Alternate Electoral Maps III
- Thread starter killertahu22
- Start date
Considering making some wikiboxes for an alternate 1964 election where early polling showing Johnson beating Goldwater 77% to 18% is accurate. The polls by the end of the election were off by around 6%, so I'm figuring a Johnson win of around 71%, a swing of around 20% from OTL
Figured I'd start off making some congressional maps. Not sure if that full swing of 20% would be seen downballot, so first, here's a map where the Dems get a 10% swing from otl in the House. It isn't quite the apocalyptic map for the GOP that might have been...
...with just a loss of 85 seats, not even as bad as 1932 was for the GOP. Nonetheless it is a very big win, with the Dems ending up with 343 seats (48 more than OTL), and the GOP put below 100 seats, holding just 92 seats. They still flip some seats in some states in the ex-confederate states, the only area (apart from an instance of redistricting in Wisconsin) they flipped any seats, but even there, they lose seats in more states than they gain seats, and the number of seats they flip is equal to the number of seats they lose. Popular vote was 62% D to 37% R
In the Senate, the Dems hold California and flip every single seat held by a Republican except Nebraska, bringing their total up to 74 seats with a gain of 8...
Now, with a 15% swing, the Dems get the largest swing in US House history, narrowly beating out the 1894 GOP gain of 111 seats (though with it being ever so slightly less in terms of the percentage of House seats flipped, since there were fewer seats in 1894) by having a net gain of 114 (77 more than OTL) seats, for a total of 372 seats. The GOP hold only 15% of the House, with just 63 seats. Popular vote is about D: 64.5% to R: 34.5%
The Senate remains the same as the +10% map
And with a 20% swing (along the lines of the Presidential election in this scenario)...
...absolute carnage. A popular vote win of around 67% D to 32% R, for a net gain of 139 for the Dems, 102 more than OTL and by far the largest House gains both absolutely and in terms of percentage flipped. Dems end up with 397 seats, while the GOP end up with 38, under 10%
And the Senate still remains the same, though the Dems come within just a couple percent of flipping Nebraska and thus winning every single senate contest in that year
Any thoughts on what would happen in scenarios like these? Would the Great Society end up much more ambitious, perhaps with some sort of single payer health program, a national education program, and some other ideas like a universal basic income and a push for full employment (that goes further than the Humphrey-Hawkins 1978 act), or at least some of those things? The Democrats would hold very large majorities in even the most minimal situation, but on the other hand, the moderate to conservative southern Democrats remain a potential issue, and some of the seats gained in the north are just seats flipped from liberal Republicans anyway (though it could be possible that a Democrat in those areas could still be more willing to sign on to, say, single payer healthcare than even a Rockefeller Republican in some cases). At any rate, I'd imagine the Great Society would end up somewhat more ambitious, though it could still fail to live up to progressive hopes regarding things like healthcare
And what does the Republican Party do? They retain, even in the worst of scenarios, a core of around a third of the electorate, and could still be poised to make some huge gains in 1966, without Goldwater dragging them down, which could get them to about where they were in OTL, though the senate elections would make things harder for them there over a longer period. But could they survive such painful losses in the short term? I am having trouble finding references to it, but I recall reading somewhere that Reagan had floated the idea of renaming and rebranding the GOP after Watergate and the 1974 election losses, but that never ended up happening. Here, though, the losses are worse than in 1974. Could that perhaps cause some sort of split or chaos among the different wings of the GOP, or would it just end up with them bouncing back about as well as they did in OTL, perhaps just a bit worse due to more Dems with incumbent advantage, or perhaps it holds about even due to a more ambitious Great Society generating more midterm backlash?
Also, I wonder if these results plus a more ambitious Great Society could lead to a somewhat different 1968 election that leads to more of a southern split. In OTL, Wallace split off to form the American Independent Party, but even Congressional southern Dems who supported him didn't split off to join him, nor did any of the AIP candidates for Congress get more than single digit percentages in any districts, for a national total of just 0.3% of the popular vote. I wonder if Wallace could end up with more support, both personally and with more congressional Dems splitting off and performing better as third party candidates, with the GOP having suffered such a big defeat, with Wallace perhaps being able to be more credible among conservative voters than a Republican
Figured I'd start off making some congressional maps. Not sure if that full swing of 20% would be seen downballot, so first, here's a map where the Dems get a 10% swing from otl in the House. It isn't quite the apocalyptic map for the GOP that might have been...
...with just a loss of 85 seats, not even as bad as 1932 was for the GOP. Nonetheless it is a very big win, with the Dems ending up with 343 seats (48 more than OTL), and the GOP put below 100 seats, holding just 92 seats. They still flip some seats in some states in the ex-confederate states, the only area (apart from an instance of redistricting in Wisconsin) they flipped any seats, but even there, they lose seats in more states than they gain seats, and the number of seats they flip is equal to the number of seats they lose. Popular vote was 62% D to 37% R
In the Senate, the Dems hold California and flip every single seat held by a Republican except Nebraska, bringing their total up to 74 seats with a gain of 8...
