Alternate Wikipedia Infoboxes

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's more northern-based because like OTL, the south is shifting to a Republican stronghold at this point in time and the Democrats are finding a more receptive middle-ground outside of their traditional southern audience.

Speaking about Perot, God bless his runs in '92 & '96. It's made calculating those years so much easier.
They seem to be winning traditionally Progressive states.
 
They seem to be winning traditionally Progressive states.
Yes, in the last two elections. This has to do with the aforementioned southern shift from being a Democratic stronghold/split voting nightmare to places where the Republicans (especially when they win the popular vote by 15%) are becoming dominant. Also, remember that in 1984 & 1988, they are almost at parity with the Progressives in the popular vote, so it's not really surprising that when the anti-Republican vote isn't split too badly to enable another ticket to win that state, the Progressives pick it up about half of the time.
 
Red, Green, and Blue

In early 1991, it seemed almost certain that the Republicans' control of the presidency would end after the next election. The economy that had soared under Reagan entered a small recession and the beginning of the Soviet Civil War left the world watch in worry as the second-strongest nuclear power began to split into ethnic and political violence. Bush was criticized by the hawks in his own party for not taking advantage of the volatile situation and liberating the remaining Soviet-dominated Eastern European nations, and by the doves for failing to do much beyond a token effort to tackle the large refugee crisis the war created.

But later that year, Bush found his opportunity to strike back against critics when a trade war between the Iranians and the Arabian Confederation became a shooting war, endangering both the lives of millions in the Persian Gulf region, but also the world's supply of oil. Bush obtained grudging consent from the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China, the two permanent Security Council members who frequently vetoed western military action, and the US-led taskforce arrived, with Admiral Stan Arthur enforcing an uneasy armistice while the two sides came to the negotiating table. The Qatar Accords were the high water mark of Bush's presidency and the economy began a slight rebound with oil prices dropping back to their pre-conflict lows.

The Progressives nominated Virginia Senator Chuck Robb, a military veteran whose moderate stance most thought could take some swing voters away from the now-popular president. Robb balanced his ticket out with Harris Wofford, the young Pennsylvania Senator. The Democrats' selection raised eyebrows as billionaire businessman Ross Perot ended up with the nomination, largely on his anti-debt platform and opposition to a proposed North American trade union. Perot's running mate, the snappish Massachusetts Governor John Silber, was a former Progressive whose increasingly dated social views had turned him against his socially liberal party.

Robb initially had a nice lead on the president as the after effect of the Persian Gulf War began wearing off in mid-1992 and the country continued to be inundated with horrific images of the Soviet army clashing with militias and riots almost daily. But then, allegations of an extra-martial affair began making serious credibility problems for the "straight-talking" senator and his campaign's botched handling of it gave Bush back the momentum.

The president ended up winning another victory, the fourth Republican win in a row. Robb's electoral performance on its surface appeared underwhelming, but a closer reveal showed that Bush won quite a few of his 429 electoral votes by slim (3-5%) margins with Perot taking critical anti-Bush votes away from the embattled Robb.

ukus1992.png

Red, Green, and Blue
United States presidential election, 1928
United States presidential election, 1932
United States presidential election, 1936
United States presidential election, 1940
United States presidential election, 1944
United States presidential election, 1948
United States presidential election, 1952
United States presidential election, 1956
United States presidential election, 1960
United States presidential election, 1964
United States presidential election, 1968
United States presidential election, 1972
United States presidential election, 1976
United States presidential election, 1980
United States presidential election, 1984
United States presidential election, 1988


ukus1992.png
 
But later that year, Bush found his opportunity to strike back against critics when a trade war between the Iranians and the Arabian Confederation became a shooting war, endangering both the lives of millions in the Persian Gulf region, but also the world's supply of oil.
Ah yes, Dying Children and Oil. The dual-component smelling salt to awaken America.
 
Good work Caedus. it's a bit convergent at times and I'm personally sceptical about how quickly the Democrats went from Dixiecrat to the British Liberal "Protest-Party-of-Good-Intentions" but overall I'm liking this. It would be interesting to see the makeup of Congress and the Senate ITTL.

On another note, here's a one from that wikibox TL I never finished. It's got a couple of mistakes but at present I can't be bothered to fix it.

