Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1996

[Paul V McNutt]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining about a supposed one-party state if it were the Republicans who were doing as successfully as the Democrats here.

What one party state? This is a poll that takes place years after the election.

[QuoProQuid]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

What one party state? This is a poll that takes place years after the election.

The Democrats have not lost a retrospective election since Eisenhower, with the exception of a one term Ford.

[Turquoise Blue]

Originally Posted by QuoProQuid

The Democrats have not lost a retrospective election since Eisenhower, with the exception of a one term Ford.

But 1980 was close between Carter and Reagan.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

What one party state? This is a poll that takes place years after the election.

I'm saying there is no one-party state in the ATL, only a dominant-party state (despite the righties' whining here about it ).

[Abhakhazia]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

I'm saying there is no one-party state in the ATL, only a dominant-party state (despite the righties' whining here about it ).

I assume you mean me, of course.
I feel sorry that the party has no good candidates until McCain, and he ran against Obama

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

I assume you mean me, of course.
I feel sorry that the party has no good candidates until McCain, and he ran against Obama

And with Palin.

[QuoProQuid]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

But 1980 was close between Carter and Reagan.

Carter still won, however. Even with a man as popular as Reagan, the Democrats were still able to maintain a monopoly on the Executive.

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

I'm saying there is no one-party state in the ATL, only a dominant-party state (despite the righties' whining here about it ).

Like Liberia, right?

I don't consider myself a 'righty' by any stretch of the imagination but this long of a stretch would have some far reaching consequences on the American political scene. It's just a bit ridiculous to call the realization that Republicans will never win as 'whining'.

[XNM]

Well, honestly, Botswana has quite a liberal democracy as far as I know, and the same party has been in power since independence, I think. So a dominant party doesn't always have unfortunate implications.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by QuoProQuid

Like Liberia, right?

Right, the modern Democratic Party is exactly like the Liberian Whigs.

Originally Posted by QuoProQuid

I don't consider myself a 'righty' by any stretch of the imagination but this long of a stretch would have some far reaching consequences on the American political scene. It's just a bit ridiculous to call the realization that Republicans will never win as 'whining'.

I wonder if the conservatives here have really thought about just why their candidates aren't prevailing in these elections....

[Abhakhazia]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

Right, the modern Democratic Party is exactly like the Liberian Whigs.



I wonder if the conservatives here have really thought about just why their candidates aren't prevailing in these elections....

Again, you're talking about me.
It's because this board is centre-left.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

Again, you're talking about me.
It's because this board is centre-left.

Not specifically you, but since you responded -- why do you think this board is center-left?

[Abhakhazia]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

Not specifically you, but since you responded -- why do you think this board is center-left?

It's not full blown socialist, it's socially leftist, and economically centrists.

[QuoProQuid]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

Right, the modern Democratic Party is exactly like the Liberian Whigs.

I wasn't saying that the modern Democratic Party was exactly like the Liberian Whigs. I was using Liberia as an example of how a dominant party state is not necessarily a good thing.

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

I wonder if the conservatives here have really thought about just why their candidates aren't prevailing in these elections....

I know why they aren't prevailing here. I am thinking about why they aren't prevailing in context of the timeline. That's it. Why do you think I am rooting for the conservatives? I don't think I have voted for them yet.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

It's not full blown socialist, it's socially leftist, and economically centrists.

Actually, I'd say it's more left of center economically as well. But why do you think the board generally has political views that are to the left of yours?

[Abhakhazia]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

Actually, I'd say it's more left of center economically as well. But why do you think the board generally has political views that are to the left of yours?

Because my candidates don't win the elections, and the Wisconsin Recall Election News thread.

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by QuoProQuid

I wasn't saying that the modern Democratic Party was exactly like the Liberian Whigs. I was using Liberia as an example of how a dominant party state is not necessarily a good thing.

"Necessarily" being the key word there. What's so horrible about the Democrats who have been elected president here compared to their Republican opponents?

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

Because my candidates don't win the elections, and the Wisconsin Recall Election News thread.

So the board is leftist because the rightist candidates don't win elections here? You've got the effect before the cause.

Do you think the board's being more leftist than you has anything to do with its international membership?

[Abhakhazia]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

So the board is leftist because the rightist candidates don't win elections here? You've got the effect before the cause.

Do you think the board's being more leftist than you has anything to do with its international membership?

I don't know! Maybe, but I am pretty conservative, especially on social issues.

[Porthos]

Republicans (and others) could also be doing very well on the state level in various places. Or perhaps, they have a large presence in Congress which still lets them have their stamp on governance (see OTL 2009-2010 to see what influence a very committed party in minority can still have).