Now, with a 15% swing, the Dems get the largest swing in US House history, narrowly beating out the 1894 GOP gain of 111 seats (though with it being ever so slightly less in terms of the percentage of House seats flipped, since there were fewer seats in 1894) by having a net gain of 114 (77 more than OTL) seats, for a total of 372 seats. The GOP hold only 15% of the House, with just 63 seats. Popular vote is about D: 64.5% to R: 34.5%
The Senate remains the same as the +10% map
And with a 20% swing (along the lines of the Presidential election in this scenario)...
...absolute carnage. A popular vote win of around 67% D to 32% R, for a net gain of 139 for the Dems, 102 more than OTL and by far the largest House gains both absolutely and in terms of percentage flipped. Dems end up with 397 seats, while the GOP end up with 38, under 10%
And the Senate still remains the same, though the Dems come within just a couple percent of flipping Nebraska and thus winning every single senate contest in that year
Any thoughts on what would happen in scenarios like these? Would the Great Society end up much more ambitious, perhaps with some sort of single payer health program, a national education program, and some other ideas like a universal basic income and a push for full employment (that goes further than the Humphrey-Hawkins 1978 act), or at least some of those things? The Democrats would hold very large majorities in even the most minimal situation, but on the other hand, the moderate to conservative southern Democrats remain a potential issue, and some of the seats gained in the north are just seats flipped from liberal Republicans anyway (though it could be possible that a Democrat in those areas could still be more willing to sign on to, say, single payer healthcare than even a Rockefeller Republican in some cases). At any rate, I'd imagine the Great Society would end up somewhat more ambitious, though it could still fail to live up to progressive hopes regarding things like healthcare
And what does the Republican Party do? They retain, even in the worst of scenarios, a core of around a third of the electorate, and could still be poised to make some huge gains in 1966, without Goldwater dragging them down, which could get them to about where they were in OTL, though the senate elections would make things harder for them there over a longer period. But could they survive such painful losses in the short term? I am having trouble finding references to it, but I recall reading somewhere that Reagan had floated the idea of renaming and rebranding the GOP after Watergate and the 1974 election losses, but that never ended up happening. Here, though, the losses are worse than in 1974. Could that perhaps cause some sort of split or chaos among the different wings of the GOP, or would it just end up with them bouncing back about as well as they did in OTL, perhaps just a bit worse due to more Dems with incumbent advantage, or perhaps it holds about even due to a more ambitious Great Society generating more midterm backlash?
Also, I wonder if these results plus a more ambitious Great Society could lead to a somewhat different 1968 election that leads to more of a southern split. In OTL, Wallace split off to form the American Independent Party, but even Congressional southern Dems who supported him didn't split off to join him, nor did any of the AIP candidates for Congress get more than single digit percentages in any districts, for a national total of just 0.3% of the popular vote. I wonder if Wallace could end up with more support, both personally and with more congressional Dems splitting off and performing better as third party candidates, with the GOP having suffered such a big defeat, with Wallace perhaps being able to be more credible among conservative voters than a Republican
@Col. Angus I suppose in this scenario Mississippi and Alabama (the only states outside of a 20% margin) would be won by faithless electors which could explain the 5% who didn't vote for either major party.
Maybe. I was kind of just assuming Goldwater would win both states since he did absolutely dominate them OTL. I didn't have a particular scenario in mind other than a vague "Goldwater somehow fucks it up even worse", and perhaps some things like the Walter Jenkins incident not occuring, but maybe a situation with a more concerted unpledged electors movement or Wallace choosing to run as a third party or state's rights Democratic ticket like the one from 1948 could also be a thing here
"Theophilic" and "Whiggish" are excellent names for parties.
List of the Presidents of the United States:
1-27 1789-1914 Before POD and as such as OTL.
28 1912-1916 Woodrow Wilson (Democratic); def: Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive) and William Howard Taft (Republican)
1916-1920 Woodrow Wilson (Democratic); def: Charles Evans Hughes (Republican)
29 1920-1923 Warren G. Harding (Republican); def: James M. Cox (Democratic)
30 1923-1924 Calvin Coolidge (Republican); Harding died in office
1924-1928 Calvin Coolidge (Republican); def: John W. Davis (Democratic) and Robert M. La Follette (Progressive)
31 1928-1932 Herbert Hoover (Republican); def: Al Smith (Democratic)
32 1932-1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic); def: Herbert Hoover (Republican)
1936-1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic); def: Alf Landon (Republican)
1940-1944 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic); def: Wendell Willkie (Republican)
33 1944-1945 Douglas MacArthur (Democratic); def: Thomas E. Dewey (Republican) (FDR did not attempt reelection because of the war. Eisenhower was Dewey's running mate )
34 1945-1948 Harry S. Truman (Democratic); was MacArthur's Vice President. MacArthur was forced to resign after the war.
