New Deal Coalition Retained III: A New World

Post-GSW World Map:



Changes:

Africa and the Middle East

  • Gabon loses some border provinces to Cameroon and Congo
  • Spanish Equatorial Guinea is completely annexed by Cameroon
  • Djibouti is completely annexed by Somalia
  • As the CAR couldn't effectively control the former Sudanese territory awarded to them after WWIII, most of OTL South Sudan achieve independence
  • Tanzania loses border regions to Uganda, Kenya, Mozambique, and India, give independence to Zanzibar and change the name back to Tanganyika
  • South Africa loses border regions to the Lozi Kingdom, Mozambique, and Angola
  • Rhodesia annexes the Lusaka province from Congo
  • Niger annexes some Muslim-majority regions from Nigeria
  • Libya annexes the Aouzou strip from Chad
  • Niger annexes border regions from Burkina-Faso
  • Iraq annexes most of French Syria, Turkey annexes border regions north of Aleppo and the French retain control over Lebanon and the surrounding area
  • The eastern half of the Portuguese Luanda enclave will be annexed by Angola
Asia and Oceania
  • Pakistan will cease to exist
  • India re-annexes Gujarat and annexes Jammu and Kashmir in its entirety
  • Afghanistan annexes the Pashtun-majority areas of Pakistan
  • Sindh will be placed under joint Indian-Chinese occupation until 2002, then it will be absorbed by India
  • Balochistan and Punjab will become Indian puppets and will join the Dual pact
  • China would lease the Port of Gwadar for 99 years
  • Thailand loses some border provinces to Malaysia and Cambodia and becomes a Chinese puppet
  • Fiji is shown as an Indian puppet, as explained in one of the updates because of a pro-Indian coup
  • Goa is annexed by India under "One Country, Two Systems" model
  • Macau remains under Portuguese rule
  • Timor-Leste opt to join Australia
Other
  • Argentina will be divided between Chile, Spain, Paraguay and Bolivia
  • The former greater Serbia will be divided between Croatia, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary and the new republics of Sandzak and Bosnia
  • The West Indies Federation has bought some islands from France and the Netherlands as both need money
 
Last edited:
[A/N: Just for reference, here and here are the last UK updates.]

1999 United Kingdom General Election

The last four years were troubling for the Mason Lib-Lab coalition: The tentative agreement initially formed between Mason and Blair, mostly on economic issues and policy related to Scotland’s autonomy, was now replaced with heavy mistrust between the two politicians. The Labour Party had evidently, still remembered Blair and his people for his betrayal of the party in 1992. Many believe it had ruined their chances in an election against a widely unpopular Prime Minister. While the two sides in the 1997 coalition agreement agreed not to nationalize certain key industries, vital positions in Labour’s social-democratic and protectionist policy, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretaries of State for Trade, Industry, Energy, and Employment were kept under Labour control. This would kickstart massive investments of nationalized oil funds and tariff revenues into the NHS, as well as other social programs, but came at the expense of a decline in international trade. The Liberal Party, while receiving the positions of Foreign Secretary for Blair and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food for their deputy leader Shirley Williams, (among other three ministerial portfolios), felt that they were merely “balancing” the actions of Labour-led government. And their party base agreed. They experienced discontent with the party’s sluggish response to what they saw as Labour’s “exaggerated socialist” policies.


Another failure of the Liberal Party was their attempt to carry Scottish and Welsh devolution policies on their platform. This would include the formation of autonomous governments responsible for domestic affairs of said countries, like health, transport, education among other things. The Liberal support for devolution brought them enormous support from Scotland and Wales and elected them a quarter of their MPs. It was one of the key policies that Blair and the old guard of the party would set high on their priorities, (in order to attract nationalist voters in these regions). Although the devolution platform was a prominent part of the Liberal platform, they had to abandon it because of bipartisan opposition to supposed “attempts to weaken the unity between the home countries”, along with its lack of support from Scottish and Welsh MPs from the other parties.

The Lib-Lab pact had also brought some achievements for the Liberal party. The biggest of them was undoubtedly the non-participation of the United Kingdom in the Great Southern War. While some of the more-hawkish MPs on the Labour and Tory backbench, notably Secretary of State for Defence Denis Healey and former Foreign Secretary Margaret Thatcher, were supportive of the Concordat’s cause and of the fellow anglophone nations of Rhodesia and South Africa, the stalwarts of the Liberal Party as a whole, because of their minaprogressive ideology, and most Tories, including PM Roy Mason, would vote against war. Concern for the state of the British economy in the second overseas war in a decade, they formed a multi-partisan bloc of ~400 MPs that objected to any official entry to the war. The UK’s foreign policy, now generally directed by Blair, managed to keep good ties with American and European countries, and almost cordial relations with the Entebbe Pact. After an international incident involving the status of Hong Kong, however, the Dual Pact and their allies, in addition to Serbia, were considered “undesirable” by the UK because of their “attempt to wage economic war on the Kingdom and their sharp ideological differences”. (Though the UK would keep Hong Kong as part of its territory). Blair was also a key promoter of the increasing partnership between the UK and the new Kalmar Union in the fields of security and energy, a partnership that placated the needs of his party’s base. Another success of the Liberals was the increase in the of the house of commons, from 659 to 700. The move was mainly supported by the ideological stalwarts of the party as a way to diversify the representation of people in the government.



Foreign Secretary Blair meeting fmr. UN Rep. Bill Clinton during a trans-Atlantic summit about cooperation between the UK, the US, and Canada.

Meanwhile, the conservatives returned to the opposition benches for the first time since the deceased PM Colin Mitchell entered Downing 10 in 1984. With the elderly leader, Michael Heseltine announced his intention to resign from leadership in January 1998, the party had to find a new leader. Most political pundits estimated that former Foreign Secretary and unofficial leader of the arch-conservative “Monday Club” Margaret Thatcher would run and win the leadership race, with the unwavering support of the Churchillite and Josephite factions that now composed a solid majority within the party MPs. However, when the 72-year-old MP announced her retirement from the House of Commons and from politics in general, due to her old age, the pundits had nothing to say.

The three factions of the party had to field new candidates, and some new names would enter the national spotlight to fill the void: the Josephites drew their support behind Enfield MP Southgate, and former Secretary of State for Employment, Michael Portillo. Many political pundits believed that Portillo would manage to attract former tories that defected to the Liberals in 1992 and 1995. His youthfulness and his moderate social views, (which were considered liberal in comparison to the average tory), would appeal to these voters. Portillo endorsed Mason’s views regarding Euroscepticism and seek to imitate a Bundyite foreign policy while continuing Churchill’s reforms of spending cuts followed by taxation reforms.

Another Josephite candidate was the MP for Wokingham, John Redwood. Redwood, both a eurosceptic Josephite and a social conservative, believed that Portillo’s relatively socially liberal views would not be enough to draw support from the liberals, as his staunch eurosceptic views would be more likely to alienate socially conservative voters from the party. Redwood championed a new strategy that was focused on eurosceptic support to regain votes from the eurosceptic Labour crowd, although he personally would be incapable of leading such a campaign. He was seen by many voters as cold, and humorless, preferring logic-based arguments over passion-based ones, which earned him his portrayal in pop-culture as a “spitting image of a Vulcan”. His main concern was further approachment with the American camp, and of keeping a distance from European affairs and from the Great Southern War.

The One-Nation faction stood behind the candidacy MP for Rushcliffe and deputy leader Kenneth Clarke. Clarke, former judge to the post-WWIII Warsaw trials, and the Home Secretary during the Churchill ministry was appointed deputy leader by Heseltine. He would become the leading One-Nation tory in the government, and then later in the opposition. He was a vocal supporter of the partnership with the Kalmar Union, and supported further British integration with Europe, and importantly, joining the GSW on the Concordat’s side. On economic affairs, he was extremely moderate, seeking to maintain the economic consensus of the Mason years.

The Churchillian faction unwaveringly supported the charismatic MP for Richmond (Yorks), and former leader of the House of Commons, William Hague. Hague, an excellent debater and orator burst into public knowledge following his speech in the annual Conservative Party conference of 1997:

“We have a Government that has contempt for the views of the people it governs.

There is nothing that the British people can talk about, that this Labour Government doesn’t deride.

Talk about Europe and they call you extreme. Talk about tax and they call you greedy. Talk about crime and they call you reactionary. Talk about asylum and they call you racist. Talk about your nation and they call you Imperialists or Little Englanders, depending on the mood.

This Government thinks Britain would be alright if only we had different people.

I think Britain would be alright, if only we had a different Government.

A Conservative Government that speaks with the voice of the British people.

A Conservative Government that is never embarrassed or ashamed of the British people.

A Conservative Government that trusts the people.

I trust the people.”

Hague was considered to be a compromise between the Josephite Euroscepticism of Portillo, the social conservatism of Redwood, and the internationalist red-Toryism of Clarke. As the Josephites were equally divided in their support for Portillo and Redwood, Redwood was eliminated first and decided to cross over faction lines and endorse Hague, who received the second-largest number of votes because of his penchant for Labour-voters based populism. In the second round, Portillo was eliminated because, after Redwood’s endorsement of Hague, he retained only the support of diehard Liberty Conservatives of the American mold, a fringe position within the Tories. The last two standing men that fought to be the next “king of the mountain” were Hague and Clarke. The decision between them was now subject to the decision of party members. Hague, with the unanimous support of the Churchillite and Josephite party members, decisively won the leadership and took the role of opposition leader in march 1998.