Now it is true that the Democrats in TTL would probably have the label "The Natural Party of Government" thrust upon them. Or even take it for themselves if they were feeling particularly cheeky. But in a separation of powers system of government like the US, holding on to the presidency for a long stretch of time isn't everything. Sure it counts for an awful lot (Supreme Court, implementation of laws, direction of foreign policy, et etc.) But that doesn't mean that the opposition has no influence or very real power either.

And all of this ignores the shift in outlook of parties when it comes to ideology. As well as what to emphasize when it comes to ideology.

If one was an observer from inside TTL (and thus didn't know that it was in fact 'just' a Retrospective election thread) a political scientist would probably conclude that the Democratic Party has achieved dominance for so long because of two factors:

A) The US of this timeline is culturally center-left, and the Democratic Party of the post 1920s has made sure never to drift too far from that.

and

B) It will co-opt movements and ideas from the right that seem to have a hold on people and incorporate just enough of them to stay in power.

Really, such a philosophy to governance isn't that unheard of in OTL. Nor is it that unheard of for parties to drift from their ideological roots while appealing to the ever shifting wants and desires of the populace.

The result of this has been, paradoxically enough, to drive the GOP of TTL further and further to the right. Probably because it feels that people will respect ideological purity rather than what they see as the wishy-washy nature of the 90's+ Democratic Party. Or maybe they think that the whole house of cards (from their perspective) will come crashing down and then they can come in with a near revolutionary system (from TTL's perspective) and implement Real Change.

Kinda fascinating, actually.

But while one could in fact make a TL with such hegemony dystopic, it doesn't necessarily have to be so. You just have to make one of the parties become really pig headed and stubborn when it comes to appealing to what the country really wants. And get more stubborn as time goes on. There is enough support in the country to keep the party viable, but not enough to actually get them over the hump.

[QuoProQuid]

Originally Posted by Nerdlinger

"Necessarily" being the key word there. What's so horrible about the Democrats who have been elected president here compared to their Republican opponents?

Dominant party states tend to see a combination of the party and the ruling government. The mechanisms of the state are used to carry out partisan groups. It runs contrary to the principles of democracy and republican virtue. Officials are appointed, not for their skills, but for their political alignment. Opposition groups tend to get ostracized.

Dominant party states do not necessarily lead to despotism but they lean toward it. A sense of arrogance and belief in political infallibility tends to emerge in the ruling party.

Originally Posted by Porthos

Republicans (and others) could also be doing very well on the state level in various places. Or perhaps, they have a large presence in Congress which still lets them have their stamp on governance (see OTL 2009-2010 to see what influence a very committed party in minority can still have).

Now it is true that the Democrats in TTL would probably have the label "The Natural Party of Government" thrust upon them. Or even take it for themselves if they were feeling particularly cheeky. But in a separation of powers system of government like the US, holding on to the presidency for a long stretch of time isn't everything. Sure it counts for an awful lot (Supreme Court, implementation of laws, direction of foreign policy, et etc.) But that doesn't mean that the opposition has no influence or very real power either.

And all of this ignores the shift in outlook of parties when it comes to ideology. As well as what to emphasize when it comes to ideology.

If one was an observer from inside TTL (and thus didn't know that it was in fact 'just' a Retrospective election thread) a political scientist would probably conclude that the Democratic Party has achieved dominance for so long because of two factors:

A) The US of this timeline is culturally center-left, and the Democratic Party of the post 1920s has made sure never to drift too far from that.

and

B) It will co-opt movements and ideas from the right that seem to have a hold on people and incorporate just enough of them to stay in power.

Really, such a philosophy to governance isn't that unheard of in OTL. Nor is it that unheard of for parties to drift from their ideological roots while appealing to the ever shifting wants and desires of the populace.

The result of this has been, paradoxically enough, to drive the GOP of TTL further and further to the right. Probably because it feels that people will respect ideological purity rather than what they see as the wishy-washy nature of the 90's+ Democratic Party. Or maybe they think that the whole house of cards (from their perspective) will come crashing down and then they can come in with a near revolutionary system (from TTL's perspective) and implement Real Change.

Kinda fascinating, actually.

But while one could in fact make a TL with such hegemony dystopic, it doesn't necessarily have to be so. You just have to make one of the parties become really pig headed and stubborn when it comes to appealing to what the country really wants. And get more stubborn as time goes on. There is enough support in the country to keep the party viable, but not enough to actually get them over the hump.

This is a good post. I would argue, however, that their constant successes with the Presidency probably means that the Democratic Party has also controlled Congress for large periods of time. Usually the winner of the Presidency also has their party gain a majority in the House and at least win a few seats in the Senate.