1948-1952 Harry S. Truman (Democratic); def: Thomas E. Dewey (Republican) (as a general of the war Eisenhower could not run for office due to pressure from victorious powers) and Strom Thurmond (States Rights)
35 1952-1956 Richard Nixon (Republican) (while Californian would stay in USA and not go to PSA); def: Strom Thurmond (States Rights) and Adlai Stevenson (Democratic)
1956-1960 Richard Nixon (Republican); def: Strom Thurmond (States Rights)
36 1960-1964 Strom Thurmond (States Rights); def: Spiro Agnew (Republican)
37 1964-1968 Lyndon B. Johnson (States Rights); def: Gerald Ford (Republican)
1968-1972 Lyndon B. Johnson (States Rights); def: Gerald Ford (Republican)
38 1972-1976 Gerald Ford (Republican); def: Hubert Humphrey (States Rights) (Got no electoral college votes, States Rights Party is replaced by the Nationalist Party)
39 1976-1980 Walter Mondale (Nationalist); def: Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)
40 1980-1984 Ronald Reagan (Reagan'ite Nationalist); def: Walter Mondale (Nationalist) and Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)
1984-1988 Ronald Reagan (Nationalist); def: Lloyd Bentsen (Liberal)
41 1988-1992 George H.W. Bush (Nationalist); def: Lloyd Bentsen (Liberal)
1992-1996 George H.W. Bush (Nationalist); def: Bill Clinton (Liberal)
42 1996-2000 Bill Clinton (Liberal); def: Bob Dole (Nationalist)
43 2000-2004 George W. Bush (Nationalist); def: Tim Walz (Liberal)
2004-2008 George W. Bush (Nationalist); def: Tim Walz (Liberal)
44 2008-2012 Dick Cheney (Nationalist); def: Penny Flanagan (Liberal)
2012-2016 Dick Cheney (Nationalist); def: Jared Polis (Liberal)
45 2016-2020 Mike Pence (Nationalist); def: John Bel Edwards (Liberal)
1-27 1789-1914 Before POD and as such as OTL.
28 1912-1916 Woodrow Wilson (Democratic); def: Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive) and William Howard Taft (Republican)
1916-1920 Woodrow Wilson (Democratic); def: Charles Evans Hughes (Republican)
29 1920-1923 Warren G. Harding (Republican); def: James M. Cox (Democratic)
30 1923-1924 Calvin Coolidge (Republican); Harding died in office
1924-1928 Calvin Coolidge (Republican); def: John W. Davis (Democratic) and Robert M. La Follette (Progressive)
31 1928-1932 Herbert Hoover (Republican); def: Al Smith (Democratic)
32 1932-1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic); def: Herbert Hoover (Republican)
1936-1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic); def: Alf Landon (Republican)
1940-1944 Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic); def: Wendell Willkie (Republican)
33 1944-1945 Douglas MacArthur (Democratic); def: Thomas E. Dewey (Republican) (FDR did not attempt reelection because of the war. Eisenhower was Dewey's running mate )
34 1945-1948 Harry S. Truman (Democratic); was MacArthur's Vice President. MacArthur was forced to resign after the war.
1948-1952 Harry S. Truman (Democratic); def: Thomas E. Dewey (Republican) (as a general of the war Eisenhower could not run for office due to pressure from victorious powers) and Strom Thurmond (States Rights)
35 1952-1956 Richard Nixon (Republican) (while Californian would stay in USA and not go to PSA); def: Strom Thurmond (States Rights) and Adlai Stevenson (Democratic)
1956-1960 Richard Nixon (Republican); def: Strom Thurmond (States Rights)
36 1960-1964 Strom Thurmond (States Rights); def: Spiro Agnew (Republican)
37 1964-1968 Lyndon B. Johnson (States Rights); def: Gerald Ford (Republican)
1968-1972 Lyndon B. Johnson (States Rights); def: Gerald Ford (Republican)
38 1972-1976 Gerald Ford (Republican); def: Hubert Humphrey (States Rights) (Got no electoral college votes, States Rights Party is replaced by the Nationalist Party)
39 1976-1980 Walter Mondale (Nationalist); def: Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)
40 1980-1984 Ronald Reagan (Reagan'ite Nationalist); def: Walter Mondale (Nationalist) and Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)
1984-1988 Ronald Reagan (Nationalist); def: Lloyd Bentsen (Liberal)
41 1988-1992 George H.W. Bush (Nationalist); def: Lloyd Bentsen (Liberal)
1992-1996 George H.W. Bush (Nationalist); def: Bill Clinton (Liberal)
42 1996-2000 Bill Clinton (Liberal); def: Bob Dole (Nationalist)
43 2000-2004 George W. Bush (Nationalist); def: Tim Walz (Liberal)
2004-2008 George W. Bush (Nationalist); def: Tim Walz (Liberal)
44 2008-2012 Dick Cheney (Nationalist); def: Penny Flanagan (Liberal)
2012-2016 Dick Cheney (Nationalist); def: Jared Polis (Liberal)
45 2016-2020 Mike Pence (Nationalist); def: John Bel Edwards (Liberal)
List of the Presidents of the Pacific States:
1945-1948 Earl Warren (Republican); unelected. Made interim President by the Japanese as he was the Governor of California.
