After being LBJ’s berated errand boy for forever—and when he escaped briefly his own private sector boss forced him back to work for LBJ lol—I’m pretty sure he just really wanted to be the boss. So an executive position like Governor or President, the Senate not so much.
Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
- Thread starter RMcD94
- Start date
Makes sense though it makes me wonder why he left in the late 60s?
Nixon loved him so very much and Connolly switching parties needed some cover, plus Nixon gave domestic Cabinet positions a lot of free reign (unlike poor useless SecState haha). He was already in ‘68 working to help Nixon get elected.
Edit: oh yeah and Nixon wanted Connolly as his successor, so that’s a fantastic reason to stop being the boss for a few years.
Last edited:
What if in 2000, the Electoral College under the Wyoming Rule, had reached a tie and had gone to a contingent election? How large would the controversy have been both in terms of Congress and the general population? How could the contingent election have gone? (Taking into account that the outgoing and incoming House had a Republican majority, while the outgoing Senate had a Republican majority, and the incoming Senate was only Democratic due to Al Gore serving as tiebreaker?)
To add, courtesy of Wikipedia: The Wyoming is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest state, which is currently Wyoming (and has been since the 1990 census). This would lead to a House comprised of 545 members (110 extra), which when DC and the hundred senators are added, would lead to an Electoral College of 648, and the current tie we see here (assuming nothing changes in regards to the new congressional districts in Nebraska and Maine, or that they cancel each other out if they flip, and also assuming that Florida goes the same way).
To add, courtesy of Wikipedia: The Wyoming is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest state, which is currently Wyoming (and has been since the 1990 census). This would lead to a House comprised of 545 members (110 extra), which when DC and the hundred senators are added, would lead to an Electoral College of 648, and the current tie we see here (assuming nothing changes in regards to the new congressional districts in Nebraska and Maine, or that they cancel each other out if they flip, and also assuming that Florida goes the same way).
Imagine, if Chrysler and GM disappeared after their bankruptcy at the end of 2000s, faced with a shortage of subcontractors, could Ford have survived? How did the latter (the subcontractors) survive? How would the owners of GM or Chrysler cars have done to be able to have their vehicles properly maintained? Would there be companies that would help manufacture components under license?
Hoping this isn't current politics since the effects of this would've been 13 to 11 years ago (wow how time flies). What could the Obama administration get accomplished if they had a super-duper majority of 77 seats by winning every senate race that was under a margin of 20 points. (Meaning competitive in one small way or another, and barring 3-5 seats, all of the flips are at or under 10% of a difference). Could Universal Healthcare (or at the very least a public option and/or lowering the age of Medicare to 55/60) get passed?
Perhaps immigration reform, or the Women's Health Protection Act?
Or would the added 69/70 to 77 senators be too conservative/split to get it done?
Are there any other pieces of legislation that could be passed ITTL such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which never even made it up for a vote in the Senate IOTL, or perhaps the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act which would require new federal road projects to include plastic conduits buried along the side of the roadway, and enough of them to "accommodate multiple broadband providers."
Any thoughts on the Brown-Kaufman Amendment? It proposed the following: capping deposits and other liabilities, and restricting bank assets to 10% of US GDP. Any one bank's non-deposit liabilities would have been capped at 2% of GDP and for non-bank financial firms, the amount would have been 3%. IOTL, it was voted down 61-33.
Any chance the Employee Free Choice Acts pass ITTL with more Democrats? (Assuming they're pro-union, of course.)
There's also the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which proposed: allowing LGBT federal employees to give their unrecognized same-sex spouses and partners health insurance, life insurance, government pensions, and other employment related benefits and obligations that married heterosexual federal employees enjoy by being married and heterosexual. Coupled with this, there's also the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would: prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.
This would mean that of 50 senate delegations, 33 of which would be fully Democratic, with 6 being fully Republican, and the other 11 being mixed at the end of the term. (Mississippi would be fully Republican until the special election, where it would then become mixed.) If you only wish to count those races where the margin was under 10.00%, then the supermajority would be reduced to 69/70 senators (depending on how you calculate the margin for Ned Lamont, which is anywhere from 9.98% to 10.00%%).
(The map has class 1 + 2 seats as the main icons; the bubbles are 2 + 3.)
Perhaps immigration reform, or the Women's Health Protection Act?
Or would the added 69/70 to 77 senators be too conservative/split to get it done?
Are there any other pieces of legislation that could be passed ITTL such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which never even made it up for a vote in the Senate IOTL, or perhaps the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act which would require new federal road projects to include plastic conduits buried along the side of the roadway, and enough of them to "accommodate multiple broadband providers."
