Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1900
- Thread starter Nerdlinger
- Start date
I like the gold standard, and I'm thoroughly against calls for prohibition. Outright nationalization of industries goes against my beliefs. A vote for the Republican William McKinley it is, since the National Democratic Party disbanded earlier that very year.
Thanks for the info. I was uncertain because in the book, War Against the Weak, the author made it clear that support for eugenics crossed party and ideological lines. Both TR and Wilson supported it, for example. So did Oliver Wendell Holmes and Margaret Sanger. Reactionaries and progressives and even some socialists supported it. It was a heartbreaking story. America's obsession with eugenics trickled over to Europe and contributed to the horrors of Nazi "medical" practices.
(I edited my post for clarity of meaning).
Last edited:
I contemplated creating a series of polls stemming from the first election with an alternate result from OTL, but I'm not sure who would be running against who in future elections in this hypothetical ATL. Plus, each election which differs from OTL will result in an ATL branching off from that point in time. Handling so many ATLs is beyond me, and would probably be rather confusing to voters. However, if there is anyone that would like to make a TL stemming from any elections which result in alternate presidents, please feel free to do so. I have no plans to expand the project outside of the US, but again, I'd encourage anyone who's up to the challenge to start such a project.
Yeah sounds like it could be get very confusing very fast.
What if you did each election with the incumbent (in this case McKinley, but looks like Debs for 1904, but only for one term after (we'll just ignore FDR for the purpose of simplicity), throw in every candidate who tried for the nomination of the two main parties (lets just say they all challenged the sitting president in the primaries if they are of the same party) using the wiki articles on the election as a starting point, and then do a thread (or just ask people on this thread) asking who they'd like to add to the list of candidates for the next election.
Maybe something like: The winner of this poll will be running again in the next election (again, unless McKinley wins because this would be his second term) in 1904, who would you like to see/expect to see running against him?
Then just combine the list of all the names you have for the next election, it should be quite simple but it ignores all the butterflies (so assume that none of the assassinations take place and that none of these presidents or events alter the timeline too much). That should make an interesting way to do it.
Please forgive the rambling reply, hope that helps. Need to sleep, and sleep on this.
Yeah sounds like it could be get very confusing very fast.
What if you did each election with the incumbent (in this case McKinley, but looks like Debs for 1904, but only for one term after (we'll just ignore FDR for the purpose of simplicity), throw in every candidate who tried for the nomination of the two main parties (lets just say they all challenged the sitting president in the primaries if they are of the same party) using the wiki articles on the election as a starting point, and then do a thread (or just ask people on this thread) asking who they'd like to add to the list of candidates for the next election.
Maybe something like: The winner of this poll will be running again in the next election (again, unless McKinley wins because this would be his second term) in 1904, who would you like to see/expect to see running against him?
Then just combine the list of all the names you have for the next election, it should be quite simple but it ignores all the butterflies (so assume that none of the assassinations take place and that none of these presidents or events alter the timeline too much). That should make an interesting way to do it.
Please forgive the rambling reply, hope that helps. Need to sleep, and sleep on this.
Polling people as to who will be included in each alternate poll sounds a bit complicated. And there's still the problem of having not just one, but multiple alternate elections (each in an ATL stemming off from a different POD) running at the same time as the retrospective elections. Too confusing, I would think.
I didn't mean a poll on future candidates, I meant let people just suggest them. So, the next election goes with the most candidates possible, and the plurality still wins. And just ignore the potential butterflies to keep it simple and one timeline, if that makes sense.
Ok its past 4 here now, really am going to sleep!
Keep in mind that he could be a real nutjob sometimes. You know, he even supported votes for women !!
Talk about a crank.
Last edited:
They weren't "socialists". They were the left-cover for the bourgeoisie. Allende, not being an actual revolutionary, still threatened the status quo at a point when the bourgeoisie in Chile was mostly united. In Germany after WWI, the same party which had voted for war and supported the Kaiser took over, but at this point it was a thoroughly bourgeois party in political outlook. The "socialist" international had forced out all the actual socialists by voting for war credits in almost every case, supporting their national bourgeoisie over the international proletariat. They weren't threats to the class rule of the bourgeoisie any more, whereas Debs was. The fact that Debs is in the US Dept of Labor's "Labor Hall of Fame" is a travesty, it's the exact opposite of his intent. now that he is dead, the bourgeois state glorifies him in order to turn him into a principled reformer and ensure that Americans don't remember an era where a million people voted for a jailed revolutionary for President.
Castlereagh
Banned
Maybe because most of the "proletariat" did support the war? Marx and Engels were basically internationalist leaning bourgeoisie (in background at least) who tried to win over the working class to their views.