Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes V (Do Not Post Current Politics Here)

Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by Oppo, Nov 10, 2017.

  1. Col. Angus Mem8er

    May 15, 2012
    The 2010 election resulted in a hung parliament, with the Liberal Democrats having a fairly strong showing as a third party and ending up kingmaker. Theoretically, the LibDems could have sided with either of the big two parties, but for practical purposes, a Lib-Con coalition was the most likely result (and what happened OTL) because it allowed for a majority with just two parties, while a Liberal-Labour pact would also need to rely on at least 3 other small parties just for a bare majority of 27 seats

    Early in the campaign, after the first debate, the Liberal Democrats surged and actually had a lead in some polls. As the campaign went on, they would drop somewhat, and then a bit more shortly before the election, presumably as people decided to vote the lesser evil. But what if the Liberal Democrats held onto their lead?

    Here's a scenario where (for whatever reason) the LibDems do better, and the poll with the highest LibDem lead ends up as the result. The LibDems end up the largest party in terms of popular vote, but due to the First Past the Post system, end up just the third largest party. Still, they end up with nearly three times the number of seats they attained OTL, and are able to form a simple two-party majority coalition with either of the big two. A Lib-Lab coalition is thus much more feasible... but on the other hand, after 13 years of Labour governance, the LibDem leadership might be in the mood for a change in that regard and might still go with the Tories. Either way, they can probably extract more concessions from either party-which might help them avoid the sharp drop in popularity they saw OTL leading up to the 2015 election, although perhaps being in government leads to them losing some of that protest vote appeal and still suffering major losses in 2015

    cleggmania infobox.jpg
    Indicus, theev, Ski and 11 others like this.
  2. Gentleman Biaggi Leader of the bisexual agenda

    Oct 14, 2016
    Oregonian Montana
    swingstate and Bomster like this.
  3. Peyton Stephen Colbert 2020

    Apr 2, 2016
  4. Gigel the Iron Chicken Member

    Feb 28, 2018
    Transylvania, Romania
  5. MasterSanders Every Man a King

    Apr 11, 2010
    to the right of you
  6. Pat Paul Member

    Jun 29, 2018
    As a followup to my previous post:

    A growing individualistic and libertarian orientation had been growing on the American right since they had began their opposition to FDR's New Deal policies. Foundations like the Volker Fund and the Foundation for Economic Education(FEE), along with periodicals like "The Freeman" would serve to produce a new generation of American rightists, centered on free markets and individual rights. As the Cold War between the United States and Soviet Union heated up, a brewing Red Scare would lead to many on the right to replace their traditional realist foreign policy with anti-communist containment.

    The two most prominent of these new figures were libertarian Frank Meyer and conservative William F. Buckley. They came to recognize that the growing libertarian, anti-communist, and conservative movements needed to coalesce into a broader and more powerful fusionist force. However, the New Conservatives would dominate the early 1950s both literary and intellectually, with Kirk, Weaver, Viereck publishing top selling books and drawing thousands to their lectures. Meyer viewed these non-conformist traditionalist too dismissive of free markets and individuals and too European in their origins.

    It was in this context that Buckley would launch "National Review". The magazine would unite heavy hitters like James Burnham, F.A. Hayek, and Irving Kristol. The magazine embodied the fusionist ideals of Buckley along with with his focus on "American Exceptionalism", an ideology that saw the values and history as exceptional and indispensable among history. The magazine was more successful than Meyer and Buckley could have imagined, and Buckley finally decided to roll the dice and invite the traditionalists to a meeting in Chicago to hammer out a cohesive front. However, Kirk personally remained skeptical, and advised Richard Weaver to attend the summit. At the convention when Hayek and Meyer pushed a proposal for the traditionalists to adopt free market economics in exchange for a codifying of Christian values, Weaver called their bluff and led the traditionalists to walk out. The Philadelphia Manifesto would act as the New Conservative rebuke of any future attempts at fusionism.

    Buckley pushed on with his next projects, founding the university organization Young Americans for Freedom(YAF) and publishing the Sharon statement. And while another blow would come when the traditionalist-allied Wilhelm Ropke wrestled control of the Mont Pelerin Society from Hayek, the immediate launching of the Mises Institute would soften the blow. Going into the mid 1960s, the Freedom Conservatives, as they would brand themselves, would come to be more involved in the Civil Rights movement. "Free Soil, Free Trade, Free Markets, Free Men" would be the slogan National Review adopted as they railed against the "collectivist idiocy" of New Conservatism, communism, and segregation. It would also serve to push the rising stars of Goldwater and Ronald Reagan against Nixon's tories.