1948-1952 Earl Warren (Pacific Republican); def: Pat Brown (Independent), Alfonso García González (Independent)
1952-1956 Goodwin Knight (Pacific Republican); def: Richard P. Graves (Independent), Alfonso García González (Independent)
1956-1960 Goodwin Knight (Pacific Republican); def: Robert D. Holmes (Independent), Alfonso García González (Independent)
1960-1964 John F. Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: John W. Bonner (Pan-American Democratic), George Dewey Clyde (Utah First), Eligio Esquivel Méndez (Independent)
1964-1968 John F. Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: John W. Bonner (Pan-American Democratic), George Dewey Clyde (Utah First), Robert W. Straub (Cascadian Union), Braulio Maldonado Sandez (Baja)
1968-1972 Robert F. Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: Pat Brown (Pan-American Democratic), Calvin L. Rampton (Utah First), Robert W. Straub (Cascadian Union), Braulio Maldonado Sandez (Baja), William Allen Egan (Independent)
1972-1976 Neil Goldschmidt (Dissolution); def: Robert F. Kennedy (Pacific Republican)
List of the Presidents of the Pacific Federation:
1976-1980 Robert Finch (Pacific Republican); def: Scott M. Matheson (Utah First), Jerry Brown (Pan-American Democratic), Mervyn Dymally (Social Democratic)
1980-1984 Robert Finch (Pacific Republican); def: Richard Lamm (Pan-American Democratic), Scott M. Matheson (Utah First), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
1984-1988 Ted Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic), Norman H. Bangerter (Utah First), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
1988-1992 Ted Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic), Norman H. Bangerter (Utah First), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
1992-1996 Cruz Bustamante (Pacific Republican); def: Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
1996-2000 Cruz Bustamante (Pacific Republican); def: Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
2000-2004 Gavin Newsom (Pacific Republican); def: Jerry Brown (Social Democratic), Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic)
2004-2008 Jerry Brown (Social Democratic); def: Mona Pasquil (Pacific Republican), Bill Richardson (Pan-American Democratic)
2008-2012 Jerry Brown (Social Democratic); def: Norman Mineta (Pacific Republican), Michelle Lujan Grisham (Pan-American Democratic)
2012-2016 Eleni Kounalakis (Social Democratic); def: Francis Fukuyama (Pacific Republican)
List of the Presidents of the 2nd California Republic:
2016-2020 Eleni Kounalakis (Social Democratic); def: Eunice Sato (Pacific Republican)
1945-1948 Earl Warren (Republican); unelected. Made interim President by the Japanese as he was the Governor of California.
1948-1952 Earl Warren (Pacific Republican); def: Pat Brown (Independent), Alfonso García González (Independent)
1952-1956 Goodwin Knight (Pacific Republican); def: Richard P. Graves (Independent), Alfonso García González (Independent)
1956-1960 Goodwin Knight (Pacific Republican); def: Robert D. Holmes (Independent), Alfonso García González (Independent)
1960-1964 John F. Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: John W. Bonner (Pan-American Democratic), George Dewey Clyde (Utah First), Eligio Esquivel Méndez (Independent)
1964-1968 John F. Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: John W. Bonner (Pan-American Democratic), George Dewey Clyde (Utah First), Robert W. Straub (Cascadian Union), Braulio Maldonado Sandez (Baja)
1968-1972 Robert F. Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: Pat Brown (Pan-American Democratic), Calvin L. Rampton (Utah First), Robert W. Straub (Cascadian Union), Braulio Maldonado Sandez (Baja), William Allen Egan (Independent)
1972-1976 Neil Goldschmidt (Dissolution); def: Robert F. Kennedy (Pacific Republican)
List of the Presidents of the Pacific Federation:
1976-1980 Robert Finch (Pacific Republican); def: Scott M. Matheson (Utah First), Jerry Brown (Pan-American Democratic), Mervyn Dymally (Social Democratic)
1980-1984 Robert Finch (Pacific Republican); def: Richard Lamm (Pan-American Democratic), Scott M. Matheson (Utah First), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
1984-1988 Ted Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic), Norman H. Bangerter (Utah First), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
1988-1992 Ted Kennedy (Pacific Republican); def: Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic), Norman H. Bangerter (Utah First), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
1992-1996 Cruz Bustamante (Pacific Republican); def: Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
1996-2000 Cruz Bustamante (Pacific Republican); def: Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic), Jerry Brown (Social Democratic)
2000-2004 Gavin Newsom (Pacific Republican); def: Jerry Brown (Social Democratic), Roy Romer (Pan-American Democratic)
2004-2008 Jerry Brown (Social Democratic); def: Mona Pasquil (Pacific Republican), Bill Richardson (Pan-American Democratic)
2008-2012 Jerry Brown (Social Democratic); def: Norman Mineta (Pacific Republican), Michelle Lujan Grisham (Pan-American Democratic)
2012-2016 Eleni Kounalakis (Social Democratic); def: Francis Fukuyama (Pacific Republican)
List of the Presidents of the 2nd California Republic:
2016-2020 Eleni Kounalakis (Social Democratic); def: Eunice Sato (Pacific Republican)
All three in the same Timeline.
