TLIAPOT
- Thread starter Blair
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dystopia morgenthau wikibox tl
I will incorporate this information if Kefauver becomes the nominee in the retcon.
A Kefauver/Clements would be the most plausible choice then?
I will change dixiecrat to "States' Rights" when I retcon the boxes.
I will run Douglas in 1948. He will do better than Harriman but still lose. He will resign and be replaced by a Taft nominee. Any idea of who Taft would nominate BTW?
I may drop him below 5% in the retcon.
To be honest I just looked at a race and went "hmm yea I could see that going the other way given the context" and then did the next race and so on. I could use a universal swing, problem is I've unleashed third parties ITTL. They kinda throw things out of whack. I could just completely make the seats up, but I'd feel sloppy doing so.
Last edited:
I live in the Netherlands where i can normally see it but i'm right now in Turkey and it's pretty messy here to say the least.
I didn't mean to suggest that Kefauver would be the nominee by default, just that his adversaries would need someone relatively unoffensive to realistically have a shot at keeping him away from a majority. Murray would probably lose a few delegates, but nowhere near enough for Kefauver to sideline him (say a comfortable majority of ninety votes or so). Part of me would suggest that Kefauver be placed on the ticket alongside Murray instead of Clements to assuage any annoyance the Senator may have of still losing the nomination, but from the view of the Party Bosses that would set him up nicely to run yet again in '56, and in a stronger position to boot. There isn't anything to prevent the delegates from bucking their orders and narrowly nominating Kefauver regardless but, well I'll leave that call to you. I'd personally still put my money on Clements, but probably by the same margin Weld got confirmed as the Libertarian VP this year.
Noted.
I honestly don't know, but John Marshall Harlan as Chief Justice seems to fit Taft's ideology.
It would probably also better explain why the Party dissipated by the '52 Election.
The Conscience Republicans I had always suspected as merely being an unofficial bloc as it were, willing to work with the Republican leadership on most matters but unwilling to support its more radical steps. Any competition between the Conscience and Regular Republicans would be contained within the primaries for the Congressional offices, admittedly with the rare breach of that pact in some circumstances (factionalization tends to do that, look to the South). Therefore I wouldn't consider them a Third Party in the traditional sense.
The States' Righters on the other hand are a bit of a quandary, I'll admit. I suppose you could use the Southern Manifesto as a baseline to work from and make all the Democratic signatories States' Righters, same with those who voted against the Civil Rights Act of '57 (the latter would mean more Congressmen); at the very least it would give you an idea of where they might hold sway.
The States' Righters on the other hand are a bit of a quandary, I'll admit. I suppose you could use the Southern Manifesto as a baseline to work from and make all the Democratic signatories States' Righters, same with those who voted against the Civil Rights Act of '57 (the latter would mean more Congressmen); at the very least it would give you an idea of where they might hold sway.
In US presidential elections only the electoral vote matters. You can lose everything else but if you win the electoral vote, you win the election.
Which would make it more accurate.
"We're not racist, we just support a system where everything would be in our power and anyone trying to stop us being racist dickbags gets told off!"
Lost Freeway
Banned
Why are for example Texas and Maine, white-gray? Are they conscience party? Independents? Or does Texas don't have a seat in senate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_United_States_Senators
Why are for example Texas and Maine, white-gray? Are they conscience party? Independents? Or does Texas don't have a seat in senate?
Because seats are elected at different times.
Grey means there was no election in that state that year. Senate elections are staggered such that only 1/3 of the chamber goes up for re-election every 2 years.Why are for example Texas and Maine, white-gray? Are they conscience party? Independents? Or does Texas don't have a seat in senate?
Last edited:
I have a couple mo........
*Dodges a thrown coffee mug*
......have a couple more suggestions, or rather critiques. I should have mentioned this earlier but I didn't really think you were going to run with Kefauver or change the electoral landscape that much.
For the electoral map itself I would argue that Kefauver wouldn't have much of a chance of carrying either Arkansas or Virginia. Remember that in trying to secure his nomination Kefauver would essentially have given those State Democratic Parties the bird, and just about every machine in those states would be working against him. Arkansas would certainly go for Chandler, but Virginia through a divided Democratic field would probably well end up in MacArthur's column; in recompense to maintain Kefauver's victory, on account of his strong labor backing, I'd move Pennsylvania from Republican to Democratic (I imagine it would have been close). Part of me wants to argue Texas as well given they would also have been stripped their Convention Rights (by extension Lyndon Johnson), that I'd like Virginia end up in the Republican camp, but for the sake of expedience I'll err and say that in a tight three-way Kefauver managed to get the edge.
In terms of running-mates, while I am the one that suggested him, Earle Clements really wouldn't fit well with Estes Kefauver, namely because of regionalism which still held as a required electoral strategy at the time. OTL Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois is the first candidate that comes to mind based on his backing for Kefauver, but ironically enough you've rubbed out his electoral career so far. I did notice though that you had Senator Francis Myers re-elected, and he would provide a nice balance as a Liberal Northerner (also securing Pennsylvania), though his Catholicism may be an issue to some (mainly in the South though that's lost already). He may actually be your best bet, the Democrats lacking a deep bench in the Northeast or Midwest that didn't have some sort of ethical concern.
Also you may want to check the maps you are using for your Senate elections; unless you are possibly including special elections or appointments, I don't believe Minnesota had Senatorial elections in 1950, 1952, and 1954.
*Dodges a thrown coffee mug*
......have a couple more suggestions, or rather critiques. I should have mentioned this earlier but I didn't really think you were going to run with Kefauver or change the electoral landscape that much.
For the electoral map itself I would argue that Kefauver wouldn't have much of a chance of carrying either Arkansas or Virginia. Remember that in trying to secure his nomination Kefauver would essentially have given those State Democratic Parties the bird, and just about every machine in those states would be working against him. Arkansas would certainly go for Chandler, but Virginia through a divided Democratic field would probably well end up in MacArthur's column; in recompense to maintain Kefauver's victory, on account of his strong labor backing, I'd move Pennsylvania from Republican to Democratic (I imagine it would have been close). Part of me wants to argue Texas as well given they would also have been stripped their Convention Rights (by extension Lyndon Johnson), that I'd like Virginia end up in the Republican camp, but for the sake of expedience I'll err and say that in a tight three-way Kefauver managed to get the edge.
In terms of running-mates, while I am the one that suggested him, Earle Clements really wouldn't fit well with Estes Kefauver, namely because of regionalism which still held as a required electoral strategy at the time. OTL Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois is the first candidate that comes to mind based on his backing for Kefauver, but ironically enough you've rubbed out his electoral career so far. I did notice though that you had Senator Francis Myers re-elected, and he would provide a nice balance as a Liberal Northerner (also securing Pennsylvania), though his Catholicism may be an issue to some (mainly in the South though that's lost already). He may actually be your best bet, the Democrats lacking a deep bench in the Northeast or Midwest that didn't have some sort of ethical concern.
Also you may want to check the maps you are using for your Senate elections; unless you are possibly including special elections or appointments, I don't believe Minnesota had Senatorial elections in 1950, 1952, and 1954.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Special elections or appointments. I shove in an extra race from time to time so I can get the numbers I want. For example, Lester Hunt killing himself gave the Republicans-States' Righters an exact majority of 49. To get to the magic 49 I had to throw a few special races.
So we have two plausible choices
- Kefauver/Myers
- Murray/Clements
any other tickets to suggest? I may just put this thing to a vote if we have a few different pairings to choose from.