    Screen Shot 2019-05-14 at 7.17.14 PM.png Screen Shot 2019-05-14 at 7.17.43 PM.png

    I'd like to thank you all for the warm response the first part got. I'd now like to ask a general question. As I mentioned, Richard Nixon does eventually become president, but I never said he would do so under the Republican Party. Brent Bozell IOTL did propose to Buckley and Burnham in 1958 a new political party. However, the "Conservative split causing new Third Party" is taken by existing projects. That and the intellectual and literary battles that could be raged seems more appealing to me, and perhaps having a more fractious Republican Party would be a better take. Thoughts?
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
    PopulistBean, Ind89, NVB and 15 others like this.
  7. bobby501 Well-Known Member

    Sep 24, 2010
    There aren't enough "Labour continues in office after 2010" TLs, especially given that it wasn't far away from happening (another 20 seats or so for Labour would have made a centre/centre-left coalition very plausible).
  8. wolfhound817 Priest of Hank

    Jan 25, 2018
    Upstate New York
    Good job! These are great!
    Pat Paul likes this.
  9. Thomas27 Kerala of Travancore

    Sep 17, 2012
    League of Travancore
  10. THeaven I am the Watcher

    Sep 12, 2018
    Governor William "Bill " Mitchell (Missouri) would bring an Upset in in the 1989 election against Vice President George Bush by playing as dirty a campaign as he did against Dukakis in the Primaries. Mitchell would be remembered for admitting his own actions in the scandal reported by his former Chief of staff Bob Alexander before tragically dying of a stroke in 1992
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  11. SirPaperweight Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Jun 20, 2014
    Georgia, USA
    George W. Bush’s four years in the White House had been turbulent. His own victory – among the closest in American history – was decided by the Supreme Court, which blocked an ongoing recount in Florida, which had gone for Bush by just over 500 votes. The GOP returned to power in the executive branch for the first time since George H.W. Bush, father of the president-elect, lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

    The American public had largely forgotten about Bush v. Gore, however, as eight months into the Bush presidency, the September 11 terrorist attacks thrust America into war. A US-led coalition intervened in Afghanistan, which had sheltered Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, and soon afterward the administration turned its attention to another target: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

    Hussein’s dictatorship was infamous for its brutality, which included political purges and genocide. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991 had been halted by a military intervention led by the elder Bush, but Hussein was allowed to remain in power. The younger Bush, along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, accused Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction, which gave them an impetus to invade and remove him from power.

    The invasion was hotly opposed by several US allies, including France and Canada, but the American public largely approved; the patriotic war fever from the September 11 attacks persisted, even in the face of a military intervention that had nothing to do with the attacks. Hussein was captured in December 2003, and would later be tried for crimes against humanity and executed. However, American forces remained in Iraq for years afterward, as attempts to establish democracy and win the peace largely failed. As a relatively popular incumbent, Bush fended off any serious primary challenges. At the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, Bush and his allies pushed hard on the themes of national security and spreading American ideals of freedom around the world. This sentiment was reflected in Arizona Senator John McCain’s speech on Monday, August 30.

    “Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity. We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender.”

    Other speakers included actor and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and current Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The most interesting speaker at the RNC, however, was none other than Georgia Senator Zell Miller, a conservative Democrat who crossed the isle and endorsed Bush for re-election, denouncing his own party as having “mastered the art of division and diversion.”

    On the other side, the Democratic primaries had been largely swept by Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Going into the primary cycle, however, Kerry was an underdog. Rather, it was former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, running a left-wing populist, grassroots campaign, who was in the lead. Dean’s large war chest, motivated base, and opposition to the war in Iraq gave him an advantage among Democratic primary voters. However, the Iowa caucuses yielded an unexpected result: Dean landed third place, behind John Kerry and North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Dean’s candidacy fizzled out after Iowa (not helped by a particularly embarrassing soundbite of Dean screaming at a rally), and “Comeback Kerry” cruised to victory.

    The Democratic National Convention, held in Boston, focused on the theme “Stronger at Home, Respected in the World.” Kerry and the Democrats hoped to needle Bush on domestic policy issues, and find an opening on foreign policy by criticizing America’s declining reputation among its allies. The platform featured planks related to anti-terrorism, national defense, energy independence, education and healthcare. Notably, Kerry shied away from emphasizing his record as a Vietnam veteran, as he and his advisers worried that it might shift the focus to foreign policy issues that were stronger for Bush.

    The DNC’s highlight speakers included former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Al Gore, New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, and Ron Reagan, son of former Republican President Ronald Reagan.

    Interestingly enough, the spotlight was stolen by Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, whose keynote address stressed the unity of the American public in the face of deep partisan division, and highlighted his own biography as the child of a Kenyan immigrant and an American from Kansas. His speech reinforced “the audacity of hope” in the American Dream, especially as it pertained to those traditionally excluded from American public life. The speech was well-received and cemented Obama’s status as a rising star in the Democratic Party.