The American Stratocracy
[ASB]
FDR passes away in 1921, which results in Al Smith getting the democratic nomination for President in 1932 instead. In a major upset, Hoover defeats Smith in a closer rematch of 1928. As the economy worsens, protests become larger and more violent, and eventually break into riots. The idea of socialism becomes more viable as a means of fixing the economy. Douglas MacArthur, still Chief of Staff of the Army, continues to suppress the protests. By 1935 the nation is in a midst of chaos. On October 31, 1935 an anarchist rioter shoots President Hoover while he visited Chicago. The 61 year old President was critically and fatally wounded. Vice President Curtis suffered an earlier heart attack upon hearing the news. With this Secretary of State Henry Stimson took over as acting President. Stimson was only acting President, however, and he was not recognized as legitimate. Norman Thomas emerged as the frontrunner for the Socialist candidacy for President in the election of 1936. Huey Long attempted to get the Democratic nomination for President, but was assassinated before he could do so, and the Democrats with no one else left, effectively collapsed on a national standing. MacArthur, who had garnered national attention, ran on the Republican side as the man who could end the crisis. He established a national unity ticket with Harry F. Byrd to gain support.
Douglas MacArthur/Harry F. Byrd (National Union) 510 electoral votes, 97% [Government recognized] 59% [Unofficial]
Norman Thomas/Various (Socialist) 0 electoral votes [Government recognized] 21 electoral votes [Unofficial] 0% [Government recognized] 40% [Unofficial]
MacArthur takes full charge of a 1937 Constitutional Convention, turning the United States government into a council of military chiefs that manage national and foreign security matters. Basic rights such as the 1st and 2nd amendments are protected but limited. The electoral college is also done away with, instead being replaced with a council election amongst the chiefs, taking place every 5 years
[ASB]
FDR passes away in 1921, which results in Al Smith getting the democratic nomination for President in 1932 instead. In a major upset, Hoover defeats Smith in a closer rematch of 1928. As the economy worsens, protests become larger and more violent, and eventually break into riots. The idea of socialism becomes more viable as a means of fixing the economy. Douglas MacArthur, still Chief of Staff of the Army, continues to suppress the protests. By 1935 the nation is in a midst of chaos. On October 31, 1935 an anarchist rioter shoots President Hoover while he visited Chicago. The 61 year old President was critically and fatally wounded. Vice President Curtis suffered an earlier heart attack upon hearing the news. With this Secretary of State Henry Stimson took over as acting President. Stimson was only acting President, however, and he was not recognized as legitimate. Norman Thomas emerged as the frontrunner for the Socialist candidacy for President in the election of 1936. Huey Long attempted to get the Democratic nomination for President, but was assassinated before he could do so, and the Democrats with no one else left, effectively collapsed on a national standing. MacArthur, who had garnered national attention, ran on the Republican side as the man who could end the crisis. He established a national unity ticket with Harry F. Byrd to gain support.
Douglas MacArthur/Harry F. Byrd (National Union) 510 electoral votes, 97% [Government recognized] 59% [Unofficial]
Norman Thomas/Various (Socialist) 0 electoral votes [Government recognized] 21 electoral votes [Unofficial] 0% [Government recognized] 40% [Unofficial]
MacArthur takes full charge of a 1937 Constitutional Convention, turning the United States government into a council of military chiefs that manage national and foreign security matters. Basic rights such as the 1st and 2nd amendments are protected but limited. The electoral college is also done away with, instead being replaced with a council election amongst the chiefs, taking place every 5 years
Last edited:
Franklin Pierce (D-NH)/George Pendleton (D-OH), 52.45% of the popular vote, 172 electoral votes
Abraham Lincoln (R-IL)/Andrew Johnson (D-TN), 47.5% of the popular vote, 61 electoral votes.
Civil War goes badly for the Union, Pierce is nominated by Democrats and defeats Lincoln.
Last edited:
And now a less ASB version of "American Stratocracy" which results in not a stratocracy, but a just as oligarchical system.
