TL-191: Filling the Gaps

[Craigo]

Damn, I forgot about Dewey. Moderate/progressive Democrats are alive and well in the 1940s, you're right.

OT: If anyone's wondering about why percentages won't add up to 100%, it's scattered votes for prohibitionists and suffragists.

 

[Plumber]

Hmmm, I suppose the Republicans took most of the OTL Socialist strength, then.

 

[Craigo]

A shot at basic platforms for the 1920 election:

The Socialists probably want a basic welfare state - pension, health, accident, and unemployment insurance. They'd want a nationwide 8 hour workday and greater regulation and trustbusting, and with TR at the head of the ticket the Democrats would probably support those too. But Sinclair would guarantee the right to organize, which the Dems of this era would balk at.

Both the Democrats and Socialists have a strong base in the industrial state, so neither is probably amenable to lowering tariffs - though the Democrats might support a discriminatory system against the Entente nations, while the Socialists want one size fits all. The Republicans might want lower tariffs, or a McNary-style system of retaliatory tariffs and domestic price supports. Maybe that's later in the decade, as foreign competition probably hasn't recovered fully by 1920.

There might not be too much difference on taxes - in this era, the business community was actually very big on income taxation, because it was key to a balanced budget. Mellon's advice to Hoover: "Tax everyone, for everything." Maybe the corporate tax rate becomes an issue, or investment income.

Military spending - the Dems want to return pre-war levels, the Socialist and Republicans want to slash it more. The Socialists would probably end rationing laws while the Democrats would want to maintain them.

There's probably a foreign policy consensus - maintain the occupation and the Alliance, keep a watchful eye on the Confederates. Reparations will become an issue, but that's in the future.

Prohibition: Dems, Socs - no, GOP - yes. Womens' suffrage: Dems probably no, GOP, Socs - probably yes. There'd be a lot of variation on the women's vote, but prohibition was always a very Protestant thing, and the US is now proportionally much less so.

Any other issues that could crop up? Obviously the Socialists never nationalized industries, but maybe that was in the platform and they just settled for regulation instead. TR probably already saw to child labor and health & safety regulations, though there would be room to maneuver there.

 

[bguy]

The Socialists probably want a basic welfare state - pension, health, accident, and unemployment insurance. They'd want a nationwide 8 hour workday and greater regulation and trustbusting

I could actually see the Socialists being split on trustbusting. I think the moderate wing of the party (the Blackford Socialists if you will) would favor trustbusting, whereas the left wing of the party (the Debs/Sinclair Socialists) would be more interested in nationalization rather than trustbusting.

Both the Democrats and Socialists have a strong base in the industrial state, so neither is probably amenable to lowering tariff

The tariff is another issue I could see the Socialists being split over, with the Blackford wing favoring lower tariffs while the Debs wing supports protection.

There's probably a foreign policy consensus - maintain the occupation and the Alliance, keep a watchful eye on the Confederates. Reparations will become an issue, but that's in the future.

Were the Socialists all that keen on maintaining the alliance with Germany? Our POV Socialist characters booed the German ambassador during the 1915 Remembrance Day parade afterall, and certainly the alliance was rather strained during the Sinclair Administration.

Prohibition: Dems, Socs - no, GOP - yes.

Would Prohibition even be a national issue in a USA without the South? I think it would be left entirely to the states.

Womens' suffrage: Dems probably no, GOP, Socs - probably yes.

TR at least supported women's suffrage, so I imagine the Democrat platform supported it as well.

Any other issues that could crop up?

A few possibilities:
Mexican Civil War,
Russian Civil War,
Canadian integration,
Central American canal,
federally funded public education (oddly enough I could see the Remembrance Democrats actually supporting that for national security reasons),
Campaign finance reform (TR was big on that OTL, though his party might balk),
Immigration (another issue the Socialists might be split on),
Veteran support, and
Farm subsidies.

Obviously the Socialists never nationalized industries, but maybe that was in the platform and they just settled for regulation instead.

If regulation happened early enough it could still preempt Wilkie's career representing the utlities and end with him representing agri-business instead.

 

[Craigo]

If I remember right, something like one out of every six or seven Americans were foreign-born when WWI began (for us) - even if total immigration is lower in 191, the large, large majority are probably going to the North just like they did in OTL. So it might be one out of every five.

Under those cirucmstances, it's hard to see room for two major parties which are split or against immigration - and while the Irish are probably still largely Democratic at this point, the Dems (and the GOP) are probably much more WASPish than the Socialists.

(Ethnoreligious divisions, especially in places like New york and the Midwest, are especially interesting.)

I forgot about the Mexican and Russian civil wars completely - I think Sinclair came down for nonintervention regarding both, while the Dems probably favored the republican side south of the border.

 

[bguy]

If I remember right, something like one out of every six or seven Americans were foreign-born when WWI began (for us) - even if total immigration is lower in 191, the large, large majority are probably going to the North just like they did in OTL. So it might be one out of every five.

Under those cirucmstances, it's hard to see room for two major parties which are split or against immigration - and while the Irish are probably still largely Democratic at this point, the Dems (and the GOP) are probably much more WASPish than the Socialists.

In Breakthroughs Flora opposed some immigration restriction legislation that Blackford said the Socialist Party leaders were backing. I found it rather surprising the Socialists would back such legislation, since I would think that a great deal of their base is first and second generation Americans.

I forgot about the Mexican and Russian civil wars completely - I think Sinclair came down for nonintervention regarding both, while the Dems probably favored the republican side south of the border.

I could see that being one of the major issues that causes a strain on US-German relations during the Sinclair Administration; the Germans wanting US support against the Reds in the Russian Civil War, and Sinclair refusing to provide it.

(The lack of US involvement in the Mexican Civil War is much more difficult to explain though, since I would think that the Socialists would see the overthrow of an imperial government, imposed on Mexico by a colonial power, as a good thing.)

 

[Craigo]

In Breakthroughs Flora opposed some immigration restriction legislation that Blackford said the Socialist Party leaders were backing. I found it rather surprising the Socialists would back such legislation, since I would think that a great deal of their base is first and second generation Americans.




I could see that being one of the major issues that causes a strain on US-German relations during the Sinclair Administration; the Germans wanting US support against the Reds in the Russian Civil War, and Sinclair refusing to provide it.

(The lack of US involvement in the Mexican Civil War is much more difficult to explain though, since I would think that the Socialists would see the overthrow of an imperial government, imposed on Mexico by a colonial power, as a good thing.)

I agree on all three points - though lack of money (occupation is expensive enough) and general pacificism (normancould explain Mexico.

For the immigration thing, this may be a case where the leadership and the voters aren't exactly aligned - though limiting immigration to keep working-class wages high could explain it also. But then again, with over a million war dead, is that really a concern? If anything, the US and CS would be seeing a labor shortage. Maybe the Democrats are more ambivalent for precisely that reason - they want to bring in workers because American labor is expensive in the 1920s.

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

A shot at basic platforms for the 1920 election:

The Socialists probably want a basic welfare state - pension, health, accident, and unemployment insurance. They'd want a nationwide 8 hour workday and greater regulation and trustbusting, and with TR at the head of the ticket the Democrats would probably support those too. But Sinclair would guarantee the right to organize, which the Dems of this era would balk at.

Both the Democrats and Socialists have a strong base in the industrial state, so neither is probably amenable to lowering tariffs - though the Democrats might support a discriminatory system against the Entente nations, while the Socialists want one size fits all. The Republicans might want lower tariffs, or a McNary-style system of retaliatory tariffs and domestic price supports. Maybe that's later in the decade, as foreign competition probably hasn't recovered fully by 1920.

There might not be too much difference on taxes - in this era, the business community was actually very big on income taxation, because it was key to a balanced budget. Mellon's advice to Hoover: "Tax everyone, for everything." Maybe the corporate tax rate becomes an issue, or investment income.

Military spending - the Dems want to return pre-war levels, the Socialist and Republicans want to slash it more. The Socialists would probably end rationing laws while the Democrats would want to maintain them.

There's probably a foreign policy consensus - maintain the occupation and the Alliance, keep a watchful eye on the Confederates. Reparations will become an issue, but that's in the future.

Prohibition: Dems, Socs - no, GOP - yes. Womens' suffrage: Dems probably no, GOP, Socs - probably yes. There'd be a lot of variation on the women's vote, but prohibition was always a very Protestant thing, and the US is now proportionally much less so.

Any other issues that could crop up? Obviously the Socialists never nationalized industries, but maybe that was in the platform and they just settled for regulation instead. TR probably already saw to child labor and health & safety regulations, though there would be room to maneuver there.