    The conventions had little effect on public opinion. Bush’s lead did grow after the RNC, but that bounce evaporated weeks later as polls showed only a slight lead for the incumbent president. As the general election got underway, Bush portrayed Kerry as a “Massachusetts liberal” whose opinions were too far out of the mainstream for most Americans. The president trumped up his national security record and accused Kerry of being a “flip-flopper” on the issues. Kerry, meanwhile, hammered on domestic policy concerns, hoping to shift the focus away from foreign policy and national security.

    As the campaign progressed, controversy erupted as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an organization of Vietnam War veterans and former prisoners of war, accused John Kerry of being “unfit to serve” on account of his own conduct as a Vietnam veteran, as well as for his past anti-war activism. SBVT’s claims were quickly dismissed as “phony and untrue” by the Kerry campaign, which cited that all but one of the living members of Kerry’s boat crew supported his campaign. However, SBVT continued to needle the Senator, including by running ads in key swing states.

    Bush maintained a small lead throughout September, but that lead evaporated as the debates got underway. The first debate, held at the University of Miami (FL) on September 30, centered on homeland security and national dense. Kerry criticized the diversion of resources away from Afghanistan and to Iraq, as well as the lack of support among traditional US allies for the Iraq War. Bush, as expected, harped on his own record to show that he was deeply committed to American national security. Bush stumbled in response to Kerry’s point about the lack of international support for the War in Iraq, responding “well, actually, he forgot Poland;” in fact, Kerry had mentioned Poland’s involvement. The gaffe was criticized by pundits and was received poorly by the American public. After the first debate, polls showed most voters thought Kerry had a better performance.

    The second debate, held at Washington University in St. Louis on October 8, fared little better for the president. The debate was formatted as a town hall, featuring 140 undecided Missouri voters. Notably, in response to a question about rumors he was thinking about re-instituting the draft, Bush replied, “I hear there’s rumors on the Internets that we’re going to have a draft. You know, I don’t believe we need to have a draft. I think it’s not needed at this time.” This answer was seen as too indecisive, and Bush’s campaign was forced to issue a clarifying statement in the days afterward.

    Arizona State University hosted the third debate on October 13. The theme of the debate was domestic policy, and Kerry successfully presented his case that the Bush administration was not doing enough to protect American families, especially on the issues of healthcare and education. At several points, Bush appeared to have been caught off-guard in response to questions about employment, gay marriage and Social Security. Once again, polls reflected Kerry’s victory in the debate.

    Still, as November approached, the election was functionally tied, with polls showing only a slight lead one way or another, with neither candidate leading for very long. On election day, the race was a tossup, with pundits predicting everything from a comfortable Bush re-election to an embarrassing Republican defeat.

    In actuality, the election results were... interesting, to say the least.

    2004 Kerry Wins EC Loses PV.png
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  12. Ugly Idiot Beautiful Genius

    Sep 17, 2017
    I see Kerry gave Bush a taste of his own medicine
  13. Danthefan28 Well-Known Member

    Nov 10, 2018
  14. jack_donaghy_is_the_shado Senator-pre-elect from Iowa

    Mar 24, 2010
    What party is President Sinatra of? I remember he had a feud with JFK before the assassination and later became a quasi Republican.
    Danthefan28 likes this.
  15. mlee117379 Well-Known Member

    Mar 25, 2019
    AlternateMan, Wolfram and Omar04 like this.
  16. Danthefan28 Well-Known Member

    Nov 10, 2018
    Democrat, though near the ladder half of his life, more in the middle. In this TL JFK isn't killed (Sinatra still didn't like him for that one time), neither is MLK (Whom he made his VP, mostly just to piss off the Dixiecrats, and because Sammy Davis Jr. was busy... That last one may've been a lie).
  17. Falconette New Member

    May 16, 2019
    Perhaps quite banal but still very interesting for me is the confluence of circumstances with Alaska unsold by Russians, which after the Revolution and the civil war became something like "Russian Taiwan."

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  18. Charlie950 El gringo hispanohablante izquierdista

    Jul 12, 2009
    What's the difference between the Senate's Chairman and the Speaker?
  19. Falconette New Member

    May 16, 2019
    The Chairman is the person in charge of liaison between the Parliament and the President (and thus the government), plus he has a number of powers over the Senate. The Speaker is elected by senators directly, while the Chairman is chosen by the President from the candidates proposed by the Senate from different factions. The Chairman is considered the №3 figure in Alaska politics and becomes acting Head of State if both President and Vice President are unable to fulfill their duties. In many ways, this is the legacy of the parliamentary system of the Russian Empire and the autocratic Russian State, which existed in Alaska in 1922—1979 before it was transformed into the Republic.
  20. Workable Goblin Chronicler of the Pony Wars

    Aug 3, 2009
    He's chair of the Educational Committee from...age 9? Are you sure you didn't mean to shift those dates twenty years later or something?