A or non partisan or bi partisan President

Derek Jackson

I understand that Earl Warren won both party's nomination for California governor.

In 1948 many Democrats wanted Eisenhower to be their Presidential candidate

In 1952 of course Ike got to be a Republican President

WI in 1948 General Eisenhower announced that he was very worried about the damaging partisan divisions and that to solve them he would be seeking the nomination of both parties?
 

Corbell Mark IV

I have considered this in the past, specifically with Colin Powell, but Ike sounds good to.

Could work, or even if it doesn't could make for a very interesting percedant.

Hell, Reagan was so popular in 1984, he might have been able to pull that off.:D
 

Dave

I know Nixon wanted to start his own party by running with the Democrat in his cabinet. Connelly, I believe his name was. Yes. That would be something. A President leaving a party in midterm.
 

Baskilisk

Banned
Ike ran for the Republicans because they got to him sooner. He was not a political man...He never even registered to vote. So I don't think it's quite what you mean.
 

ColeMercury

Derek Jackson said:
WI in 1948 General Eisenhower announced that he was very worried about the damaging partisan divisions and that to solve them he would be seeking the nomination of both parties?
Click to expand...
He'd probably win both, given what people thought of Truman... but I doubt that'd be the reason why he'd do it. The 1948 election would be practically a coronation - would there be any third parties who could make any kind of showing? Any electoral votes?

Corbell Mark IV said:
Hell, Reagan was so popular in 1984, he might have been able to pull that off.:D
Click to expand...
The whole being-against-everything-the-Democratic-Party-stands-for thing notwithstanding, of course. :rolleyes:
 

Xen

Banned
Baskilisk said:
Ike ran for the Republicans because they got to him sooner. He was not a political man...He never even registered to vote. So I don't think it's quite what you mean.
Click to expand...

Ike ran for the GOP because he believed their domestic policies to be closer to his own, and he believed the DNC was screwing up in confronting the Soviet Union. The Korean War being a big glaring example.

I don't think it would have taken much for him to go over to the DNC though, perhaps the GOP decides to go with Robert Taft as its nominee (he nearly beat Eisenhower out in OTL) and Ike who dislike's Taft at this point joins the DNC wins their nomination and the Presidency
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
Suggestion One

Can the Crash of 1929 produce a National Government in the USA, as it did in the United Kingdom in 1931?

Suggestion Two

What POD can have the American President become a non-party-political Head of State, similar in that respect to the British Monarchy?
 
Last edited:

Corbell Mark IV

LorienTheYounger said:
...

The whole being-against-everything-the-Democratic-Party-stands-for thing notwithstanding, of course. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Everything?

The economy was booming, the military was being upgraded and we were pushing the Sovs all over the place.

Hmm, good point, the Democrate Party is against all of that.;)

Now Democratic voters...:cool:
 
Magniac

Magniac

Warren was running in California's unique electoral system. It's the same system in which Nixon was on the Dem and GOP ballot for his congressional re-election in '48.

It didn't exist outside that state, AFAIK, and it certainly wouldn't be adopted nationally by the US without some major butterflies occurring first. It'd be easier to give America a workable multi-party system than a nationwide Californian one (and California dropped cross-party primay races in the fifties).

Anyway, strangely enough, a non-partisan POTUS during this timeframe is easy. Just have Harry Truman die sometime between the last days of January and the first half of July, nineteen forty-seven, when George Marshall was secretary of state and first in line to the presidency. July was when the Presidential Succession Act replaced the SoS with the speaker of the House as first in line to the VP-less Truman.
 

Dan Reilly The Great

Banned
this depends on what you mean by "non-partisan" do you mean no direct affiliation or membership with either major political party, or a president who wins on one parties ticket, but denounces his party shortly after winning the election. Perhaps you could get what you want if you let perot win in '92, he would have no fellow reform party members in either the house or senate and would effectively be running with bi partisan support or no support at all. You could get a really rich guy like say Bill Gates finance his entire campaign by himself and runs on an independent ticket. You could also get some president who pulls an Arlen Specter: gets elected on one parties ticket, pisses off both sides of the isle so he doesn't like his chances of winning a primary in either party and so he dumps both sides and goes with lets say the Green Party or something and wins the national elections by a narrow margin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top