Hoover, Long, and the Second Civil War
Hoover wins 1932, Depression worsens, same stuff as in last post. However, Hoover isnt assassinated, MacArthur doesnt run for President, and Long isn't assassinated either. Same irl Republican ticket in 1936, while Long beats James Farley by uniting the southern, left wing, conservative, and anti catholic vote against Farley. Long's pick of isolationist Democratic Massachusetts senator David I. Walsh for his running mate throws the catholics to Long. With a massive coalition of southern democrats, social democrats of the Farmer Labor, Wisconsin Progressive, and Nonpartisan League parties, and a large chunk of catholics, Long brings about the largest landslide victory ever seen up to that point, the only opposition coming from the Northeastern corridor of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
I'll make a TL for this later
Hoover, Long, and the Second Civil War
Hoover wins 1932, Depression worsens, same stuff as in last post. However, Hoover isnt assassinated, MacArthur doesnt run for President, and Long isn't assassinated either. Same irl Republican ticket in 1936, while Long beats James Farley by uniting the southern, left wing, conservative, and anti catholic vote against Farley. Long's pick of isolationist Democratic Massachusetts senator David I. Walsh for his running mate throws the catholics to Long. With a massive coalition of southern democrats, social democrats of the Farmer Labor, Wisconsin Progressive, and Nonpartisan League parties, and a large chunk of catholics, Long brings about the largest landslide victory ever seen up to that point, the only opposition coming from the Northeastern corridor of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
I'll make a TL for this later
Wallace Beats Truman, 1944
1944 Election
Franklin D Roosevelt/Henry A Wallace (Democratic) 393 electoral votes
Thomas E Dewey/John W Bricker (Republican) 138 electoral votes
1948 Election
Thomas E Dewey/Earl Warren (Republican) 292 electoral votes
Harry S Truman/Alben W Barkley (Democratic) 184 electoral votes
Strom Thurmond/Fielding Wright (State's Rights) 39 electoral votes
Henry A Wallace/Glen Taylor (Progressive) 16 electoral votes
1952 Election
Thomas E Dewey/Earl Warren (Republican) 309 electoral votes
Adlai Stevenson/John Sparkman (Democratic) 186 electoral votes
Estes Kefauver/Hubert Humphrey (Progressive) 36 electoral votes
1956 Election
Earl Warren/Charles Halleck (Republican) 333 electoral votes
Averall Harriman/Lyndon B Johnson (Democratic) 120 electoral votes
Hubert Humphrey/Wayne Morse (Progressive) 43 electroal votes
Orval Faubus/John M Patterson (State's Rights) 35 electoral votes
1960 Election
John F. Kennedy/Wayne Morse (Progressive) 334 electoral votes
Barry Goldwater/Happy Chandler (Constitution) 83 electoral votes
Earl Warren/Charles Halleck (Republican) 64 electoral votes
Lyndon B Johnson/George Smathers (Democratic) 56 electoral votes
More coming soon
1944 Election
Franklin D Roosevelt/Henry A Wallace (Democratic) 393 electoral votes
Thomas E Dewey/John W Bricker (Republican) 138 electoral votes
1948 Election
Thomas E Dewey/Earl Warren (Republican) 292 electoral votes
Harry S Truman/Alben W Barkley (Democratic) 184 electoral votes
Strom Thurmond/Fielding Wright (State's Rights) 39 electoral votes
Henry A Wallace/Glen Taylor (Progressive) 16 electoral votes
1952 Election
Thomas E Dewey/Earl Warren (Republican) 309 electoral votes
Adlai Stevenson/John Sparkman (Democratic) 186 electoral votes
Estes Kefauver/Hubert Humphrey (Progressive) 36 electoral votes
1956 Election
Earl Warren/Charles Halleck (Republican) 333 electoral votes
Averall Harriman/Lyndon B Johnson (Democratic) 120 electoral votes
Hubert Humphrey/Wayne Morse (Progressive) 43 electroal votes
Orval Faubus/John M Patterson (State's Rights) 35 electoral votes
1960 Election
John F. Kennedy/Wayne Morse (Progressive) 334 electoral votes
Barry Goldwater/Happy Chandler (Constitution) 83 electoral votes
Earl Warren/Charles Halleck (Republican) 64 electoral votes
Lyndon B Johnson/George Smathers (Democratic) 56 electoral votes
More coming soon
1912 Election (5 man race scenario)
Theodore Roosevelt/Hiram Johnson (Progressive) 269 electoral votes ✓
Champ Clark/Thomas Marshall (Democratic) 174 electoral votes
William Howard Taft [Incumbent]/Nicholas M. Butler (Republican) 49 electoral votes
Eugene Debs/Emil Seidel (Socialist) 22 electoral votes
William Jennings Bryan/Denver S. Dickenson (People's) 17 electoral votes
Theodore Roosevelt/Hiram Johnson (Progressive) 269 electoral votes ✓
Champ Clark/Thomas Marshall (Democratic) 174 electoral votes
William Howard Taft [Incumbent]/Nicholas M. Butler (Republican) 49 electoral votes
Eugene Debs/Emil Seidel (Socialist) 22 electoral votes
William Jennings Bryan/Denver S. Dickenson (People's) 17 electoral votes
Four Years Early
1948 as 1952
Thomas E. Dewey/Earl Warren (Republican) 395 electoral votes, 52.74%
[Incumbent] Harry S. Truman/Alben W. Barkley (Democratic) 98 electoral votes, 41.89%
Strom Thurmond/Fielding Wright (Dixiecrat) 38 electoral votes, 2.41%
Closest States
Kentucky (0.05% Dewey)
Rhode Island (0.85% Truman)
Louisiana (1.01% Thurmond)
1960 as 1964
John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 531 electoral votes, 60.93%
Richard Nixon/Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (Republican) 6 electoral votes, 38.35%
Closest States
Nebraska (1.39% Nixon)
Kansas (1.40% Kennedy)
1968 as 1972
Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew (Republican) 500 electoral votes, 54.65%
Hubert Humphrey/Edmund Muskie (Democratic) 21 electoral votes, 31.50%
George Wallace/Curtis LeMay (American Independent) 17 electoral votes, 13.53%
Closest States
Hawaii (2.03% Nixon)
Massachusetts (6.97% Humphrey)