You need to cover prohibition in the CSA as well. In the Great War books, several Confederate States are noted for going dry, Mississippi is one I remember.

What about immigration in the CSA? It was awful strange to see guys with names like FitzBelmont serving the Freedom Party.

 

[Craigo]

That's true about prohibition in the South, but the very rough estimates we have of Confederate population doesn't indicate that it received much more immigration than the Southern state did in reality. And "Fitz" names are generally English in origin. The Confederacy, ethnically, is probably very Anglo-Saxon/Scots-Irish, with significant Negro, Indian, and Latino minorities, and a scattering of other Euopean nationalities. (It might even be majority-minority, though of course a third of the men can't vote.)

 

[Reggie Bartlett]

That's true about prohibition in the South, but the very rough estimates we have of Confederate population doesn't indicate that it received much more immigration than the Southern state did in reality. And "Fitz" names are generally English in origin. The Confederacy, ethnically, is probably very Anglo-Saxon/Scots-Irish, with significant Negro, Indian, and Latino minorities, and a scattering of other Euopean nationalities. (It might even be majority-minority, though of course a third of the men can't vote.)

Ah, I see.

I think there appears to be a French influence as well (well, being that it's got a Francophone state in it, Louisiana). I also remember in some of Reggie Bartlett's chapters, a few of the men in his units are Kiowas like Joe Mopope. It does appear that some non-whites did get enfranchised in some way. I do know that the Freedom Party tried it's hardest to pander to the hispanic vote.

 

[Craigo]

New York politics, 1914-1945

Governor: Wallace MacFarlane (D) 1911-1919 | Alfred Smith (S) 1919-1931 | Ogden Mills (D) 1931-1935 | Alfred Smith (S) 1935-1937 | Charles Poletti (S) 1937-1939 | Fiorello LaGuardia (S) 1939-1943 | Thomas Dewey (D) 1943-1945 | George Zimmermann (D) 1945-

Senator: John O'Brien (D) 1909-1921 | Morris Hillquit (S) 1921-1933 | Owen Young (D) 1933-1939 | Charles Poletti (S) 1939-1945 | Frank Costello (D) 1945-

Senator: Horace White (R) 1911-1917 | Ogden Mills (D) 1917-1929 | Robert Wagner (S) 1929-

Mayor: Alfred Smith 1914-1917 (S) | Meyer London (S) 1917-1926 | Luigi Antonini (S) 1926-1929 | Fiorello LaGuardia (S) 1930-1938 | Frank Costello (D) 1938-1945 | Vito Marcantonio (S) 1945-1946

Aldermen: Socialists/Republicans 1915-1919 | Socialists 1919-1927 | Socialists/Republicans 1927-1931 | Democrats/Republicans 1931-1935 | Socialists/Republicans 1935-

Notes: Democrats currently control all four major offices and the state Senate, the latter in coalition with the Republicans. Only the city Board of Aldermen and state House remain in Socialist hands.

Before 1912, Senators were chosen by state legislatures. Horace White and John O'Brien, elected by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, were the last New York Senators to be chosen under this system, and O'Brien won a popular victory in 1914 before his 1920 defeat.

Upon a vacancy in the mayor's office, the President of the Board of Aldermen succeeds to the position. Term limits were introduced following Meyer London's third straight victory.

LaGuardia, who signed the act, would have been unaffected, but chose to step down in 1937 anyway. After his 1942 defeat for re-election as Governor, he joined La Follette's cabinet as Secretary of Labor (Smith's death and James Farley's departure had briefly left the Powel House without a New Yorker).

Marcantonio's defeat by William O'Dwyer in 1945 ended a two decade streak of Italian mayors.

New York once practiced electoral fusion, the practice of allowing one candidate to run on more than one party's line. This practice was abolished after the city Republicans combined with the Socialists to elect Seth Low on a reform ticket.

 

[bguy]

All Senate seats are elected by a coalition with the Republicans, as no single party has controlled the state legislature on its own since 1890. Wagner, the dean of New York politics, will lose his seat unless the Socialists make large gains in the state Senate in 1946.