Any thoughts on the Brown-Kaufman Amendment? It proposed the following: capping deposits and other liabilities, and restricting bank assets to 10% of US GDP. Any one bank's non-deposit liabilities would have been capped at 2% of GDP and for non-bank financial firms, the amount would have been 3%. IOTL, it was voted down 61-33.
Any chance the Employee Free Choice Acts pass ITTL with more Democrats? (Assuming they're pro-union, of course.)
There's also the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which proposed: allowing LGBT federal employees to give their unrecognized same-sex spouses and partners health insurance, life insurance, government pensions, and other employment related benefits and obligations that married heterosexual federal employees enjoy by being married and heterosexual. Coupled with this, there's also the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would: prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.
- Alabama
- Class 2: Jeff Sessions (R)
- Class 3: Richard Shelby (R)
- Alaska
- Class 2: Mark Begich (D)
- Class 3: Tony Knowles (D) (+ 3.03%)
- Arizona
- Class 1: Jim Pederson (D) (+ 9.84%)
- Class 3: John McCain (R)
- Arkansas
- Class 2: Mark Pryor (D)
- Class 3: Blanche Lincoln (D)
- California
- Class 1: Dianne Feinstein (D)
- Class 3: Barbara Boxer (D)
- Colorado
- Class 2: Mark Udall (D)
- Class 3: Ken Salazar (D)
- Connecticut
- Class 1: Ned Lamont (D) (+ 10.00%)
- Class 3: Chris Dodd (D)
- Delaware
- Class 1: Tom Carper (D)
- Class 2: Joe Biden (D) (Replaced with Beau ITTL)
- Florida
- Class 1: Bill Nelson (D)
- Class 3: Betty Castor (D) (+ 1.11%)
- Georgia
- Class 2: Jim Martin (D) (+ 3.2%) (In general, to avoid runoff)
- Class 3: Johnny Isakson (R)
- Hawaii
- Class 1: Daniel Akaka (D)
- Class 3: Daniel Inouye (D)
- Idaho
- Class 2: Jim Risch (R)
- Class 3: Mike Crapo (R)
- Illinois
- Class 2: Dick Durbin (D)
- Class 3: Barack Obama (D)
- Indiana
- Class 1: Richard Lugar (R)
- Class 3: Evan Bayh (D)
- Iowa
- Class 2: Tom Harkin (D)
- Class 3: Chuck Grassley (R)
- Kansas
- Class 2: Pat Roberts (R)
- Class 3: Sam Brownback (R)
- Kentucky
- Class 2: Bruce Lansford (D) (+ 5.94%)
- Class 3: Daniel Mongiardo (D) (+ 1.32%)
- Louisiana
- Class 2: Mary Landrieu (D)
- Class 3: David Vitter (R)
- Maine
- Class 1: Olympia Snowe (R)
- Class 2: Susan Collins (R)
- Maryland
- Class 1: Kweisi Mfume (D) (+ 3.15% in primary)
- Class 3: Barbara Mikulski (D)
- Massachusetts
- Class 1: Ted Kennedy (D)
- Class 2: John Kerry (D)
- Michigan
- Class 1: Debbie Stabenow (D)
- Class 2: Carl Levin (D)
- Minnesota
- Class 1: Amy Klobuchar (DFL)
- Class 2: Al Franken (DFL)
- Mississippi
- Class 1: Trent Lott (R)
- Class 1 Special: Ronnie Musgrove (D) (+ 9.92%)
- Class 2: Thad Cochran (R)
- Class 1: Trent Lott (R)
- Missouri
- Class 1: Claire McCaskill (D)
- Class 3: Nancy Farmer (D) (+ 13.29%)
- Montana
- Class 1: Jon Tester (D)
- Class 2: Max Baucus (D)
- Nebraska
- Class 1: Ben Nelson (D)
- Class 2: Scott Kleeb (D) (+ 17.4%)
- Nevada
- Class 1: Jack Carter (Son of Jimmy Carter) (D) (+ 14.37%)
- Class 3: Harry Reid (D)
- New Hampshire
- Class 2: Jeanne Shaheen (D)
- Class 3: Judd Gregg (R)
- New Jersey
- Class 1: Bob Menendez (D)
- Class 2: Frank Lautenberg (D)
- New Mexico
- Class 1: Jeff Bingaman (D)
- Class 2: Tom Udall (D)
- New York
- Class 1: HRC (D)
- Class 3: Chuck Schumer (D)
- North Carolina
- Class 2: Kay Hagan (D)
- Class 3: Erskine Bowles (D) (+ 4.58%)
- North Dakota
- Class 1: Kent Conrad (D-NPL)
- Class 3: Byron Dorgan (D-NPL)
- Ohio
- Class 1: Sherrod Brown (D)
- Class 3: George Voinovich (R)
- Oklahoma
- Class 2: Jim Inhofe (R)
- Class 3: Brad Carson (D) (+ 11.53%)
- Oregon
- Class 2: Jeff Merkley (D)
- Class 3: Ron Wyden (D)
- Pennsylvania
- Class 1: Bob Casey, Jr. (D)
- Class 3: Joe Hoeffel (D) (+ 10.63%)
- Rhode Island
- Class 1: Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
- Class 2: Jack Reed (D)
- South Carolina
- Michael Cone (D) (+ 0.6% primary/+ 15.27% general) (Could win extra votes from voters casting ballots for the state’s Working Families Party, which he was nominated under, but wasn’t allowed to run under due to the state’s sore loser law.)