 
Good work Caedus. it's a bit convergent at times and I'm personally sceptical about how quickly the Democrats went from Dixiecrat to the British Liberal "Protest-Party-of-Good-Intentions" but overall I'm liking this. It would be interesting to see the makeup of Congress and the Senate ITTL.
Convergency- I never meant this to be a hard AH series. I mean, if it were, Rummy and Moonbeam would never be there, since they were born after the POD. The story just sets things up.

Democrats- Again, it all comes down to the South. Once the Republicans began earnestly courting southerners under Nixon, there began to be a massive shift towards them in the south once segregation was finally dead and gone. Once the Democratic leadership realized that the Republicans' shift to the right to capture southern voters left a gap in the political middle (meaning mostly northern voters), they rushed to fill it, sensibly realizing it was the only way the party could continue to survive now that their old southern stronghold was gone. It didn't hurt that the Progressives clung on to their New Deal ideals too long past where it was politically feasible to do so (see: Mondale, Walter) meaning the Democrats had a chance to get their foot in the door before the Progressives had to move towards the center.

Congress- I don't know how I would begin to calculate congressional elections even if I were close enough to the end of the TL (I'm planning on finishing in 2016), since I'm basing the results off of the UK's general elections.
 
Congress- I don't know how I would begin to calculate congressional elections even if I were close enough to the end of the TL (I'm planning on finishing in 2016), since I'm basing the results off of the UK's general elections.
Hmm... OK, the LDs' strategy of localisation doesn't really work in America where congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years.

I would expect the Democrats to do better in the Senate than the House for that reason. But you've said its not a straight switch, so I wonder what you'll come up with.
 
Democrats Rick Perry and Trent Lott? Along with Rivera, this leaves me a tiny bit worried about what the Democrats are like ITTL.
If I had to describe the Democrats and Republicans in AJND using only politicians, I think I'd describe the Democrats as George C. Wallace and the Republicans as Nelson Rockefeller.
 
If I had to describe the Democrats and Republicans in AJND using only politicians, I think I'd describe the Democrats as George C. Wallace and the Republicans as Nelson Rockefeller.
My reaction to this post can be summed up as the following:

Not that George Wallace, right?
*searches Wikipedia*
...
Crap.
 
My reaction to this post can be summed up as the following:

Not that George Wallace, right?
*searches Wikipedia*
...
Crap.
As long as you're the right type of America, you'll be in a pretty good spot with jobs, rights and a robust social safety net. But if you're not, you're pretty fucked.
 
Democrats Rick Perry and Trent Lott? Along with Rivera, this leaves me a tiny bit worried about what the Democrats are like ITTL.
Well, they were Democrats before they became Pubs, hell, Rick Perry was Al Gore's Campaign manager in 1988 IIRC.
 
If I had to describe the Democrats and Republicans in AJND using only politicians, I think I'd describe the Democrats as George C. Wallace and the Republicans as Nelson Rockefeller.
So the Democrats are socially conservative and economically populist, while the Republicans are their opposite, socially liberal and economically centrist?
 
Which probably hasn't happened TTL if I'm going by your infoboxes and the list in the Alternate PMs and Presidents thread.
The Solid South gained some cracks over time, but until the early 21st century, the New Deal coalition mostly stayed in place. Reagan the Democrat gave it some extra juice as it was slipping.

So the Democrats are socially conservative and economically populist, while the Republicans are their opposite, socially liberal and economically centrist?
Largely, but not exactly since the Democrats have managed to cobble together a modern New Deal coalition of lower and working class votes, frontierists, expansionists, Columbianists, urban machines and academics. Like the old New Deal coalition, there's a lot of conflict in the party, but the job and welfare programs largely keep them in line.

Is this still the case in the "present day" when the stories are set?
Things have shifted around a bit over the next 100+ years, especially since most of the 21st century was dominated by Republicans, but the current system has largely swing back that.
 
Largely, but not exactly since the Democrats have managed to cobble together a modern New Deal coalition of lower and working class votes, frontierists, expansionists, Columbianists, urban machines and academics. Like the old New Deal coalition, there's a lot of conflict in the party, but the job and welfare programs largely keep them in line.
Got it. And race? How big a issue is it in AJND? Is class more important in politics than OTL?
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top