In The Center Cannot Hold, Morrell had a discussion after the 1929 Confederate congressional elections where it was mentioned in passing that the US elects Senators by popular vote rather than by state legislature. I'm not sure exactly when the US switched over, but during the 1916 election there was mention of Senator LaFollette leading in Wisconsin which certainly makes it sound as though the US had already switched over to the popular election of senators by that point.

 

[Craigo]

In The Center Cannot Hold, Morrell had a discussion after the 1929 Confederate congressional elections where it was mentioned in passing that the US elects Senators by popular vote rather than by state legislature. I'm not sure exactly when the US switched over, but during the 1916 election there was mention of Senator LaFollette leading in Wisconsin which certainly makes it sound as though the US had already switched over to the popular election of senators by that point.

the 1916 quote is ambiguous, but the 1929 one is definitely not. I'll fix it - for now, I'll assume that the switch occurred before the GW.

 

[Craigo]

United States presidential election, 1924

Upton Sinclair/Hosea Blackford - 50%,
James Cox/John Davis - 36%,
James Watson/William Kenyon - 10%

With the strikes over, the economy in full swing, and the Sinclair welfare legislation proving to be popular, most Democrats with national profile chose to sit out the election. James Cox, a well-regarded but colorless reform Democrat from Ohio, won the nomination over Senator Ritchie of Maryland and Governor Merriam of California. After both men declined the vice-presidential nomination, it was accepted by John Davis, the Democratic National Chairman.

There was brief hope that Sinclair would bungle the Canadian uprising, but the competent handling of the matter deflated the ticket even further, and the two lost by the worst margin the Democratic party had seen since before the War of Secession.

This was the first election in forty years in which a single party mustered a majority of the popular vote. The Socialists won in New England for the first time ever, and lost by double digits only in Kentucky, Houston, Wyoming, and Vermont.

The Republican nomination was won by Senate GOP leader James Watson of Indiana, then chiefly known for sustaining the Democratic filibusters of pension insurance and public utilities, the sole defeats of Sinclair's legislative program. He defeated Representative George Norris of Nebraska, who ardently supported public power and argued for a return to the GOP's progressive roots. Norris campaigned for the Socialist ticket, joined the administration after the election, and later became a Socialist.

Charles La Follette, the younger son of Robert La Follette, won election to the House this year. (His older brother Robert Jr. had been killed on Roanoke front in 1916, just a few weeks after their father had won re-election to the Senate.)

 

[bguy]

As a follow up to the New York politics entry, is there any chance of some mini-biographies on any of the following New Yorkers:

Elihu Root
Charles Evans Hughes
Henry Stimson
the Dulles Brothers
Henry Morgenthau, Jr.
William Randolph Hearst
Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (or any of TR's other children)
Jimmy Walker
Robert Moses
Robert Jackson
Felix Frankfurter
Learned Hand
Frank Hogan
Irving Ives
W. Averell Harriman
Nelson Rockefeller

 

[Nerdlinger]

United States presidential election, 1924

Upton Sinclair/Hosea Blackford - 50%,
James Cox/John Davis - 36%,
James Watson/William Kenyon - 10%

With the strikes over, the economy in full swing, and the Sinclair welfare legislation proving to be popular, most Democrats with national profile chose to sit out the election. James Cox, a well-regarded but colorless reform Democrat from Ohio, won the nomination over Senator Ritchie of Maryland and Governor Merriam of California. After both men declined the vice-presidential nomination, it was accepted by John Davis, the Democratic National Chairman.

There was brief hope that Sinclair would bungle the Canadian uprising, but the competent handling of the matter deflated the ticket even further, and the two lost by the worst margin the Democratic party had seen since before the War of Secession.

This was the first election in forty years in which a single party mustered a majority of the popular vote. The Socialists won in New England for the first time ever, and lost by double digits only in Kentucky, Houston, Wyoming, and Vermont.

The Republican nomination was won by Senate GOP leader James Watson of Indiana, then chiefly known for sustaining the Democratic filibusters of pension insurance and public utilities, the sole defeats of Sinclair's legislative program. He defeated Representative George Norris of Nebraska, who ardently supported public power and argued for a return to the GOP's progressive roots. Norris campaigned for the Socialist ticket, joined the administration after the election, and later became a Socialist.

Charles La Follette, the younger son of Robert La Follette, won election to the House this year. (His older brother Robert Jr. had been killed on Roanoke front in 1916, just a few weeks after their father had won re-election to the Senate.)

