The first problem here is that, based off what I initially read some time ago (I wasn't able to respond then), was that the States' Righters you said were to be present but revolt after the pick of Claude Pepper. One of Kefauver's plans which I meant to incorporate into one of my own (in developmental hell) Timelines was to pass a resolution that would have stripped the voting rights from any delegation whose State Party endorsed policies which discriminated against voters on the basis of race; the problem with this resolution was how far-reaching it was (all the former Confederate states minus Tennessee [of course] and Florida [somehow]). Those states were never going to vote for Kefauver, and in reducing the number of voting delegates he would have gotten markedly closer to securing a majority for himself. The resolution actually would have very well passed had Stevenson himself not intervened and thrown himself against it; with Stevenson gone though or even Truman not being able to throw himself into the mix there isn't much of a case to be made for against it (Humphrey and Pepper both supported the resolution), which would mean the grand majority of the Southern delegations would have left early and in disgust at the 'undemocratic' nature of the Convention.
In the interests of balancing the ticket in terms of experience and region, I'd instead suggest Earle Clements.
I've actually tried changing the States' Rights name in the Wikibox for the '48 election several times to the more formal moniker, but others keep flipping it back after some time.
The only problem of course is that he may well follow the example of Charles Evan Hughes and resign from the Court once he receives the Democratic nomination, meaning that the Republican Senate would get to confirm an additional Justice.
Wallace would have probably performed a bit worse as well given the international situation, but an argument could be made either way.
To be honest I thought you were just using a universal swing; if you are using different measures for different states than I can understand how that might be a bit more than its worth.
Do you live somewhere other than the United States? Users outside the US sometimes can't imagines. I don't know why. The biggest party is the Dixiecrats (State's Rights Party) with 19 seats in the Senate. The next largest is the Conscience Party with 12 seats. These are the only two third-parties worth mentioning ATM. More third-parties may appear later.
I would imagine so. Stay safe.I live in the Netherlands where i can normally see it but i'm right now in Turkey and it's pretty messy here to say the least.
I will incorporate this information if Kefauver becomes the nominee in the retcon.
A Kefauver/Clements would be the most plausible choice then?
I will change dixiecrat to "States' Rights" when I retcon the boxes.
I will run Douglas in 1948. He will do better than Harriman but still lose. He will resign and be replaced by a Taft nominee. Any idea of who Taft would nominate BTW?
I may drop him below 5% in the retcon.
To be honest I just looked at a race and went "hmm yea I could see that going the other way given the context" and then did the next race and so on. I could use a universal swing, problem is I've unleashed third parties ITTL. They kinda throw things out of whack. I could just completely make the seats up, but I'd feel sloppy doing so.
Sounds about right.I honestly don't know, but John Marshall Harlan as Chief Justice seems to fit Taft's ideology.
I agree.The Conscience Republicans I had always suspected as merely being an unofficial bloc as it were, willing to work with the Republican leadership on most matters but unwilling to support its more radical steps. Any competition between the Conscience and Regular Republicans would be contained within the primaries for the Congressional offices, admittedly with the rare breach of that pact in some circumstances (factionalization tends to do that, look to the South). Therefore I wouldn't consider them a Third Party in the traditional sense.
Electoral votes are wonderful things.MacArthur had 21 states to 19 and 10 for the others. How did he lose?
In US presidential elections only the electoral vote matters. You can lose everything else but if you win the electoral vote, you win the election.MacArthur had 21 states to 19 and 10 for the others. How did he lose?
Which would make it more accurate.I will change dixiecrat to "States' Rights" when I retcon the boxes.
Which would make it more accurate.
"We're not racist, we just support a system where everything would be in our power and anyone trying to stop us being racist dickbags gets told off!"
Why are for example Texas and Maine, white-gray? Are they conscience party? Independents? Or does Texas don't have a seat in senate?
Why are for example Texas and Maine, white-gray? Are they conscience party? Independents? Or does Texas don't have a seat in senate?
Well, that's what they do when people start raising questions.Come on, now, there's no way the dumb hicks would be so dishonest.
Grey means there was no election in that state that year. Senate elections are staggered such that only 1/3 of the chamber goes up for re-election every 2 years.Why are for example Texas and Maine, white-gray? Are they conscience party? Independents? Or does Texas don't have a seat in senate?
Well, that's what they do when people start raising questions.
<SNIP>
Agreed.Kefauver wouldn't have much of a chance of carrying either Arkansas or Virginia.
Virginia through a divided Democratic field would probably well end up in MacArthur's column.
I'd move Pennsylvania from Republican to Democratic (I imagine it would have been close).
Texas... a tight three-way Kefauver managed to get the edge.
Agreed.Senator Francis Myers.
Also you may want to check the maps you are using for your Senate elections; unless you are possibly including special elections or appointments, I don't believe Minnesota had Senatorial elections in 1950, 1952, and 1954.
So we have two plausible choicesSNIP