Given the relative popularity of the Mason government, it was decided that unity and moderation would be best. Hague would emphasize that for all of his strength amongst younger voters, his Euroscepticism was toxic amongst ex-tory liberals and that in the weeds of polling, he and Hague had equally good claims. Now the leader of the opposition, Hague decided that some changes need to be made to unite the wings of the party: First on his agenda was to retain his former rival, Ken Clarke as both deputy leader of the party and as Secretary of the Exchequer. Although Clarke’s platform was among a minority in the party, he was considered popular with liberal voters. Hague’s second order of business was not to engage in UK-European relations on a national scale and promote more moderate MPs and regional candidates. The latter was done in order to deflect public opinion from the fact there was almost no consensus within the party about future relations with Europe while appeasing the One-Nation and Monday Club groups of the party. Hague decided to reshuffle the shadow cabinet by appointing Josephite and Churchillite MPs to offices regarding domestic policy, notably with the appointment of Portillo as shadow trade secretary and with Redwood as shadow employment secretary. One-Nationers would be promoted to offices regarding foreign policy and their relationships with Scotland and Ireland as well. From now on, the prime minister’s opposition mainly focused on opposing the Labour domestic agenda in the House of Commons, while abstaining from decisively opposing or supporting the government’s foreign policy. Though, some backbencher MPs sided with their equivalent factions within the government from time to time. The Tory regional headquarters were granted permission from the national headquarters to focus their message on foreign affairs for the target audience, whether they be factory workers in the north who sought a return to isolationism and closer cooperation with the new Kalmar union or middle-class entrepreneurs from the south who sought further cooperation with the Freyist Pact.

Meanwhile, in the Labour party, Mason and his communonationalist cadre reigned supreme. A minuscule challenge from the hard-left MP Michael Meacher was defeated heavily with only one MP other than himself supporting Meacher’s leadership bid. The communonationalist consensus, forged during the Crossman and Benn leadership, within the Labour party was now truly unbreakable with the moderate wings of the party, first under Jenkins and then under Blair, were out of the party. With Mason finally replacing the clause IV of the party’s constitution, calling for common ownership of industry with more modern, less outright-socialistic aims such as eradication of poverty and adding sections about preserving British culture and sovereignty to further entrench communonationalism into the party’s soul, the morphing of the Labour party from European-style social democracy into full-blown statist communonationalism was completed.

Within Liberal party headquarters in London, a grim picture was created in the heads of the party leaders: after doubling its MP count over the last two elections, they were losing momentum. Their fragile coalition of Londoners, suburbanites, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, Scots, Welsh, and young people was feeling increasingly disconnected from the party. Their representatives failed to live up to their promises and failed to pass any aspect of their party agenda. Despite attempts to glorify their (few) successes, and to remind the voters of their relentless effort to balance the "extreme" platform of the two major parties, polls predicted a sharp loss of seats and of their vote share, especially in Scotland, where separatists would stay home on election day or vote for the minuscule Scottish National Party. Even Blair’s seat was considered unsafe, as it was located within the hard-Labour stronghold of North-West England.

Because of the bad situation for the party, no serious contenders tried to snag the leadership from Blair. Because of this, Liberal MPs and party members kept him as their scapegoat leader, leading to a tired and sad party convention. The Liberal MP for Edinburgh West Joanne Rowling, a 30-year old woman, became a bright spot in the gloomy convention when she gave an optimistic speech about the need for her party to attract the youth.

Blair and his “inner circle”, mostly comprised of defectors that switched parties with him in 1992, were deeply concerned with their party’s chances of keeping the momentum that they gained during the last decade. Their prospects for the year 2000 were grim. Polls predicted the Liberals to retain only 60% of their vote share and 30% of their seats, and to lose ground in most constituencies. They would lose seats to Labour in Scotland, and to the Tories in Wales and southern England. Ashdown came up with the idea of political gambling with the potential to “shake” the political scene and rekindle the Liberal and independent voting base: abruptly terminate the coalition partnership so that the Labour administration will become a minority government, then introduce a joint motion of no-confidence with the Tories. Blair and his former-Labour cadre supported the move, in contrast to the “old guard” of the party, led by Shirley Williams, that saw the move as risky political gamble and suggested an alternative strategy of “stretching the boundaries” of the coalition agreements to win back support and then wait for the next general election to quit the coalition. Although in retrospect, many political pundits believed that Williams’ strategy to handle the crisis was better-oriented than the “gamble politics” of Ashdown and Blair, Williams couldn’t convince the party MPs and board members so the party leadership secretly decided to follow Ashdown strategy.

On the morning of the 10th of June, Tony Blair announced the termination of coalition agreements with the Labour party and his own resignation from the position of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. After him, four other Liberal ministers resigned from their posts as well. The day after, the leader of the opposition, William Hague, introduced a motion of no-confidence before the House of Commons. In an unsurprising manner, the House of Commons voted to dissolve the parliament 363-297 and King Charles III announced the dissolution of parliament ten days afterward. New elections were scheduled for Thursday, the 15th of July.

When the election cycle began, the polls still predicted a hung parliament. And although the Labour Party would be able to use the Liberal’s tired and disoriented campaign to grab some seats, they held the advantage in ~310 seats, according to most pollsters. Meanwhile, the Tory strategy of appealing to different crowds with different policies, based on the constituency, was not exploited to its maximum potential, only managing to move ~20 seats to the Tory column. The Liberals were on full defensive during the campaign, trying to divert funds and resources from new candidates to serving MPs, in a desperate attempt to manage the crisis.

It would not be enough for their party.

Most experts in the Labour Party’s election HQ figured out that further attempts to draw more economically left-of-center Liberal voters into their columns were pointless, as only the old guard of a decade past would be staying with their coalition anyways. Most of the “Disappointed-by-Blair Liberals” decided to stay home, or “swallow the poison” and vote Labour. Among the largest bloc of “floating voters” were the Euroskeptics, especially Tories that still felt unrepresented by William Hague’s policies. One Labour campaign advisor from Kent, a man named Nigel Farage, developed the revolutionary “millennium strategy” in order to capture these voters. Farage, a former Tory in his youth, who ditched the party after its sharp turn towards European integrationism, became a member of the “Crossman wing” of the party, espousing support for a social market economy and for Euroscepticism. He had been a supporter of the Labour Party since Mason obtained the party leadership. During the 1995 campaign, he was the Labour campaign manager in southeast England, presiding over great successes in the general election campaign. His success didn’t go unnoticed by the national party leadership either, and when the general election was finally declared, he was promoted to the steering board of the national campaign.



Farage and Kilroy-Silk during the Labour party’s convention in 1998

Farage’s Millenium Strategy was the logical conclusion to the Crossmanite reforms of the late ’70s and early ’80s and would complete the redefinition process the party went through since the start of the late ’60s. The reforms included a replacement of the traditional Labour ideology of nationalization (with a government commitment to the preservation of existing nationalized companies and businesses) while continuing the development of key infrastructure projects.

The infrastructure projects, like the development of the oil and natural gas fields in the North Sea or the massive expansion and renovation that Heathrow airport went through, proved themselves to be popular with Tory voters, both as an effective method to boost the economy and job growth and as a stimulant for national pride. Moreover, the Farage strategy also emphasized massive investment in education and public leisure, which earned him the vocal endorsement of the Secretary of Education, Robert Kilroy-Silk. Kilroy-Silk, the stalwart of Labour’s right-wing faction, was elected to the House of Commons during the ’70s and was a key ally of PM Crossman and of his agenda.



Artist's impression of the new masterplan for expansion at Heathrow airport

Farage’s strategy would also share one key policy of the Liberals: the need for electoral reform. Many political outsiders such as Farage felt that the FPTP method wasn’t “representing” the populace well enough, and sought to supplement it with some form of proportional representation, such as STV or AV+. He would also recommend further expanding parliament further to ~800 MPs, to reflect population growth and the diverse opinions of the populace. Even former PM, Tony Benn, in political retirement, expressed his honest thoughts about the electoral method in an interview with the BBC, agreeing at least some form of reform was needed.

Another secret addendum of the Farage strategy was “the complete eradication of pro-Europe elements from the party”, as Farage sought to complete both what Mason started and to reinforce the status of the Labour Party as the main anti-Europe party.

Under Farage, the Labour Party would decide to reduce support for Labour candidates that stood against consistently Eurosceptic Tories, diverting these funds into campaigns against unpopular incumbent MPs, mostly against One-Nationers in either the North or in the Midlands. In some cases, Farage went as far as to recommend that some Labour candidates pull their candidacy to endorse the incumbent MP.

Farage’s strategy would improve the poll numbers for Labour Party candidates in vulnerable districts, and it seemed to many that Labour would be able to gain seats or even to achieve an absolute majority. The next week, the photo finish of the campaign would be defined by the Labour’s rising tide and many swing seats have swung into the red column.



The loss of more than half of their seats would prove one of the most shocking defeats in decades for the Liberal Party. This would happen despite the fact that the number of seats for MPs in the House of Commons increased, (ironically a policy of the Liberal platform). Blair would announce plans to resign from party leadership, and a new chapter in the history of the Liberal Party had begun. The end of Blair’s tenure marked the end of the “desert era” for the Liberal party, an era from which the party grew from a party with a maximum potential of 20 seats to a party to a dignified contender for the game of thrones that was the competition for 10 Downing. Like Moses leading his people of Egypt, Blair would lead his party out of political oblivion.

With Blair having served his purpose, it would be up to the new leader of the party to redefine it, and then to ready it to face the coming millennium.
 
Last edited:
So the post-war consensus can be considered officially dead at this point, with nationalization out of the labour platform. It will be interesting to see where the UK and especially the liberal party go from here
 
So no PM Thatcher? Aw gee, what a shame.

Seriously though, liking this British political update.
Don't be so sure, I can make he rejoin politics in 2004, win the party's leadership and let her win elections forever!