Very cool. Here's what I've got so far for presidential and VP candidates:

CS Presidential Elections 1867-1939
(From TL-191 canon and TL-191: Filling the Gaps by Craigo)

1867: P.G.T. Beauregard (W-LA)/James Seddon (?-VA) def. Robert M.T. Hunter (?-VA)/Richard Taylor (?-LA), Robert E. Lee (?-VA)/[various] (?)
[Note: Though Craigo suggests the CS Whig Party was formed during Longstreet's presidency, the books indicate every CS president up to Featherston was a Whig]

1873: Fitzhugh Lee (W-VA)/[various] (?) def. Braxton Bragg (?-?)/John Goode (?-VA), James Chesnut (?-SC)/Henry S. Foote (?-MS), Zebulon Vance (?-NC)/Herschel V. Johnson (?-GA), Joseph Emerson Brown (?-GA)/Thomas A.R. Nelson (?-TN)
[Note: No majority in the EC; Congress selected Lee as president and Foote as VP]

1879: James Longstreet (W-GA)/Lucius Q.C. Lamar (?-MS) def. Joseph Emerson Brown (?-GA)/Isham Harris (?-TN), John Hunt Morgan (?-KY)/John S. Barbour, Jr. (?-VA)

1885: ? (W-?)/? (W-?) def. ? (?-?)/? (?-?)
[Note: Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was suggested by Craigo as the winning candidate, but given his disdain for politics, it's highly improbable that he would run for president]

1891: States Rights Gist (W-SC)/? (W-?) def. ? (?-?)/? (?-?)

1897: Robert Love Taylor (W-TN)/? (W-?) def. ? (?-?)/? (?-?)

1903: Champ Clark (W-KY)/? (W-?) def. Thomas E. Watson (RL-GA)/? (RL-?)

1909: Woodrow Wilson (W-VA)/Gabriel Semmes* (W-AL) def. Thomas E. Watson (RL-GA)/? (RL-?)

1915: Gabriel Semmes* (W-AL)/? (W-?) def. Doroteo Arango (RL-CH)/? (RL-?)

1921: Wade Hampton V* (W-SC)/Charles Burton Mitchel III* (W-AR) def. Jake Featherston* (F-VA)/Ferdinand Koenig* (F-?), Ainsworth Layne* (RL-?)/? (RL-?)
[Note 1: Turtledove Wiki indicates Koenig's home state is VA, but this doesn't make sense because Featherston is from VA]
[Note 2: Hampton is assassinated June 15 (uncertain exactly when; date suggested here), 1922; Mitchel becomes president]

1927: Charles Burton Mitchel III* (W-AR)/? (W-?) def. Jake Featherston* (F-VA)/Ferdinand Koenig* (F-?), ? (RL-?)/? (RL-?)

1933: Jake Featherston* (F-VA)/Willy Knight* (F-TX) def. Cordell Hull (RL-TN)/Huey Long (RL-LA), Samuel Longstreet* (W-VA)/Hugo Black (W-AL)
[Note: Knight was removed from office at some date before the election in 1939]

1939: Jake Featherston* (F-VA)/Don Partridge* (F-TN) def. ? (RL-?)/? (RL-?), ? (W-?)/? (W-?)
[Note: Featherston is killed July 7, 1944; Partridge becomes president; CSA surrenders and presidency abolished July 14, 1944]

~~~~~~

US Presidential Elections 1864-1944
(From TL-191 canon and TL-191: Filling the Gaps by Craigo)

1864: Horatio Seymour (D-NY)/George Pendleton (D-OH) def. Abraham Lincoln (R-IL)/Hannibal Hamlin (R-ME)

1868: Thomas A. Hendricks (D-IN)/Joel Parker (D-NJ) def. Benjamin Gratz Brown (R-MO)/Frederick Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)

1872: George W. Woodward (D-PA)/Samuel S. Cox (D-OH) def. Thomas A. Scott (R-PA)/Benjamin Butler (R-MA)
[Note: Woodward dies in office on May 10, 1875 (his OTL death date); Cox becomes president]

1876: Samuel J. Tilden (D-NY)/Henry B. Payne (D-OH) def. Roscoe Conkling (R-NY)/James F. Wilson (R-IA)

1880: James G. Blaine (R-ME)/J. Donald Cameron (R-PA) def. Samuel J. Tilden (D-NY)/Henry B. Payne (D-OH)

1884: ? (D-?)/? (D-?) def. James G. Blaine (R-ME)/? (R-?), ? (S-?)/? (S-?)
[Note: Lincoln was suggested by Craigo as the Socialist candidate, but at 75 years old, his running seems very unlikely; it also would have been mentioned in the later books]

1888: Thomas Brackett Reed (D-ME)/? (D-?) def. James A. Garfield (R-OH)/Joseph Medill (R-IL), ? (S-?)/? (S-?)

1892: Thomas Brackett Reed (D-ME)/? (D-?) def. John Sherman (R-OH)/Justin Morrill (R-VT), Edward Bellamy (S-MA)/? (S-?)

1896: Alfred Thayer Mahan (D-NY)/? (D-?) def. Benjamin Harrison (R-IN)/? (R-?), ? (S-?)/Terence Powderly (S-PA)

1900: Alfred Thayer Mahan (D-NY)/? (D-?) def. John Hay (R-?)/? (R-?), ? (S-?)/Jacob S. Coxey (S-OH)

1904: Nelson Aldrich (D-RI)/? (D-?) def. William McKinley (R-OH)/? (R-NE), Robert M. La Follette (S-WI)/? (S-?)
[Note: Myron Zuckerman* (S-NY) was suggested by Craigo as La Follette's running mate, but this is dubious, as nothing was mentioned of it in the books]

1908: Nelson Aldrich (D-RI)/? (D-?) def. Philander C. Knox (R-PA)/? (R-?), Tom L. Johnson (S-OH)/Emil Seidel (S-WI)
[Note: May have been Debs who ran for the Socialists in 1908; canon is ambiguous]

1912: Theodore Roosevelt (D-NY)/Walter McKenna* (D-PA) def. Gilbert Hitchcock (R-NE)/? (R-?), Eugene V. Debs (S-IN)/? (S-?)
[Note: Craigo suggested his fictional character Douglas Steffens as Debs's running mate]

1916: Theodore Roosevelt (D-NY)/Walter McKenna* (D-PA) def. ? (R-?)/? (R-?), Eugene V. Debs (S-IN)/Joseph Guffey (S-PA)

1920: Upton Sinclair (S-NJ)/Hosea Blackford* (S-DA) def. Theodore Roosevelt (D-NY)/Walter McKenna* (D-PA), Charles Curtis (R-KS)/James E. Watson (R-IN)
[Note: Canon implies but doesn't confirm McKenna is TR's running mate again; Craigo suggested William Allen White (D-KS) instead of McKenna]

1924: Upton Sinclair (S-NJ)/Hosea Blackford* (S-DA) def. James M. Cox (D-OH)/John W. Davis (D-WV), James E. Watson (R-IN)/William S. Kenyon (R-IA)

1928: Hosea Blackford* (S-DA)/Hiram Johnson (S-CA) def. Calvin Coolidge (D-MA)/Amos Pinchot (D-NY), James E. Watson (R-IN)/? (R-?)

1932: Calvin Coolidge (D-MA)/Herbert Hoover (D-CA) def. Hanford MacNider (R-IA)/? (R-?), Hosea Blackford* (S-DA)/Hiram Johnson (S-CA)
[Note: Coolidge dies on January 5, 1933, after the electoral vote but before inauguration; Hoover becomes president]

1936: Al Smith (S-NY)/Charles W. La Follette* (S-WI) def. Herbert Hoover (D-CA)/William Borah (D-ID), Arthur H. Vandenberg (R-MI)/? (R-?)

1940: Al Smith (S-NY)/Charles W. La Follette* (S-WI) def. Robert Taft (D-OH)/Henry Styles Bridges (D-NH), Wendell Willkie (R-IN)/? (R-?)
[Note 1: Smith is killed on March 27 (uncertain exactly when; date suggested here), 1942; La Follette becomes president]
[Note 2: Alf Landon was (offhandedly) suggested by Craigo as a running mate for Willkie]

1944: Thomas Dewey (D-NY)/Harry Truman (D-MO) def. Harold Stassen (R-MN)/? (R-?), Charles W. La Follette* (S-WI)/Jim Curley (S-MA)

~~~~~~

US Presidential Elections 1948-present
(From TL-191: After the End by David bar Elias)

