Taft*/James S. Sherman (Republican)
1912: Theodore Roosevelt/Hiram Johnson (Progressive) over Eugene V. Debs/Emil Seidel (Socialist)

* Taft was Roosevelt's chosen successor, and was basically Roosevelt II, so Debs technically won over Roosevelt.

So, if we include Debs' victory over Taft, then they both have two victories over the other.

[metastasis_d]

So... TTL's Mount Rushmore will consist of Debs, Roosevelt, Debs, Roosevelt, and Lincoln and Washington if there's time?

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

So... TTL's Mount Rushmore will consist of Debs, Roosevelt, Debs, Roosevelt, and Lincoln and Washington if there's time?

It would probably be...

Washington
Lincoln
Debs
Roosevelt

Anybody up for some photoshopping?

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

It would probably be...

Washington
Lincoln
Debs
Roosevelt

Anybody up for some photoshopping?

Well, I was kidding about Debs; Borglum (the artist) chose the presidents he did because of their role in preserving the union and 'expanding its territory,' which Roosevelt may have done ITTL, with a Spanish-American war, or may not have, but Debs almost certainly wouldn't have.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

Well, I was kidding about Debs; Borglum (the artist) chose the presidents he did because of their role in preserving the union and 'expanding its territory,' which Roosevelt may have done ITTL, with a Spanish-American war, or may not have, but Debs almost certainly wouldn't have.

Well... maybe...

Washington
Adams
Lincoln
Roosevelt

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Well... maybe...

Washington
Adams
Lincoln
Roosevelt

Possible, especially if Adams made the Louisiana Purchase.
We know SOMEONE had to, since we use the OTL electoral maps, and hey they include the entire middle of the US.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

Possible, especially if Adams made the Louisiana Purchase.
We know SOMEONE had to, since we use the OTL electoral maps, and hey they include the entire middle of the US.

Yeah. Fremont wouldn't be on that list, we know for sure, since he would have screwed it so badly that the Civil War lasts far longer then OTL.

[Turquoise Blue]

I just realized. If you want a First Lady that is independent, then when you elected Debs, you got Kate, his wife, as the First Lady of the United States.

There is a reason why she was called the Adversary in the House. Of course, ITTL, it would be changed to Adversary in the White House.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

I just realized. If you want a First Lady that is independent, then when you elected Debs, you got Kate, his wife, as the First Lady of the United States.

There is a reason why she was called the Adversary in the House. Of course, ITTL, it would be changed to Adversary in the White House.

I hadn't known nor would I have imagined that Debs's wife was anti-socialist. That's really funny. Wonder why the two of them got married.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

I hadn't known nor would I have imagined that Debs's wife was anti-socialist. That's really funny. Wonder why the two of them got married.

Argument sex is awesome.

My girlfriend is a hardcore liberal and I'm a hardcore gun-enthusiast.

[Æsir]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

Argument sex is awesome.

My girlfriend is a hardcore liberal and I'm a hardcore gun-enthusiast.

Those aren't necessarily contradictory stances, of course. Technically, liberalism, construed as the ideology of personal liberty, should be in favour of the right to own firearms, and plenty of liberals are (Brian Scweitzer, for instance). George Orwell of course said "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

The bigger difference is urban and rural here. Liberal but rural states like Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have very permissive gun laws while more conservative but also more urbanized Ohio is stricter and Republican big city mayors like Jerry Sanders in San Diego are members of MAIG.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Æsir

Those aren't necessarily contradictory stances, of course. Technically, liberalism, construed as the ideology of personal liberty, should be in favour of the right to own firearms, and plenty of liberals are (Brian Scweitzer, for instance). George Orwell of course said "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

One could say that liberalism, construed as above, should instead be in favor of the right to not be shot by your neighbor. In any case, I prefer not to use the term "liberal" in political discussions because it can mean different things in different contexts.

[Æsir]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

One could say that liberalism, construed as above, should instead be in favor of the right to not be shot by your neighbor. In any case, I prefer not to use the term "liberal" in political discussions because it can mean different things in different contexts.

Well obviously. One of the core platitudes of civil libertarianism is also "Your right to swing your fist ends at the bridge of my nose".

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

One could say that liberalism, construed as above, should instead be in favor of the right to not be shot by your neighbor.

There's a reason why support for gun control goes up in proportion to your likelihood of being accidentally shot by someone else's 2nd Amendment rights.

Of course, there's also a reason why support for gun control goes down in proportion to your distance from a police station.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Æsir

Those aren't necessarily contradictory stances, of course. Technically, liberalism, construed as the ideology of personal liberty, should be in favour of the right to own firearms, and plenty of liberals are (Brian Scweitzer, for instance). George Orwell of course said "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

The bigger difference is urban and rural here. Liberal but rural states like Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have very permissive gun laws while more conservative but also more urbanized Ohio is stricter and Republican big city mayors like Jerry Sanders in San Diego are members of MAIG.

Yeah, that's true; I've always wondered why "liberals" aren't in favor of the right to own guns in the US. I suppose it is correlative to the fact that cities are usually more liberal than rural areas, and like Fleetlord says, that tends to increase your distance from police stations.

[OAM47]

Wow guys, found some evidence Greeley wasn't just the typical Democrat, too bad it's too late. Apparently he started a fight with the (Democratic) speaker of the house in 1855 after criticizing him for supporting slavery. The speaker retaliated by giving Greeley a concussion.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by OAM47

Wow guys, found some evidence Greeley wasn't just the typical Democrat, too bad it's too late. Apparently he started a fight with the (Democratic) speaker of the house in 1855 after criticizing him for supporting slavery. The speaker retaliated by giving Greeley a concussion.

Who was the speaker?

[Justin Green]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

Yeah, that's true; I've always wondered why "liberals" aren't in favor of the right to own guns in the US. I suppose it is correlative to the fact that cities are usually more liberal than rural areas, and like Fleetlord says, that tends to increase your distance from police stations.

Dear lord that last part is true. The county over from me, Josephine County, is in the red bad and recently failed to pass a tax to keep the county jail and sheriffs department going. Not only did they have to release over 40 people (including some robbers and sex offenders) but now the sheriffs department is down to 8 officers and only a handfull of beds to keep available in the future. Theres only one city in the county big enough for a PD and they only have 40 officers, and there not going to be leaving the city limits. The county is 1,642 sq miles (4,253 km²), and has about a population of 82,807.

And out side Klamath Falls, there are about 2 sheriffs deputies on duty per day now. Gun sales and conceal and carry permits have skyrocketed. Its a real rural county and people are already talking about "wild west justice".

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...ns_releas.html

[Justin Green]

There are 20,065 living in K Falls, so outside the city there are 2 deputies protecting 60,000 people from themselves.