- Class 3: Inez Tenenbaum (D) (+ 9.5%)
- South Dakota
- Class 2: Tim Johnson (D)
- Class 3: Tom Daschle (D) (+ 1.16%)
- Tennessee
- Class 1: Harold Ford, Jr. (D) (+ 2.7%)
- Class 2: Lamar Alexander (R)
- Texas
- Class 1: Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)
- Class 2: Rick Noriega (D) (+ 11.99%)
- Utah
- Class 1: Orrin Hatch (R)
- Class 3: Bob Bennett (R)
- Vermont
- Class 1: Bernie Sanders (D) (He accepts the party’s nomination ITTL)
- Class 3: Patrick Leahy (D)
- Virginia
- Class 1: Jim Webb (D)
- Class 2: Mark Warner (D)
- Washington
- Class 1: Maria Cantwell (D)
- Class 3: Patty Murray (D)
- West Virginia
- Class 1: Robert Byrd (D)
- Class 2: Jay Rockefeller (D)
- Wisconsin
- Class 1: Herb Kohl (D)
- Class 3: Russ Feingold (D)
- Wyoming
- Class 1: Craig L. Thomas (R)
- Class 1 Special: John Barrasso (R)
- Class 2: Mike Enzi (R)
- Class 1: Craig L. Thomas (R)
This would mean that of 50 senate delegations, 33 of which would be fully Democratic, with 6 being fully Republican, and the other 11 being mixed at the end of the term. (Mississippi would be fully Republican until the special election, where it would then become mixed.) If you only wish to count those races where the margin was under 10.00%, then the supermajority would be reduced to 69/70 senators (depending on how you calculate the margin for Ned Lamont, which is anywhere from 9.98% to 10.00%%).
(The map has class 1 + 2 seats as the main icons; the bubbles are 2 + 3.)
Last edited:
Then you wouldn’t have WW2. The Nazis were diametrically opposed to the Soviets, and their ideology called for nothing less than the complete and total extermination of the Slavic people, as well as the destruction of “judeobolshevism”.
In other words, even if the USSR stayed entirely neutral, and built its own Fortress of Solitude™️, the Nazis would still try to “kick in the door,” so that “the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.”
Dagoth Ur
Banned
Real Nazism used a little more realpolitik than that, for example touting Croat and Bosniak supremacy and co-opting Slovenes rather than calling to exterminate them. However they were retarded in a way, pathologically seeking out and massacring even anti-Soviet east Slavic groups.
1) Maybe not use the r-word in that sense?
2) Kinda proving my point. Nazi ideology is so fanatically anti-Slav that they turned the Ukrainians against them who had originally greeted them as liberators. If you had a Goering Reich, sure, maybe the original question could have an interesting answer, but even then… to any German government further right than authoritarian democracy or illiberal monarchy (so basically Zentrum), conflict with the USSR was inevitable in one way or another, wether it be through Hitler, Goering, Himmler, or even Hugenberg (leader of the DNVP and one of the people who pushed hardest for Hitler to be named Chancellor since he thought he could control Hitler… didn’t turn out so well).
FireCrispyHistory
Banned
I understand, conflict was inevitable. But, during the war with the allies, what if the USSR was busy with Finland to declare a war, and Hitler was busy with the Allies in Europe and Africa. Would Germany have been able to see victory in the war? And if they did, how different would Barbarossa go? Would Germany also see victory due to no threat of a landing in Italy or France? Would the Spanish or Japanese be involved? I would think Germany would prioritize winning the war against the dominant naval power before also invading the country with dominant manpower, but I am guessing Adolf was probably high and ordered operation Barbarossa.
Here’s the thing… you literally just deceived what happened IOTL. Germany was fighting in Europe and Africa, and still thought it was a good idea to invade the USSR.
nazi ideology was so fanatically anti-Soviet that they would attack them no matter what. Regardless of wether the supplies, men, and equipment were there or not.
The only way I can see Barbarossa being delayed is if the Soviets steamroll the Fins during the Winter War, taking the whole country in about 3-6 months, showing the night of the Soviet army, and as such, they don’t appear weak and incompetent like IOTL. (Due to the Soviet performance in the Winter War, Hitler said the whole “kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.” thing.)
Even then, that might only delay it until 1942, when the reorganization of the Soviet Army is finished. Maybe they strike first (I have my doubts about that), or maybe Germany has stabilized its position in Europe and Africa enough ITTL to think it has a chance (perhaps with additional resources, they do take the Suez).
At the end of the day, if you don’t change who’s in charge of Germany, you inevitably get Soviet involvement in any WW2 that even comes close to resembling the one that we know.
In regards to the Spain/Japan point: Spain already sent volunteers through the Blue Legion. There wasn’t going to be an official joining of the war effort due to the fact that the country had been devastated by a three year long civil war (1936-1939), and knew they’d be curbstomped by the Allies if they got involved.
Meanwhile, the Japanese did fight the Soviets before 1945. They were called the Battles of Khalkhin-Gol and they were a total embarrassment for the Japanese, to the point were Soviet-Mongolian forces destroyed the Japanese 6th Army.. Their equipment was no match for Soviet equipment, and in fact, they ended up signing a non-aggression treaty specifically because of how bad they were beating. Yes, Japan, the hyper-militaristic, ultra-nationalist empire signed a genuine non-aggression treaty that they actually respected (unlike the Germans who just waited until the right time to break it) with the Soviet Union, a communist nation that held territory that Japan claimed. That’s how badly the battle went for them.
You’d have to give Japan Panzers and literal tons of oil just to have them win that battle, and even then they’d get bogged down in Siberia.
Last edited:
I'm actually interested on what the ramifications of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act failing to pass would mean for the American economy? Since it repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, I am curious if it means that the Great Recession is mitigated to being just a typical recession or if the economy tanks sooner?
FireCrispyHistory
Banned
I am also interested, what would have happened if Germany had the uranium to build a nuclear bomb? I have recently learned that Germany knew how to make the A-Bomb, just didn't have the uranium. They did send their limited Uranium to Japan to have them build it, but it got intercepted. What if Germany built the bomb? What would the target be? London perhaps? Maybe D.C? Or would they try it on Moscow?
To my understanding, they had a heavy water reactor that Norwegian special forces sabotaged in Operation Gunnerside in 1943. Seeing as they had uranium, you'd have to avoid: sabotage by Allied special forces, and having the Nazis not call NEisntein's work "Jewish Science". Get those factors together. . . and you'd still need air supremacy over Britain or the USSR, otherwise they'd nuke German (or Gemrna puppet) held territory. Nuking the USA is pretty much out of the question unless you can magically make an undetectable U-Boat that can transport both a nuke and a V2, and then have the V2 somehow be powerful enough to carry the nuke. (Of course, this assumes that you can fire the V2 from the surfaced U-Boat.)
This is kind of a two-in-one:
1) How plausible is a Jewish state being carved out of Germany instead of being located in Palestine following WW2?
2) If Israel lost the War of 1948, would somewhere in Europe have been viable for a backup location?
I ask because since I'm of Jewish heritage I genuinely wonder what would have happened to the Jewish people as a collective and Judaism as a religion post-Holocaust if Israel was not created in Palestine.
1) How plausible is a Jewish state being carved out of Germany instead of being located in Palestine following WW2?
2) If Israel lost the War of 1948, would somewhere in Europe have been viable for a backup location?
I ask because since I'm of Jewish heritage I genuinely wonder what would have happened to the Jewish people as a collective and Judaism as a religion post-Holocaust if Israel was not created in Palestine.
In regards to the first: probably not, Europe was still relatively anti-Semitic in accordance with modern standards, and from their perspective, want a bit of an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to a Jewish state. The Jews on the other hand were very… insistent on having their homeland in the Holy Land.
In regards to the second point… it was attempted IOTL by the Soviets, but they made the Autonomous Jewish Oblast in Siberia, where the Jews didn’t want it, and it was mostly a Yiddish state.
So to have it succeed, you’d need the Soviets to establish the AJO in good faith, which would probably place it either near Crimea, or in the Caucasus (if I’m remembering correctly where the concentration of Soviet Jews was and where they wanted the Oblast to be situated).
Last edited: