Also I don't seeing Abzug winning over DeSapio. She could do well, but if we are talking about New York in general, DeSapio would win. Heck, even in NYC. She is the candidate of progressives, while he is the candidate of conservative racial minorities (the majority of racial minorities at the time) and "ethnics" plus Democratic farmers in the North who are still going "Tilden is the man". That wins.
Blue Skies in Camelot: An Alternate 60's and Beyond
- Thread starter President_Lincoln
- Start date
But if DeSapio were to fire said cop for abuse of authority, this would change everything.
Though some disgruntled Irish may not show up for the ballot box or vote for Buckley.
what if the riot spreads too qucikly for such an action to be taken?
All right do have to head out @President Earl Warren. But this was an awesome discussion (I'm on break) and hope to resume it 
. And if Buckley wins that will also be very interesting. No matter which scenario occurs, it'll be interesting.
. And if Buckley wins that will also be very interesting. No matter which scenario occurs, it'll be interesting.yeah thats what i think is going to happen too, especilly if Roe V Wade never happens making it more of a regional issue instead of some national imposition demanding both parties to take a side instead of leaving it up to the state parties.
Another thing which could benifit buckly would be a school incident,say a radical professor says he supports the Khmer Rouge and the university he works at refuses to fire him. Buckely could be right their hitting both the university and the establishment which is allowing him to still have a job. It gets worse if The Democratic candadite says something to the effect of "I don't like it but he still has the right to speak and hold his opinions"
All caught up. Had to upgrade my software for my new computer, and log back in. Great updates, nice senate list, too. Not familiar with the mormons, but, I did hear a news report on black mormons a few days ago.
Great work Mr. President! I did notice one error, however. You had previously mentioned that Robert Taft Jr. was elected to the Senate in 1968, however, he is not listed here.
Thank you, historybuff!
Glad you liked it. Curses! Thank you for pointing out the error.
I'll fix it promptly! BP Booker
Banned
All this talk about Lyndon Johnson and Robert Kennedys giant dick measuring contest entering its second decade, which makes for interesting story telling (and thus serves the purpose to illustrate the internal divide within the Democrat Party going into the 70s). But in the end I deeply admire both men for their commitment to liberalism and civil rights. It would be nice if in the end, the Kennedys and Johnson manage to put everything behind them and forgive each other
Maybe it’s 1976, George Romney’s second term didn’t go quite as well as he hoped and so a lot of Democrats jumped in with the hope of defeating the Vice President, and Robert Kennedy falls short of the total number needed for the nomination and needs the blessing from the southern delegates, and here comes Johnson to save the day
One would have to butterfly his death in 1973 of course
Maybe it’s 1976, George Romney’s second term didn’t go quite as well as he hoped and so a lot of Democrats jumped in with the hope of defeating the Vice President, and Robert Kennedy falls short of the total number needed for the nomination and needs the blessing from the southern delegates, and here comes Johnson to save the day
One would have to butterfly his death in 1973 of course
BP Booker
Banned
He started smoking again the second Nixon got sworned in, after having quited in 1955, which to me says he just went and died out bitterness because the party denied him a second full term
personally i find this part impossible because in the end their disagreement goes much deeper than mere policy, it is the very character of America. LBJ wants a big Government paradise with constant new programs to meet every need and desire of the American people but also a rock solid admiration for authority and the nation, this means he will still despise the New Left and Anti War movement because in his eyes, they would be ungrateful, ungrateful to the troops defending them abroad, ungrateful for the civil rights and public housing the Government had brought to them, and most of all Ungrateful to him and his fellow legislators who had made it all possible.To him it will be the duty of himself and other legislators to fight this subversive group and continue delivering the Great Society for all with Big government Programs. Pretty soon, with the addition of Evangelical Christians like Billy Graham and possibly blue collar Catholics (this group will be vigorously contested by Kennedy and Co.) to his coaliton, their will also be a social element added to this ideology, a duty to stop the Un American and anti christian hippies which Johnson would happily do (due to his hatred of the Hippie movement in general).
Kennedy is different, he would want a constant questioning of America, new stirring debate to question what he would view as the crushing Machine Likeness of Johnson's America. He would also not be a big fan of Johnsons constant expansion of Government (in many ways he was a predecessor to Clinton style New Democrats at least on Economics) and against the war especially as it grows and grows (although I suspect he will be for it in the begging simply because it was his brother who took the plunge). He will use christian rhetoric too, but not in the Johnsonian way which will emphasise social conservatism, instead using Christian beliefs to better America and to fight Social liberals not with the power of Government (maybe with the exception of Abortion, RFK's devout Catholicism will bring him into conflict with his Social liberal fans on this).
He's seriously exaggerating a lot, and underestimating Johnson's liberalism. Johnson was liberal enough on civil rights to sign a bill that lost the South for decades or more because he knew it was the right thing to do, and he supported a strong well fare state, because of his background.
The division is more between JFK and the Jim Crow crowd.
no, im not arguing over Johnsons credentials im arguing that the fight will be about what type of Party and ultimately what type of country they want the Democrats and ultimately America to be. if I may quote Johnson from earlier:
as this demonstrates, The division is going to be cultural issues not economic (well i take that back, considering RFK had a very Clintonesque approach to economics, which will conflict with Johnson who belives that their is a bill for every problem,their may be abit of a issue). The issue of what kind of nation do we want to be, do we want to go in Kennedys direction of constant innovation in the pursuit of Justice with a habit of shreadding social norms or do we want to stay in Johnsons direction of keeping up tradition and patriotism while also promoting Economic justice.
Last edited:
Johnson is also very liberal on race for the time, even explicitly including blacks in his conception of the Democratic party's base. He is MUCH less for mindless adherence to tradition than even Romney's GOP.
I think you're vastly exaggerating any real difference.
Also, ironically Johnson's having the last laugh these days, as the New Left has descended into smug neoliberalism and the left and Democratic base are swinging hard towards socialist policies.
I think you're vastly exaggerating any real difference.
Also, ironically Johnson's having the last laugh these days, as the New Left has descended into smug neoliberalism and the left and Democratic base are swinging hard towards socialist policies.
He may not be,but his base in the south and in blue collar communities sure as heck would be and he is not above pandering to them (he worked against civil rights in his senate years and did things like fire his civil rights director when he thretaned the city of Chicago with cutting it's funding due to a horrible housing situation,just to keep favor with Daley and co.).
Different era. LBJ was smart enough to see the demographic shift coming in. Also his OTL domestic policy was very left wing on economics and social policy both.
