Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 10:22:08 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 [88]
2176  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: McCain/Fortuno vs Obama/Biden 2008 on: February 19, 2010, 05:35:13 pm
Seeing as Fortuño was only a Resident Commissioner and did not vote on any legislation, I can't imagine that McCain would do any better than he did OTL. I can imagine the flak that Sarah Palin got for her inexperience would be amplified by ten times.
2177  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Rocky in 1968 on: February 19, 2010, 03:46:05 pm
The First Term of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller



Rockefeller’s Cabinet
Vice President: John Tower
Secretary of State: Henry Kissinger
Secretary of Treasury:  George Romney
Secretary of Defense: Richard Nixon
Attorney General: James Rhodes
Postmaster General: William Scranton
Secretary of Interior: Edward Brooke
Secretary of Labor: Margaret Chase Smith
Secretary of Agriculture: Clifford Hardin
Secretary of Commerce: John Chafee
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare: Arthur Fletcher
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: John Volpe
Secretary of Transportation: John Lindsay



Rockefeller carried very few coattails, with the Republicans only gaining 5 Senate seats and 5 House seats. However, Rockefeller felt optimistic on January 20, 1969, as he fulfilled his lifelong dream of becoming the President of the United States. Conservative Republicans were dismayed at Rockefeller’s cabinet selection, which was largely comprised of moderates. Conservatives would also be disappointed by Rockefeller’s domestic policy. In an effort to become “the greatest school desegregator in history,” President Rockefeller, who was outspoken in his support for civil rights, made no attempts to stop forced integration, or busing, of public schools. To ensure that school desegregation went smoothly, he threatened to use Federal troops if southerners would not comply. He also supported extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and declared on the campaign trail in 1970 that the Federal Government would never hesitate to intervene in the name of civil rights. Rockefeller also signed affirmative action programs, such as the Revised Philadelphia Plan, into law. He appointed numerous blacks, Hispanics, and women to government positions.  This made Rockefeller very popular with minorities, social liberals, and moderates, but white southerners learned to despise him.

Rockefeller made no cuts in his predecessor’s Great Society, and expanded Medicare and Medicaid. Also, he and the Democratic Congress would increase federal spending on education, infrastructure, the arts, the environment, crime prevention, transportation, and welfare. To ameliorate the deficit incurred, Rockefeller signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1970, which raised income taxes. Nevertheless, Rockefeller was unable to present a balanced budget, declaring “Now I am a Keynesian.” Despite the federal spending, the economy was showing signs of stagnancy, and inflation was rising. This phenomenon would become known as “stagflation.” To control stagflation, Rockefeller signed the Economic Stabilization Act, which allowed him to set wages and prices. Rockefeller would decisively use them after passage. While the wage and price controls were popular, they did not end inflation. Rockefeller’s economic policies would alienate conservatives, who thought of President Rockefeller as a “tax-and-spend liberal.” However, Democrats like Hubert Humphrey would praise Rockefeller. Humphrey praised Rockefeller as “a man who was willing to cross party lines to ensure economic prosperity for generations to come.”



Rockefeller would also create numerous government departments during his first term, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Education, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). He would also turn the cabinet level Post Office Department with the independent United States Postal Service. To help protect the environment, President Rockefeller would sign the Clean Air Act of 1970. Rockefeller would also increase spending for “The War on Drugs,” since he strongly believed that they were a menace to society. He would sign the Stable Society Act, which demanded mandatory life sentences for all drug users, dealers, and those convicted of drug-related violent crimes; a $1,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of drug pushers; and harsh sentences for youthful drug users. Rockefeller’s harsh drug laws would become known as the “Rockefeller Drug Laws.”



In addition, Rockefeller increased funding for NASA, since he wanted to win the space race. One of his proudest moments was on July 20, 1969, which marked the first moon landing in history.  


Secretary of State Kissinger conversing with Secretary of Defense Richard Nixon

Despite all his domestic policy accomplishments, President Rockefeller’s most pressing objective that Rockefeller had to accomplish was how to win “peace with honor” in Vietnam. Henry Kissinger, Rockefeller’s ally from his days as the Governor of New York, and Rockefeller’s former primary rival Richard Nixon both privately believed that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, and that the United States should only help Saigon for a “decent interval” so that the United States could not be blamed for Vietnam’s fall. Rockefeller took Kissinger’s advice and implemented “Vietnamization:” American troops would gradually be replaced by Vietnamese troops so that South Vietnam could defend itself.



In March 1969, at Kissinger’s suggestion, President Rockefeller agreed to a secret bombing in Cambodia, in hopes of destroying to destroy Vietcong strongholds and weapons supplies. To cut the Ho Chi Minh trail, he would later agree to bomb Laos in 1971. Rockefeller’s Vietnam policies would cause significant backlash among the anti-war left. Students protested in cities and campuses. Anti-war protestor Jane Fonda would proclaim: "I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists." Rockefeller despised hippies, made no attempts to negotiate with them, and took steps to undermine the hippie movement such as escalating the War on Drugs.



Although Rockefeller had made enemies on both the far right and the far left, he was still a fairly popular president, and his approval ratings were in the high fifties or low sixties.
2178  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Rocky in 1968 on: February 18, 2010, 09:23:31 pm
Thanks for the support and suggestions guys! I'm going to put up the next installment as soon as I can!
2179  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Rocky in 1968 on: February 16, 2010, 10:54:29 pm
New York governor Nelson Rockefeller was deeply concerned at the 1968 Republican National Convention. He had let a nomination slip through his fingers, and Nixon seemed destined to win the nomination. "What a waste it was to endorse Romney," Rockefeller thought. But there was still time.

Before Richard Nixon knew it, he had lost his nomination. Rockefeller managed to keep Nixon within 100 delegates of the nomination on the first ballot. Once that happened, Rockefeller managed to cajole several favorite son candidates, to switch to him. He even gained George Romney's delegates after much negotiation. Also, Nixon lost the support of the southern delegates, who had warmed up to California Governor Ronald Reagan. After the second ballot, Nixon was eliminated, and Rockefeller managed to gain the support of Ohio Governor James Rhodes's delegates. After the third ballot, Nelson Rockefeller had narrowly won the nomination over Ronald Reagan, who had the support of the southern delegation. While Ronald Reagan begrudgingly endorsed Rockefeller, the southern delegates, led by Strom Thurmond, walked out of the convention and endorsed George Wallace's third party candidacy.

Rockefeller's next objective was to choose a vice-presidential nominee. After some deliberation, Texas Senator John Tower was chosen.

Meanwhile, George Wallace managed to convince actor John Wayne to become the vice-presidential nominee of the American Independent Party. While Wayne had initially said no, he balked at the idea of a Rockefeller presidency and joined forces with Wallace.

The election would prove to be intensely close, with the Humphrey/Muskie ticket representing the left, the Wallace/Wayne ticket representing the right, and the Rockefeller/Tower ticket representing the center. Both Wallace and Rockefeller ran “law and order” campaigns. However, Rockefeller vigorously supported civil rights, and made no attempt to cloak his support. This cost him the support of conservative white Republicans, who defected to Wallace. Also, Humphrey lost the support of many blue collar Democrats, who found Wallace’s campaign quite appealing.

Election night was a nail-biter. Wallace made an impressive showing in the South, while Rockefeller carried his home state of New York and New England, save for Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. However, Tower’s vice presidential candidacy failed to bring in Texas to the Rockefeller column. Meanwhile, Missouri and Kentucky went to Humphrey by tight margins. While John Wayne’s presence on the American Independence Party ticket was not enough to swing California to the American Independence Party, it was enough to swing it to Humphrey. No candidate felt assured of victory, and the ever-looming threat of an electoral draw seemed present. The results would not be called until next morning, where major news networks announced the Nelson Rockefeller had been elected the 37th President of the United States. The closest Rockefeller states were Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.  Had Humphrey carried any one of them, no candidate would have an electoral majority. Had Humphrey carried all of them in addition to New Jersey (which was close as well), he would have won the presidency.



Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY)/John Tower (R-TX): 289 EV, 40.3% PV
Hubert Humphrey (D-MN)/Edmund Muskie (D-ME): 172 EV, 39.6% PV
George Wallace (AI-AL)/John Wayne (AI-CA): 77 EV, 19.7% PV
2180  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: What Should Nixon Have Done in Order to Win in 1960? on: February 15, 2010, 10:01:41 pm
I think Nixon shouldn't have made his pledge to campaign in fifty states, since that led to him having to campaign in states he had no chance of winning or states that wouldn't matter.
Agreed.

Also, Nixon should've done a radio-only debate. Those who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won, but those who watched it on TV thought JFK won.

Agreed. Smiley If Nixon had to do a TV debate, he should have shaved and worn some makeup. Also, he should have not injured his leg on the campaign trail (or at the very least, he should have taken a break from campaigning right after he came out of the hospital), since this led to him looking uncomfortable and sickly during the debate.

Also, I think that Nixon should have spent more time in swing states like Illinois, Missouri, Texas, and New Jersey, since those were close states within his reach. Had he not made the 50 states pledge he probably would have won them, or at the very least, he would have stood a greater shot. Had he carried all of those states, he would have won (but he would have won with just Illinois and Texas or Illinois, New Jersey, and Missouri).  
2181  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: What Should Nixon Have Done in Order to Win in 1960? on: February 15, 2010, 07:23:44 pm
I think Nixon shouldn't have made his pledge to campaign in fifty states, since that led to him having to campaign in states he had no chance of winning or states that wouldn't matter.

Welcome to the forum.

I think Nixon shouldn't have made his pledge to campaign in fifty states, since that led to him having to campaign in states he had no chance of winning or states that wouldn't matter.

