Apparently Connelly had sympathies for Nixon at the time so he probably wouldn’t accept it. Also since Kennedy is a Gov. here he would probably want a senator running mate.If anything John Connally would be a compromise
Apparently Connelly had sympathies for Nixon at the time so he probably wouldn’t accept it. Also since Kennedy is a Gov. here he would probably want a senator running mate.If anything John Connally would be a compromise
U.S. with Canadian parties:
American politics has typically been dominated by two parties, the Conservatives and Labor. Traditionally, the Conservatives were the party of white-collar businessmen, while Labor was branded the party of the working man. The Deep South and the West are the cores of the Conservative Party, while the Midwest and Appalachia are the traditional cores of the Labor Party. The parties have straddled between center and center-left (for Labor) / center-right (for Conservatives) depending on the party leadership. This two-party system has been usurped by the recent rise of the left-wing New Democratic Party, which has taken hold of urban centers especially in the Northeast and West Coast. The separatist, big-tent Texas Group was once a dominant force in Texas politics, but has lost a lot of influence over the past decade and the Conservatives have emerged as the predominant force in Texas. The Greens can only be found in the most left-wing parts of the country, occasionally proving competitive in races in San Francisco, parts of the Boston area, and Burlington, Vermont.
What about Utah and the surrounding areas? Or perhaps the Pacific Northwest?Wouldn’t you need a Bloc Québécois in like the South West ?
The Texas Group is a stand-in for the Bloc Quebecois. Just like how the Bloc Quebecois is not as widespread as it was 10-15 years ago, the Texas Group is no longer a dominant force in Texan politics.Wouldn’t you need a Bloc Québécois in like the South West ?
I'd say secessionists in that area are mere fringe groups (to a greater extent than Texas).What about Utah and the surrounding areas? Or perhaps the Pacific Northwest?
I just thought it would be a Confederate Block in the Deep South...The Texas Group is a stand-in for the Bloc Quebecois. Just like how the Bloc Quebecois is not as widespread as it was 10-15 years ago, the Texas Group is no longer a dominant force in Texan politics.
I'd say secessionists in that area are mere fringe groups (to a greater extent than Texas).
I just thought it would be a Confederate Block in the Deep South...
But that’s not really analogous to bloc with is all about a separate spoken language ( French) an Aztlan party would make sense.
Unfortunately, New Mexico is small enough that a secessionist party would be ignored. There are only 4 states in the US that I can imagine (with a post-1900 POD) having a real movement: Texas, California, Alaska and Hawaii.Sepratist New Mexico would be a good choice then?
POD: Steve Forbes winning early victories causes Bush's machine to become reckless meaning he goes too far dogwhistling against McCain in NH causing him to lose. He drops out after McCain scores more victories. After that Keyes picks up the conservative banner...
McCain beats Bush in Texas? how?!
And this is McCain/[REDACTED] (290)vs Gore/Lieberman (247) 2000.
What states would Gore win here?This is another Democratic landslide, this one based on the 2000 Presidential Election. I like this map in particular because Gore does well in both rural and suburban/urban areas, providing a nice buffer between the better rural Democratic performances of the 80s and 90s and the more suburban/urban coalitions of the later 2000s.