Mississippi (19.29% Wallace)
1976 as 1980
[Incumbent] Gerald Ford/Bob Dole (Republican) 459 electoral votes, 53.92%
Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale (Democratic) 78 electoral votes, 44.18%
Closest States
Rhode Island (0.52% Ford)
Minnesota (1.07% Carter)
1948 as 1952
Thomas E. Dewey/Earl Warren (Republican) 395 electoral votes, 52.74%
[Incumbent] Harry S. Truman/Alben W. Barkley (Democratic) 98 electoral votes, 41.89%
Strom Thurmond/Fielding Wright (Dixiecrat) 38 electoral votes, 2.41%
Closest States
Kentucky (0.05% Dewey)
Rhode Island (0.85% Truman)
Louisiana (1.01% Thurmond)
1960 as 1964
John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic) 531 electoral votes, 60.93%
Richard Nixon/Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (Republican) 6 electoral votes, 38.35%
Closest States
Nebraska (1.39% Nixon)
Kansas (1.40% Kennedy)
1968 as 1972
Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew (Republican) 500 electoral votes, 54.65%
Hubert Humphrey/Edmund Muskie (Democratic) 21 electoral votes, 31.50%
George Wallace/Curtis LeMay (American Independent) 17 electoral votes, 13.53%
Closest States
Hawaii (2.03% Nixon)
Massachusetts (6.97% Humphrey)
Mississippi (19.29% Wallace)
1976 as 1980
[Incumbent] Gerald Ford/Bob Dole (Republican) 459 electoral votes, 53.92%
Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale (Democratic) 78 electoral votes, 44.18%
Closest States
Rhode Island (0.52% Ford)
Minnesota (1.07% Carter)
It's been a while since I've done a Chinese provincial election map, so here's Inner Mongolia.
As one might imagine given its status as sister state to Mongolia (or Outer Mongolia, as it was historically known), Inner Mongolia has a rather distinct political system affected by its ties to that country and the interests of the Mongol people. For one thing, the Kuomintang has always been stronger in the cities of Inner Mongolia than the rural areas, while the People's Party (the local affiliate to the national Progressives, named for its association with the Mongolian People's Party on the other side of the border, though the divide is about as deep as the Co-Operative Party in the UK or Democratic Farmer-Labor and Democratic-Nonpartisan League parties in the US) does better in the countryside, mainly because the poor nomads who are the main inhabitants of the rural areas have historically felt more in common with Outer Mongolians (both by lifestyle and, in the case of ethnic Mongolians, by race) than with the nationalists in Beijing.
While the state has been left-leaning since the advent of democracy, only voting for a Kuomintang president once despite several close results, at the provincial level the Kuomintang have effectively fallen out of contention as an alternative government. The main reason for this was due to the ignominious collapse of the Kuomintang government of Hu Chunhua over the apparent murder of a Mongol herdsman by a coal truck driver in May 2011; his government's attempted response to this was undermined by an incident less than a week later where another coal miner killed a Manchu with a forklift. Riots broke out, non-Han figures started to criticize the fact that Hu believed himself to be able to relate to the plight of Inner Mongolia's minorities as a 'Han from Hubei', and when the scheduled election came that August, Hu's government was swept from office in a landslide defeat.
However, the People's Party did not capitalize quite as much on this as one might expect. They were forced into a coalition with the newly-formed Mongolian National Party (MNP), a rather ragtag left-leaning coalition of ethnic minority politicians whose goals varied from simply redressing the balance of how non-Han Inner Mongolians were treated to full-on separatists. The People's Party made the politically savvy move of allowing the MNP leader, Uiles, to become Premier- as the more moderate son of prominent Mongol separatist Hada, he was felt to be a leader befitting the public mood, and the moderate faction of the MNP and the People's Party shared a sizeable amount of their policy agenda.
By the time 2015 came around, the MNP-People's government had implemented a number of reforms protecting Mongol and other non-Han citizens in Inner Mongolia, but most voters felt antipathy towards the MNP, especially left-leaning Han voters who were fearful that Hada might cave in to the separatist wing of his party. Capitalizing on this, the People's Party picked as its Premier candidate Li Datong, a prominent minority activist in the Hada government who appealed to minorities who did not believe in separatism while deflecting criticisms of it going back on its support for Mongols. As a result, the People's Party swept away many MNP seats and came a few seats short of a majority. While some critics have accused the People's Party of throwing the MNP under the bus- an accusation with a certain amount of truth to it- to his credit, Li disavowed any People's candidates found to have engaged in racism or active denouncement of the MNP. (Ironically, one of them won as an Independent in northern Chifeng).
An interesting phenomenon that has sprung up since 2015 is the continued fragmentation of the opposition. Several districts in Hohhot and Baotou which used to be rock-solid Kuomintang switched to the Economic Liberals or Greens in 2011 and have never gone back, and while it did improve its performance in 2019 its current tally of 27 seats is the third-worst it has ever received. Indeed, in recent years the Greens have emerged as a left-wing alternative to the Kuomintang among urban voters in Inner Mongolia in a way the People's Party and Communists never did, presumably due to the difference in party alignment by areas here than in other Chinese provinces.
Despite the dramatic circumstances surrounding the previous two provincial elections, the 2019 election proved fairly unremarkable. The People's Party gained a couple of seats to successfully win an overall majority, the MNP lost all but two of their remaining seats outside Xilingol League (where the controversy over the Hu government originally started, and the two murders discussed earlier took place), the Kuomintang made minor gains but ended up further from the People's Party in terms of seats, and a handful of seats flipped to the minor parties. The really big news was the massive disproportionality between the number of seats won by the Economic Liberals and Greens (again, seen as being a result of the Kuomintang's decline) and, of course, the fact the People's Party bolstered their already strong standing leading to speculation of whether Li should be in the running for their Presidential nominee in 2020, something he has yet to decline.
As one might imagine given its status as sister state to Mongolia (or Outer Mongolia, as it was historically known), Inner Mongolia has a rather distinct political system affected by its ties to that country and the interests of the Mongol people. For one thing, the Kuomintang has always been stronger in the cities of Inner Mongolia than the rural areas, while the People's Party (the local affiliate to the national Progressives, named for its association with the Mongolian People's Party on the other side of the border, though the divide is about as deep as the Co-Operative Party in the UK or Democratic Farmer-Labor and Democratic-Nonpartisan League parties in the US) does better in the countryside, mainly because the poor nomads who are the main inhabitants of the rural areas have historically felt more in common with Outer Mongolians (both by lifestyle and, in the case of ethnic Mongolians, by race) than with the nationalists in Beijing.
While the state has been left-leaning since the advent of democracy, only voting for a Kuomintang president once despite several close results, at the provincial level the Kuomintang have effectively fallen out of contention as an alternative government. The main reason for this was due to the ignominious collapse of the Kuomintang government of Hu Chunhua over the apparent murder of a Mongol herdsman by a coal truck driver in May 2011; his government's attempted response to this was undermined by an incident less than a week later where another coal miner killed a Manchu with a forklift. Riots broke out, non-Han figures started to criticize the fact that Hu believed himself to be able to relate to the plight of Inner Mongolia's minorities as a 'Han from Hubei', and when the scheduled election came that August, Hu's government was swept from office in a landslide defeat.
However, the People's Party did not capitalize quite as much on this as one might expect. They were forced into a coalition with the newly-formed Mongolian National Party (MNP), a rather ragtag left-leaning coalition of ethnic minority politicians whose goals varied from simply redressing the balance of how non-Han Inner Mongolians were treated to full-on separatists. The People's Party made the politically savvy move of allowing the MNP leader, Uiles, to become Premier- as the more moderate son of prominent Mongol separatist Hada, he was felt to be a leader befitting the public mood, and the moderate faction of the MNP and the People's Party shared a sizeable amount of their policy agenda.
By the time 2015 came around, the MNP-People's government had implemented a number of reforms protecting Mongol and other non-Han citizens in Inner Mongolia, but most voters felt antipathy towards the MNP, especially left-leaning Han voters who were fearful that Hada might cave in to the separatist wing of his party. Capitalizing on this, the People's Party picked as its Premier candidate Li Datong, a prominent minority activist in the Hada government who appealed to minorities who did not believe in separatism while deflecting criticisms of it going back on its support for Mongols. As a result, the People's Party swept away many MNP seats and came a few seats short of a majority. While some critics have accused the People's Party of throwing the MNP under the bus- an accusation with a certain amount of truth to it- to his credit, Li disavowed any People's candidates found to have engaged in racism or active denouncement of the MNP. (Ironically, one of them won as an Independent in northern Chifeng).
An interesting phenomenon that has sprung up since 2015 is the continued fragmentation of the opposition. Several districts in Hohhot and Baotou which used to be rock-solid Kuomintang switched to the Economic Liberals or Greens in 2011 and have never gone back, and while it did improve its performance in 2019 its current tally of 27 seats is the third-worst it has ever received. Indeed, in recent years the Greens have emerged as a left-wing alternative to the Kuomintang among urban voters in Inner Mongolia in a way the People's Party and Communists never did, presumably due to the difference in party alignment by areas here than in other Chinese provinces.
Despite the dramatic circumstances surrounding the previous two provincial elections, the 2019 election proved fairly unremarkable. The People's Party gained a couple of seats to successfully win an overall majority, the MNP lost all but two of their remaining seats outside Xilingol League (where the controversy over the Hu government originally started, and the two murders discussed earlier took place), the Kuomintang made minor gains but ended up further from the People's Party in terms of seats, and a handful of seats flipped to the minor parties. The really big news was the massive disproportionality between the number of seats won by the Economic Liberals and Greens (again, seen as being a result of the Kuomintang's decline) and, of course, the fact the People's Party bolstered their already strong standing leading to speculation of whether Li should be in the running for their Presidential nominee in 2020, something he has yet to decline.