T H A T C H E R​

F O R E V E R​


So the post-war consensus can be considered officially dead at this point, with nationalization out of the labour platform. It will be interesting to see where the UK and especially the liberal party go from here
The Labour party are currently pursuing a model similar to the OTL "Scandinavian model" with the main form of government intervention in the economy not being direct ownership and management but financing welfare and megaprojects.
 
2000 Candidates

Democrats


Age on Inauguration Day: 57


John Kerry has emerged as the leader of a new faction of Democrats, known as the internationalists. Emerging as a reaction to the rise of whole-life views, they are anti-abortion but also a pro-death penalty and for America to be active militarily abroad. His Campaign is focused on opposing Bundy’s isolationist foreign policy and bringing America back to the world stage as a military superpower, as well as an economic one. While conservative, his Catholicism turns off many southern voters. Despite this, he has the support of the old guard of communonationalists within the party, including Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Lloyd Bentsen, Jimmy Griffin, and Daniel White.



Age on Inauguration Day: 67


With the endorsement of Larry MacDonald, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond, the conservative southern wing of the democratic party is united behind Zell Miller. With a political career going back four decades and experience in local, state, and national politics he has presented himself as the logical choice to run the country. His biggest weakness is that he isn’t a well-known figure outside of Georgia. As well, his association with Lester Maddox, a Dixiecrat who never fully apologized for his segregationist views as Wallace and others had, limits his appeal with voters outside of the south. More moderate southerners such as Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore have also refused to endorse him.



Age on Inauguration Day: 73


Harris Wofford was considered a potential candidate in ‘92 and has decided to throw his hat in the ring eight years later, despite pundits believing he is past his prime. A favorite of the Kennedy Liberal wing (he even served in the former president's administration) that formerly supported Ron Wyden and Lynn Yeakel (he also earned the endorsement of her running mate, Richard Bryan), more conservative elements strongly oppose him, but he is nonetheless seen as having a decent chance at clinching the nomination. His whole-life views (and close, if a sometimes fraught relationship with fellow Pennsylvanian Bob Casey) have also garnered him the support of the growing “Christian Democrat” movement. His main issue is his age: he would be the oldest president ever elected by a significant margin. Despite this, he continues the campaign with youthful vigor.



Age on Inauguration Day: 58


Representative Dick Gephardt, formerly considered for the Vice President spot in 1992 and 1996, has put his name in for the top of the ticket in 2000. He has endorsements and money from most of the country's biggest labor unions, and high profile backers such as James Traficant, Owen Bieber, Dick Durbin, and Bill Clinton. Many of the elements that launched Iacocca into the oval office are behind him. His time as a minority whip allows him to campaign as a deal-maker who will get work done in Washington (despite most of his time in the post being spent on stopping Bundy’s policy proposals). With all these facts, he should be the front-runner, if not for one major issue: of all the major Democratic candidates, he has the least name recognition. He believes he can make up for this with intense grassroots campaigning.



Age on Inauguration Day: 45


Political pundits point towards Evan Bayh as the frontrunner of the decent-sized democratic field. A political moderate (more conservative than his Kennedy liberal father), he can appeal to all wings of the party. More importantly, he has a famous name: anybody who knows politics knows his father (who he succeeded in the Senate), a statesman with tripartisan respect. He’s young, handsome, and charismatic. He isn’t without flaws, however. The first is a lack of endorsements, with many politicians preferring to endorse their own wing’s candidates as opposed to a moderate who could unite the party. The second is a lack of real accomplishments of his own to point to.


The Democratic field going into 2000 wasn't excessively large, but each candidate had enough support for the race to be a 5-way toss-up. Attempts to draft a unifying candidate such as Bill Clinton or Dick Durbin never worked out.

Progressives



Age on Inauguration Day: 64


Ron Paul was on the extreme end of the libertarian side of the Progressive party, much more radical than Dick Lamm or even Gary Johnson. To a large portion of the Progressive electorate, the views he expressed during his first election campaign would make it impossible for him to ever be the party’s nominee. However, Paul had ambitions for higher office. In order to be seen as more electable, he had gradually toned down his anti-government views and began to slowly move his voting record on economic issues from far-right to center-right although he did support Bundy’s privatization and Social Security Reform. This was in part because of his crusade to empower state and local government to act more in their local economies be it through endorsing huge increases in grant money (a plan that went nowhere) or a proposal to divide the NLRB into more Union-friendly state labour boards. After initial failures to bridge divides on these more contentious economic issues that could divide the party and focus on his left-wing social views, like including birth control in CaseyCare, which both the coastal liberal wing and the western libertarian wing could agree on, for different reasons. Ron Paul also emphasized a “peace-first” foreign policy that centered around sending more food abroad, ending interventions in South America, and promoting peace negotiations. Ron Paul had the advantage of appealing to the progressive voter base that was most energized in 2000, thanks to the work of Ross Perot, farmers in middle America.



Age on Inauguration Day: 57


Larry Pressler had long been mentioned as a potential Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee. A moderate liberal who sees himself as able to unite the two wings of the party, he sold himself as the best candidate to defeat Bundy. However, despite being Ross Perot’s preferred candidate (the leader secretly thinking a presidential campaign a waste of funds and more of a chance to build the congressional voting base) and having the endorsement of 1996 candidate Fred Tuttle, he is seen as a third fiddle in the race. His advantages were all relatively underwhelming compared to the other candidates. He has the most foreign policy experience but has little disagreements with President Bundy on foreign policy. He has the support of farmers, but they are outnumbered by other Progressive constituents. He also tried to win over key Republican donors unhappy with the tax hikes in “The Deal” which he promised to repeal but found that this audience prefer Ron Paul.



Age on Inauguration Day: 65


Ralph Nader is the favorite of the left-wing progressives such as RBG, Lowell Weicker, and Paul Wellstone. His campaign focuses on the issues of corruption, direct democracy, and environmentalism. He also has consistently attacked Bundy for dismantling the welfare state and consumer protection measures. His appeal is with Urban Progressives and those who joined the progressive party out of disdain for the two-party system. However, his pro-family policies and former work for Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the Wallace administration have to lead to attacks of him being a "closest communonationalist".


While pundits expected a wider field, many potential candidates declined. Bernie Sanders refused to run for higher office until he was no longer in Gracie Mansion, Gary Johnson had his sights on being a Senator or Governor over President, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg was quietly planning a rebellion to replace Dick Lamm as Senate Leader.
 
Last edited:
The Primaries

Progressives

Surprisingly, many political observers believed the most interesting presidential primaries in the year 2000 were those for the Progressive Party, largely because of a novel primary system being tried beginning that year. It came to a strong start with the race in Minnesota, traditionally the first race in primary season. It had completed its “Green Revolution” under the tenure of governor Tim Penny, leading to a relatively bloated Progressive audience at events by the time primaries came along, expensive for a 3rd party that was always money-conscious. Adding to their unexpected money worries was the fact that every state/territory would now have an Open-Primary, (as demanded by left-wing reformers). However, they were able to compensate for this loss of funds by digging through their collective warchest, meaning the rest of the primary season would go without a hitch.


Each primary would include mail-in ballots available through county offices. In addition, each ballot would include polling questions on policy proposals from the congressional leadership, (a concession in return for Ross Perot keeping his almost-dictatorial powers in congressional primaries). All registered candidates were to participate in various primary debates centered around policy areas and audience questions. Lastly, the campaign season would become longer and more stretched, in order to reward grassroots campaigning, and to give voters in later states a more equal say. In order to prioritize “facetime” candidates over “big-money”, the primary was stretched out, state-by-state, and with smaller states dominating the early stages outside of New York.


Campaigning in Minnesota would become so expensive that it became a sinkhole for Pressler. Moreover, he incorrectly believed that the positive momentum of a victory there would carry him forward, feeling that if he won the primary, he would be able to rest on his laurels. In reality, the small candidate field allowed his two (equally well funded) opponents the opportunity to strike later. The second state to vote was New Hampshire. Given the “live free or die” nature of its politics, it was always projected to be an easy Ron Paul victory. The 3rd state in the race was New York, (given that spot in order to receive local attention from national media providers based in New York City). Unfortunately for both Pressler and Paul, its political field was dominated by a Nader urban machine, and an expected endorsement from mayor Sanders that would keep the candidate in the running even after going 0 for 2 in the previous two primaries. Importantly, Ralph Nader knew he didn't have a chance in the 4th state, Idaho. (It was also chosen to emphasize its importance for a certain base, namely American Indians, and Natural Law Party voters.) It was projected to be a stable Pressler victory.


After Larry Pressler scoured himself a rout in Minnesota all went as planned, except for Idaho. Without a serious Natural Law candidate in 2000, and no real Republican primary in the region, crossover voters from other parties, “wanting options in November”, went for Paul, in a blow to the Pressler campaign. He would have to save money for later, larger states. The next couple “rounds” would be a constant back and forth that would keep the 3-way race “exciting”.


Rounds:


5. Vermont (Nader)

6. Maine (Pressler)

7. Hawaii (Nader)

8. Oklahoma (Paul), Colorado (Paul) Paul “hit another gear” with shocking domination in both states on the back of strong anti-”war on drugs” campaigning. This was of strong appeal in Colorado due to the relative popularity of homegrown marijuana in the last decade as enforcement of drug control in the state was relaxed, and Oklahoma, still recovering from the Oklahoma City disaster 2 years earlier.

9. Alaska (Paul) In one of the major gambits of the Paul campaign, local campaign staff worked hard to get a last-minute endorsement from the Alaskan Independence Party. Polling originally showed Paul in an almost certain loss, but the endorsement increased crossover voting allowed him to win a majority of delegates. While the party leadership would be outraged, the incident failed to gain much media attention outside of Alaska.

10. New Jersey (Nader), Connecticut (Pressler) Pressler is able to pull off a major upset in New England, taking Nader’s home state of Connecticut. A tactic non-endorsement from Nader’s more moderate successor, Eunice Groark, would lead to Pressler sweeping suburban whites in the state.

11. South Dakota (Paul)

12. California (Nader) (Banking on endorsements from Brown, Jello Biafra, and a surprise California SEIU endorsement. However, the upcoming Calendar did not give Nader a chance to bank on this success) Being endorsed by Jerry Brown and Jello Biafra, Nader was able to win a major victory in California on the back of urban progressives in the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas. However, later contests would fail to provide opportunities to follow up with smaller wins. Notably, Nader is endorsed by the Service Employees International Union, who had in the past supported Democratic candidates.

13. North Dakota (Pressler), Wisconsin (Pressler), Iowa (Pressler) (Pressler’s control of loyal Midwest Parties seems to have revived “the 3rd wheel of the race”. This day would be the largest slate of delegates in a single “round”. These states were also the final states with incumbent Progressive senators on the ballot. Paul, meanwhile, seemed to have hit a rut. He knew that as long as he survived the final few rounds, (dominated by southern states and territories with little Progressive presence), the nomination would all be his. (Establishment candidates, no matter the party, tended to do well in the primaries of states where their party had a weaker presence.) Ron Paul dominated among both fringe libertarians, social progressives, and businessmen who believed feminism and birth control were good for business.

14. Illinois (Nader), Ohio (Nader)

15. Oregon (Nader), Nebraska (Pressler), Pressler’s endorsement of the Unicameral legislature as a model of reform keeps him alive.

16. Texas (Paul), New Mexico (Paul) Perot’s public endorsement of Pressler came too late, and support for “a compassionate refugee program that meets” amongst Spanish speakers and adding Mexico to CarFTA win over voters as Nader fails to win over Spanish American democrats like planned. After Texas, the remaining states had few national Progressive figures, and as a result, were grouped together more.

17. Wyoming (Paul), Montana (Paul), Puerto Rico (Pressler), Guam (Paul), N.M.A. (Paul), American Samoa (Paul)

18. Michigan (Pressler), Indiana (Pressler), Pressler had a great night until the post-primary debate (a new idea to “spice things up”).


Pressler: “I have sense and experience and D.C.” (a reference to the previous nominee, Fred Tuttle, and his lack of experience). “I have endorsements from both our party’s leadership and that of sensible members of other parties.”


Nader: "What the Senator means to say is that he thinks being a member of the establishment is a good thing. If so Senator, then why don’t you return to the Republican Party? This party rejects the smoke-filled rooms of the establishment for the sunny fields of the people! It is also why I pledge to fight to the end of the campaign to promote my ideas to the people!"


Paul: "While I agree with the Governor, I do find the statement ironic, coming from someone who worked in the Wallace administration. It doesn’t get more establishment than that..."


Pressler would never recover from his subpar debate performance, and many of his voters would switch their votes to the other two candidates, especially Paul over Nader. However, Nader, who had been underperforming, suddenly felt a jolt of energy in his campaign.


19. Washington D.C. (Nader), Pennsylvania (Nader)

20. Rhode Island (Nader), Delaware (Nader), Organized to reward grassroots campaigns, these smaller primaries rewarded Nader’s momentum, but the lack of delegate size and post-win media, in the face of a potential Democratic Contested Convention, killed Nader’s momentum while Paul focused West.

21. Nevada (Paul), Arizona (Paul), Utah (Paul), Kansas (Paul), Virginia (Paul), Washington (Nader), Massachusetts (Nader)

23. Florida (Paul) West Virginia (Paul), Missouri (Paul), USVI (Paul), Kentucky (Paul), Maryland (Nader)

24. South Carolina (Paul), Mississippi (Paul), Arkansas (Paul), Alabama (Paul), Tennessee (Paul), Louisiana (Paul), North Carolina (Paul)


To win without a contested convention, Paul could only afford to lose 1 state in the last two primary slates. However, thanks to his (correct) view that Nader would make it to the finish, he had built a campaign team deep into the race while Nader had to work on the fly.


Ultimately, it was the new primary system that gave Paul his victory. The national open primary system allowed crossover voting from many Bundy ‘96 voters, who mostly still cautiously backed the president, but wanted an alternative in case things went pear-shaped. In the same vein, southern states where progressives had little to no power were given a slight boost in delegates, which gave Paul the final push he needed to cross the finish line.



Democrats


Going into primary season, the Democratic Party was firmly divided into factions. The Kennedy liberals supported Harris Wofford, the conservatives Zell Miller, the unions Dick Gephardt, and the communonationalists John Kerry. Seeking to rise about that was Evan Bayh, son of one of the most respected statesmen of the past 50 years.


