Alternate Electoral Maps

Status
Not open for further replies.
Based on a highly spurious poll of moviegoers in 1934

genusmap.php


John Dillinger (Independent) 214 EV
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic) 195 EV
Charles Lindbergh (Republican) 122 EV
What were the percentages in the poll?
 
Camelot! It's Only A Model: 1964-8

1972

Romney's first term was a fairly successful one. He kept funding for a decent amount of federal projects which Kennedy had created, made further attempts to improve integration through means like busing, and worked hard to shrug off the extreme conservative vibe of past Republican figures like Goldwater. However, doing this proved contentious, as on the one hand with all the moderate voters he gained he alienated social conservatives who quietly allied themselves with the Democrats (with the Southern bloc by this point having a distinctly different party line to the rest of the country) and on the other he was fostering a libertarian, small-government bent in the party led by figures like John Ashbrook, whose small-government approach was to become influential on the 'New Republicans' that were, at this point, festering under the surface.

Despite this, Romney was broadly fairly popular by the time his re-election came, and faced no serious opposition in the primaries. The Democrats, however, were to face a seismic split. Their primaries saw a huge rift between the liberal Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, an eager proponent of the Great Society who favored the adoption of a guaranteed minimal income policy and was an unequivocal supporter of civil rights, and conservative Governor of Alabama George Wallace, who ardently opposed integration. Shockingly, Wallace's white-collar appeal allowed him to win primaries in states such as Indiana, Michigan, New Mexico and Rhode Island, as well as upsetting Hubert Humphrey in West Virginia. Ultimately, Wallace claimed the nomination, with Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton, who had achieved admiration from the Democratic right for his derision of McGovern as 'the candidate of amnesty, abortion and acid', chosen as his running mate.

From here, two major problems occured. The first came almost immediately, as a coalition of liberal Democratic caucus goers refused to speak or participated in a walkout from the convention. McGovern (for President) and Ed Muskie (for Vice President) were nominated by the coalition as an Independent Democratic nominee, with efforts made to put him on the ballot wherever possible, though in the Southern states he was kept strictly off the ballot. Nevertheless, the Democratic vote was split apart in the swing states, with liberal voters either going to Romney or McGovern and Wallace left adrift, even to the point of being kept off the ballot by the District of Columbia, Massachusetts and Minnesota Democrats (which all listed McGovern as the official nominee).

To make matters worse, the Wallace campaign had not done a particularly thorough background check on Eagleton, so when (with some help from liberal Democrats in the Missouri delegation) details of his depression and psychotherapy were leaked to the press, it didn't reflect well on Wallace's judgement as a Presidential candidate. A cartoon which achieved some notoriety was one which depicted Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 with the caption 'Bull-Mooser' alongside Wallace and McGovern with the caption 'Bull-Shitters'.


genusmap.php



Romney/Percy (Republican): 368 EVs, 57.1%
Wallace/Eagleton (Democratic): 132 EVs, 21.3%
McGovern/Muskie (Independent Democratic): 36 EVs, 20.5%

The election was remarkably lopsided, with Romney's landslide stifled somewhat with the fierce loyalty of the South to Wallace seeing him retain a strong share of the electoral vote despite losing the election by a margin of over 30 points. McGovern won a handful of states by fairly tight margins over Romney, but outside of the two strong regions of the Democratic nominees the election was a blowout for Romney.
At this point, however, the political ideologies of the two parties were more up in the air than they perhaps had ever been.

(BTW in TTL Eagleton agrees to be named for his remark because of the strength of Southern conservatism.)
 
Last edited:

Anchobi

Banned
Probably a stupid question but why do some maps here swap the red and blue of the Democrats and Republicans?
 
Probably a stupid question but why do some maps here swap the red and blue of the Democrats and Republicans?
In nearly all countries, blue is the more conservative party while red is progressive or socialist. People believe that putting colors to parties is ridiculous as well, swapping colors out of rebellion.
 
@prime-minister did Romney come third in the deep south? I can't see him winning the black vote or Wallace doing that well, unless there was no voting rights act.

Yeah, in most of these states he won a small share of the vote, with write-in voters (mostly blacks) for McGovern and the Democratic Wallace ticket hoovering up most voters there, although there was a lot of liberal-hemorrhaging to Romney in Texas that kept Wallace's margin relatively low.

In TTL, the Civil Rights Act has some voting rights protections in it, but they're less stringent than the OTL Voting Rights Act, since Kennedy effectively figured getting one act like this through Congress was difficult enough.
 
Is Curtis winning realistic after Black Monday?

I'm not sure, but in my mind they get all those states by default, because they are not going to support Reed or Long, and the Democrats without Roosevelt's policies are barely a national party at this point.
 
I'm not sure, but in my mind they get all those states by default, because they are not going to support Reed or Long, and the Democrats without Roosevelt's policies are barely a national party at this point.

Isn't Garner the incumbent as of the start of the game? Or have they retconned that since I played?
 
I'm not sure, but in my mind they get all those states by default, because they are not going to support Reed or Long, and the Democrats without Roosevelt's policies are barely a national party at this point.
The fact Curtis and Garner are the nominees is so lazy. So many interesting politicians back then and they pick the guy who's dead in one year.
 
The fact Curtis and Garner are the nominees is so lazy. So many interesting politicians back then and they pick the guy who's dead in one year.

If it was me, Long would be the Democratic candidate. Who would you suggest for the Republicans?
 
If it was me, Long would be the Democratic candidate. Who would you suggest for the Republicans?
I agree with you about Long if there was a realistic Kaiserreich without the Civil War or whatever. For Republicans, you have to assume the 1930, 1932, 1934 losses didn't occur that totally gutted the party so you don't get losers like Frank Knox (sorry to a very impressive War Secretary). So maybe Senator James Watson of Indiana if you want an establishment conservative figure. I can't think of anyone else particularly interesting that lost reelection. Maybe Senator Vandenburg or Governor Bridges?
 

Asami

Banned
Republicans could be Curtis or Knox (Knox would make a decent candidate), I could see Long or Hull being the Democratic candidate, America First would nominate someone like... idek, Lindburgh?
 
Republicans could be Curtis or Knox (Knox would make a decent candidate), I could see Long or Hull being the Democratic candidate, America First would nominate someone like... idek, Lindburgh?
Knox would only be the nominee if the party was hollowed out from the Great Depression which obviously didn't happen in Kaiserreich.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top