Sequel de Mayo (Cinco de Mayo, Vol. II)
- Thread starter KingSweden24
- Start date
I feel bad for the poor sap who has to run against Pershing in 1932 if that's the direction you go. The Democrats will have to find someone who is a war hero in their own right in an attempt to blunt the Pershing juggernaut. Maybe FDR steps up to the plate to take one for the team here? He's a war hero in his own right from Hilton Head after all.
I agree with this 100% because I am going to keep pushing FDR as the Harold Stassen of this timeline.
You’d be guessing correct
While Pershing would be a formidable name for ‘32 (not tipping my hand either way), one could make a case that he’d be less of a force by then than he would be in, say, 1920. The Grant/Sherman vibe is intentional, but only to a point.
As for FDR, while this idea makes me chuckle, I have a fairly novel way of deep-sixing his political career without killing him off or even giving him polio that I’m very excited about
This makes me wonder what will become of the actual Harold Stassen in the Cinqo-verse. Minnesota is a heavily Dem state and my gut tells me that Stassen would be a Liberal; but he was pretty Progressive in OTL - strong supporter of civil rights (though he would share that with the ATL Liberals), good relations with labor, supporter of a universal income - so he might be drawn to the Dems here, in which case he wouldn't have much standing in his way from ascending the ladder.
Stassen as Dem is an idea, certainly. One thing to keep in mind though is that as the Prairie Populist agenda largely gets passed in the Hearst era and then the 1920s, and urbanization takes off, the dynamics in the Farm Belt will start to diverge from those of the Mine Belt (you’re already seeing this with the West Coast states being swingier, California especially) and what precisely constitutes “the Western Wall” will change, much as the Liberal fortress in New England cracks from demographic and economic changes a generation earlier.
TLDR by the time Stassen is relevant to the TL, Liberals may or may not be more of a force in the Upper Midwest than they are in 1916, much as Democrats are more of a force in New England by the early 1920s
Rereading this, I think I'm starting to see why Wadsworth won in 1920 - I'm guessing the Democrats ran on a platform of explicitly abolishing the Electoral College, were consequently roundly defeated in New York, but won everywhere else so hard it didn't matter and they had sufficient support to pass the amendment. 1920 is possibly the first election since before the War of Secession where the loser won New York, isn't it?
Thanks for the advice!
Whether it's Pershing or not, I wonder whomever the candidate is, as well as Root, leads to the stereotype or Liberals always running old distinguished men for the Presidency.
Maybe they get stuck with the label "GOP" for "Grey Old Party"
Speaking of nicknames and symbols - what's the popular symbol for the Liberal Party? If I'm remembering the political cartoon shorthand, the Donkey had already been used for the Dems from well before the POD. But the Elephant didn't get associated with the Republicans until the 1870s thanks to Nast.
I wonder what he used for the Liberals here? Maybe an Owl because they are more meritocratic and technocratic and therefor 'wise'?
I was thinking Owl for Liberals and a throwback in the rooster for Democrats, as it was in Jacksonian times - the rooster and donkey were interchangeable for quite some time and I like the idea of both parties being symbolized by birdsWhether it's Pershing or not, I wonder whomever the candidate is, as well as Root, leads to the stereotype or Liberals always running old distinguished men for the Presidency.
Maybe they get stuck with the label "GOP" for "Grey Old Party"
Speaking of nicknames and symbols - what's the popular symbol for the Liberal Party? If I'm remembering the political cartoon shorthand, the Donkey had already been used for the Dems from well before the POD. But the Elephant didn't get associated with the Republicans until the 1870s thanks to Nast.
I wonder what he used for the Liberals here? Maybe an Owl because they are more meritocratic and technocratic and therefor 'wise'?
The American Socialists
"...numerous setbacks. On paper, the party had as many Congressmen (and in the same seats) as before the election, but they had lost numerous municipal posts, most prominently the mayoralty of Seattle earlier in the spring and their city council majority in Milwaukee even as Seidel ally Daniel Hoan was elected, albeit somewhat narrowly, to succeed his friend and mentor. In various state houses, too, the small Socialist caucuses that had organically popped up across the country were dramatically reduced, typically by Democrats who held serve by offsetting their losses to Liberals in swing districts by defeating Socialist incumbents in working-class, immigrant-heavy districts in which the Liberal Party had nonexistent organization.
Nonetheless, Berger still had his toehold, and he took immense pride that in neighboring Minnesota, Thomas Van Lear managed to win the Mayoralty of Minneapolis by a narrow margin to become the first Socialist municipal executive in that entire state..." [1]
- The American Socialists
[1] My desire to focus a bit on how cities and municipalities in this alt-USA evolve, especially the battles between Dems and Socialists in places where Liberals are a nonfactor, leads to little snippet updates like this, immaterial as they may seem to the grand scheme of things
Nonetheless, Berger still had his toehold, and he took immense pride that in neighboring Minnesota, Thomas Van Lear managed to win the Mayoralty of Minneapolis by a narrow margin to become the first Socialist municipal executive in that entire state..." [1]
- The American Socialists
[1] My desire to focus a bit on how cities and municipalities in this alt-USA evolve, especially the battles between Dems and Socialists in places where Liberals are a nonfactor, leads to little snippet updates like this, immaterial as they may seem to the grand scheme of things
The Socialist are holding on, they need to survive the democrats trying to absorb them into the fold. America needs to have more than two parties in its political system. Besides, Sewer Socialism is extremely underrated and needs to be viable in the future.
They'll be fine, especially as long as they and the Liberals have their ceasefire agreement in place.
It's also a question of dynamics in the long run. The Democrats copying Socialist ideas as their own and siphoning off their voters can work but not all the time. At some point, as a big party of government, moderation is going to kick in and draw them back to the center, lest they be ( and I suspect they will ) be trounced by Liberals captating the center.
And in these periods where Democrats will balance back towards the center, the Socialists will grow by captating frustrated hard left voters.
And in these periods where Democrats will balance back towards the center, the Socialists will grow by captating frustrated hard left voters.
I was wondering, How are the Former Portugese colonies of the Pink Map and Angola and Mozambique organized by the German and British Empires?(i.e., how are the new colonies divided up adminsitratively? Also will People like Savimbi or Ñeto have German/ English names? Or will they not exist at all?)
What ever happened to the congressmen and or senators captured in DC at the beginning of the war?