First up to vote was Minnesota. While not a state known for its sympathies for the party, it had remained first in the race despite protests in the DNC. Tradition and inertia kept it that way, to their chagrin. Gephardt hoped to target farmers in the west and miners from the state’s iron range, while Kerry hoped to appeal to those who fondly remembered Hubert Humphrey by campaigning with his son Skip. He would also focus on his hawkish foreign policy, in contrast to the Coolidgean isolationism of Bundy. However, the state would ultimately go to Bayh, whose campaign focused on promoting pro-agriculture policies in the face of Bundy’s growing open hostility to subsidies in general.


Next was New Hampshire. Gephardt would focus lots of his campaign's energy here, but ultimately Kerry would have the advantage due to being a native of the region, winning the “favorite son” vote. Virginia, the definitive Robertson Democrat state, easily went into Miller's column.


Despite winning big early on with Minnesota, Bayh would falter throughout the next three months. Slowly declining in the polls and failing to carry any other major states except Illinois, he would not be able to hold on his momentum in the race. The biggest blow though would come in Bayh's home state of Indiana. Gephardt had made a major push with union voters by campaigning with Teamsters President James P. Hoffa (son of the late Jimmy Hoffa, and winner of the party's nomination for governor that year). Democratic union members would follow his lead, pulling the race in favor of Gephardt by a narrow margin. This would lead the Bayh campaign momentum to falter, and while he would still pick up states, mostly in the Plains states and the northwest where Bayh was popular with farmers, he would not be able to build on his early win in Minnesota. He would have enough influence to remain in the running, meaning he would not drop out, wanting to keep a seat at the convention table.


Zell Miller, meanwhile, would sweep the South, winning from the votes of traditional George Wallace voters. However, he would be unable to build a coalition of voters outside of these states, and would fail to win over working class whites in the north as Wallace did, never winning a state north of the Mason-Dixon line. His distinct platform of conservative economic policy, and hawkish foreign policy, would find competition from John Kerry voters in the north.


Kerry himself had gained a reputation as a war hawk in the Democratic Party, touting his internationalist credentials, as opposed to the isolationism of the Republican Party. He would take center-stage as the choice of orthodox communationalists, gaining the endorsement of figures like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Dan White. The endorsement of the latter was a crucial factor in his victory in the California race, riding off voters nostalgic for his governorship, and dissatisfied under the Jim Jones administration. Kerry would also win Washington due to the struggling Democratic machine established by Scoop Jackson, and Florida by appealing to retired veterans.


Harris Wofford was the candidate of choice among the old “Kennedy Liberal” coalition of Democrats, who favored socially liberal policies, and had a positive opinion of the Kennedy administration. They were a dying breed in the Democratic Party, compared to the majority of those who favored the New Deal coalition consensus of Truman and FDR. Already seen as representing a political group that was slowly going extinct, Wofford voters were mainly pseudo-Progressive Democratic voters in the Northeast and Oregon (all states with very small Democratic voter bases), allowing him to remain a factor in the race. Unlike other noteworthy political factions like the Rockefeller Republicans, the Kennedy Liberals had seen better days. But Wofford hoped that if worse came to worst, he could have a role in deciding the eventual nominee.


Dick Gephardt, meanwhile, would have surprising success in appealing to voters across a wide political and geographical base. He would go on to win races from as far as Alaska to West Virginia, mostly a result of his ability to gain endorsements across the board, and from the effects of his opponent’s votes cancelling each other out. He was able to come off as a consensus candidate among most Democrats, meaning for a while it seemed as if he would become the nominee. However, Zel Miller’s solid command of the Deep South, and a strong last minute showing from John Kerry in New York, Washington and California, would prevent him from maintaining a solid enough plurality.


By the end of the primary season, none of the major candidates had dropped out of the race, leading to a scenario that many Democrats would dread: A contested convention.






Republicans


Given Bundy’s ability to rustle feathers and the movement towards diversity and openness in US politics, many wondered if Bundy would face a primary challenger. Many pointed towards a more Goldwarite-Hawkish Libertarian-type- as a likely choice, with options including Barry Goldwater Jr. himself, but Bundy’s ability to corral votes and support with “The Deal” and the reality of the 2000 election importance, (especially in deciding redistricting), meant that no challenger emerged. Bundy would run unopposed.
 
Two questions

1. What's going on with the Natural Law Party?

2. Within the Progressive Party, which wing are racial minorities most aligned with?
One of the next updates mention the Natural Law Party.

Progressives tend to attract the poor in minority communities, so most minority progressives tend to lean towards the left-wing.
 
One of the next updates mention the Natural Law Party.

Progressives tend to attract the poor in minority communities, so most minority progressives tend to lean towards the left-wing.
The majority of the minority progs are either: American Indians, college-educated intellectual/activist types, or poor urban minorities in the North or sunbelt that are too left wing economically for the Republicans, this adds up to about 20-30% of blacks. There are about 10% of blacks that are Democrats, and these are mostly Christian Democrats (european type), though a cadre of old left-wingers like Adam Clayton Powell and Ron Dellums that stayed Dem.
 
Top