1960 Uber-Convention/Primary

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

And now we reach 1960. Much has happened since the inauguration of President Dwight David Eisenhower. During his term, there have been points of success and points of failure. In the arena of the successful is his "New Look" foreign policy, involving greater quantities of nuclear weapons as opposed to conventional arms to stave off Soviet aggression, and a comprehensive anti-Soviet foreign policy. As well, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has been created, combining a number of previously scattered government agencies, bureaus, commissions, and so on. In 1958, the federal government had a balanced budget. As well, the Interstate Highway Act was passed in 1957. However, there have been remarks of criticism. Some of his critics have criticized the cost of the Interstates, his cutting of "vital" government programs in the name of a balanced budget, his "too aggressive" foreign policy, his "too weak" foreign policy, and so on. Those running in 1960 are among his chief critics. Despite an overall peaceful second term--marred by a recession in 1958 and the criticism that he didn't lower taxes to help battle said recession--Eisenhower sees opposition within his own party. While many of the candidates on the ballot are themselves not running, support groups of said candidates have placed them in the arena themselves. Famed anti-communist crusader Senator Richard Nixon, noted conservative Barry Goldwater, and liberal Nelson Rockefeller (Ike's first HEW Secretary) are all not vying for the nomination and yet are seeing grassroots support. On the other side of the aisle, Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts is criticizing "Ike" on prioritizing penny pinching over America's domestic and international needs. Over the last four years, Kennedy has pushed himself to the forefront of the debate, attempting to set himself up for this year. Hubert H. Humphrey's campaign is meanwhile centered around domestic policy. Lyndon Johnson, 1956's runner-up is also involved in the contest for the Democratic nomination, though he is waiting in the wings at the convention rather than go through a primary campaign. You, the voter, possess a free range of choices. Whom will you choose?

One day.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Okay folks, you have asked questions, and now you shall receive answers.

On the subject of assassinations and/or presidential deaths: It is entirely dependent on surrounding circumstances. Were Lincoln to have presided over the Civil War, then yes, he would have been shot. However, he wasn't. McKinley's death wasn't the result of his policies as president, but due to the mere fact that he was president. FDR in this timeline had only three presidential terms, and didn't have a depression to tax him moreso. He was sickly for the majority of his final term, but FDR didn't die in office. In the case of whoever wins the 1960 presidential election, look at the circumstances and noted issues of the time of JFK's killing, etc. and determine whether this timeline's victor too will die.

On the subject of the Socialist Party: Daniel Hoan and other future "Sewer Socialists" negotiated the folding of the Party into the Democrats. They now comprise the Democrats' left wing.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Well, that's not much good of an answer, is it?

Does the fact that Cuba still happened provide a hint?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Well, that's not much good of an answer, is it?

Does the fact that Cuba still happened provide a hint?

Which type of Cuba theorist are you?  I know several involving Cuba.

(Personally I'll agree to several being plausible enough for the purposes of conjecture as well)

I actually have no idea how much Cuba has or doesn't have to do with JFK's assassination. However, several of the same things are in place: the Cold War, Castro in Cuba, etc.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If the Socialists no longer exist then Democrats are going to win every election from here on. Maybe Perot might have an outside chance.

Wallace, Anderson (unlikely with Ted Kennedy), Perot, and Nader all have outside chances. Mostly for laughs.

If Cathcon maintains the same electoral threshold, those, Schmitz, Clark (though that's the same year as Anderson) and Johnson would be the only non-Democratic options (excluding Republicans).

Couple of things: One, as we have seen, a party's performance in a previous election does have bearing on whether or not they're included in the next election. For example, if Reform nominee Ross Perot gets a good enough percentage in 1996, then whoever wins the Reform primary in 2000 will be on the ballot. The "threshold" is 1% in real life, or one electoral vote. There are potential exceptions, however: Unpledged Electors in 1964, Eugene McCarthy in 1976, Ron Paul in 1988, and Gary Johnson and various other third party options in 2012. Remember, that is aside from carry-overs from previous years (see my Reform Party example).