1948: Thomas Dewey (D-NY)/Harry Truman (D-MO) def. Harold Stassen (R-MN)/Smith Altrock^ (R-CA), Henry Wallace (S-IA)/Rexford Tugwell (S-NY)

1952: Harry Truman (D-MO)/Irving Morrell* (D-KS) def. Harold Stassen (R-MN)/Cecil Schneider II^ (R-IL), Adlai Stevenson II (S-IL)/Earl Warren (S-CA)

1956: Harry Truman (D-MO)/Irving Morrell* (D-KS) def. Harold Stassen (R-MN)/John Hoyland^ (R-NE), William Averell Harriman (S-NY)/Basil O'Connor (S-MA)

1960: Hubert Humphrey (S-MN)/Warren Magnuson (S-WA) def. John W. Bricker (D-OH)/Nicholas Peterson^ (D-PA), Harold Stassen (R-MN)/William Ward^ (R-IN)

1964: Hubert Humphrey (S-MN)/Warren Magnuson (S-WA) def. Henry Cabot Lodge (D-MA)/Benjamin Cooper^ (D-MI), Walter Judd (R-MN)/Garrett Schuster^ (R-NE)

1968: Hubert Humphrey (S-MN)/Warren Magnuson (S-WA) def. James Rhodes (D-OH)/George Sabastiani^ (D-NM), Bryson Briggs^ (R-NE)/Hunter Jardine^ (R-MT)

1972: Joshua Blackford* (D-NY)/James Rhodes (D-OH) def. Philip Ioannidis^ (R-NV)/Marcus Svendson^ (R-DA), Terrance Hobson^ (S-CA)/Charles Piatek^ (S-MI)

1976: Joshua Blackford* (D-NY)/James Rhodes (D-OH) def. George Sidney^ (R-IA)/? (R-?), Dwight O'Hare^ (S-NY)/Carl Martin* (S-CA)

1980: Morgan Reynolds^ (R-BC)/John S. Smith^ (R-?) def. Mildred Morrell-Quigley* (D-KS)/? (D-?), Theodore Abner Abell^ (S-?)/? (S-?)

1984: Morgan Reynolds^ (R-BC)/John S. Smith^ (R-?) def. Porter Schmitt^ (D-IL)/? (D-?), Robert Bronowski^ (S-PA)/? (S-?)

1988: Leo Enos* (S-MA)/Alfred Turnbull^ (S-ON) def. Archibald Young^ (D-MN)/? (D-?), John S. Smith^ (R-?)/? (R-?)

1992: Thurston DeFrancis^ (D-CA)/Theodore A. Kent^ (D-MO) def. Patrick Gutierrez^ (R-NM)/Gerald Philippson^ (R-IL), Alfred Turnbull^ (S-ON)/Chandler Suggitt^ (S-CA)

1996: Patrick Gutierrez^ (R-NM)/? (R-?) def. Thurston DeFrancis^ (D-CA)/? (D-?), Jonathan Wyden^ (S-MN)/? (S-?)

2000: TBA

2004: TBA

2008: TBA

2012: TBA

~~~~~~

* = Fictional character (HT)
^ = Fictional character (DBE)

Inauguration Day
US 1864-1928, CS 1867-1939: March 4 of the year after the election
US 1932-present: February 1 of the year after the election

 

[stirlingdraka]

Great updates Craigo.

 

[Craigo]

I checked the 1916 election - not only did Debs carry Wyoming (I had thought there were too many ranchers, not enough miners), but he somehow won New York as well. I have hard time seeing how Debs can win them and Sinclair not, so I'll have to edit the 1920 post.

 

[Indigo]

May I make a suggestion for the winner in 1885 if Stonewall Jackson doesn't work (and it doesn't seem to given what his attitude towards politics was in HFR) That suggestion would be Jabez L. M. Curry, who was high up in the confederate congress, as well as in the army, and would be the right age both to have been a high ranking general in the Second Mexican War and to run in 1885. Also, politically he seems like he'd be a compromise between the Longstreet and Hampton factions of the Whigs.

 

[Turquoise Blue]

I checked the 1916 election - not only did Debs carry Wyoming (I had thought there were too many ranchers, not enough miners), but he somehow won New York as well. I have hard time seeing how Debs can win them and Sinclair not, so I'll have to edit the 1920 post.

Actually, I think it only said that Debs was leading, not winning it.