Welcome to the forum.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks guys!
2182  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Why Did Michael Dukakis Carry Iowa in 1988? on: February 15, 2010, 06:56:09 pm
Why did he carry it on such a comfortable margin when it had voted Republican in the last five elections? I'd understand it if the election was a Dukakis landslide, but it was a Bush landslide (in the EV). So what caused that to happen?
2183  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: What Should Nixon Have Done in Order to Win in 1960? on: February 15, 2010, 06:49:01 pm
I think Nixon shouldn't have made his pledge to campaign in fifty states, since that led to him having to campaign in states he had no chance of winning or states that wouldn't matter.
2184  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Pick the Better Candidate on: February 13, 2010, 11:16:19 pm
Bush

George W. Bush vs. Sarah Palin
2185  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: 22nd Amendment: 3 Terms on: February 13, 2010, 02:07:33 pm
Just for the lolz, how about George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama in 2008?

I imagine it might be something like this, but I'm probably being too kind to Dubya.



Obama: 404 EV
Bush: 134 EV
2186  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: What if Gingirch ran in '96 on: February 13, 2010, 12:18:46 am
What if the Federal Government shutdown never happened? Or at least, what if Gingrich didn't say "it happened because he made me sit at the back of the plane"?
2187  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: The Second Term of Gerald Ford on: February 12, 2010, 11:02:11 am
Great timeline! Smiley
2188  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: No Watergate, No Jimmy Carter Presidency on: February 12, 2010, 10:53:43 am
Thi s is hackish, porrly written and poorly conducted timeline.

I could do it better.

Wrong.

With Kennedy as a nominee, after Chappaquidick scandal, and far-left Brown, Connally would wil epic victory.



Oh, so that map isn't hackish and poorly conducted at all...And it's also spelled completely correctly! Wink
2189  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: What a tackle by Rosey Grier: An Alternate History on: February 12, 2010, 10:23:59 am
I'm rooting for Reagan, but I don't think it's going to be nearly as big of a landslide as a 489-49 one as in OTL, since the public is dissatisfied with the GOP AND Reagan already lost to RFK in 1972 ITTL (he didn't lose in a landslide ITTL, but still). But George McGovern's ultraliberalism may turn the tides and Reagan might be able to squeak out a win. I wonder how the debates are going to play out, since the OTL polls were actually quite close before the debate in 1980, the polls showed a Reagan landslide right after the debate.

ALso,

November 5: In a narrow-result, Senator Kennedy defeats Mr. Nixon and Gov. Wallace. He is now the next President of the United States of America

Kennedy/Yarborough (D) 320 EV, 46% of the PV
Nixon/Agnew (R) 173 EV, 40% of the PV
Wallace/LeMay (I) 45 EV, 14% of the PV


1972

Kennedy/Yarborough (D) 54% of the PV, 320 EVs
Reagan/Percy (R) 46% of the PV, 218 EVs



While I agree that RFK would probably win in both these scenarios, is it likely that he'd receive exactly 320 electoral votes two times in a row?
2190  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: 1972 and on timeline on: February 12, 2010, 10:03:23 am
And here is the conclusion to the 2004 elections:

Here is the final map for the 2004 presidential election:

Bush/Ridge: 513; 79, 384, 410 64.91%
Lincoln/Dean:  25; 36, 348, 138 29.72%
Nader/Camejo:0;  5, 410, 739 4.42%
 Badnarik/Campagna: 0; 690, 538 00.56%
Other: 0; 459, 714 00.38%
270 to win
BUSH WINS!!!!
This landslide really was not all Bush. Nader helped Bush a lot, especially in the popular vote. Nader took almost four and a half percent of the vote which is a strong showing for a third party candidate. And, according to exit polls, about 90% of Nader voters would have voted for Lincoln. So, that helped Bush get the highest number of popular vote and the highest percentage of the nation wide vote in history.


The congressional elections blow everyone out of the water.
In the senate, republicans pick up twenty seats.

This leaves the senate tied and vice president Tom Ridge casts the tie breaking vote. Therefore, the republicans have control of the senate.
People were keeping their fingers crossed for the house, on both sides. On the democratic sides, they were praying that they would atleast keep the house. The republicans were keeping theirs crossed that they would win it.
Well, the republicans picked up 104 house seats. But, it is not enough. The democrats keep the house. Though, the republican gains are huge in both houses of congress and the future looks bright for republicans in the congress.


This leave the new congress looking like the following...

Senate:
D=50
R=50
(vice president tom ridge casts the tie breaking vote which puts the senate in republican control.)

House:
D=223
R=212


The Bush second term is coming up later.


Why would Nader help Bush in the popular vote? I understand why his presence might cause Lincoln to lose several states, therefore increasing Bush's amount of electoral votes, but Nader's campaign isn't going to make people vote for Bush. The only real effect Nader would have on the popular vote is that the popular vote margin between Bush and Lincoln would grow wider. Bush is not going to gain "highest number of popular vote and the highest percentage of the nation wide vote in history" because of Nader's campaign. Also, I think it's unlikely that ANY candidate would get as a high of a percentage as 64.91% of the vote.
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 [88]


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines