If there's one thing I'll get out of this thread, it's that I will forevermore think of God as a Republican from Michigan. Scary thought, really...

HW

I voted for Kemp just because I don't want the Democrats to win every single time.

The state with the longest winning streak is Illinois: the last time it voted for a losing candidate was in 1928, when it picked Seymour Stedman over Al Smith.

No, Illinois voted for Upton Sinclair over the victorious FDR in 1944. Illinois ties with New Jersey and California for longest winning streak- all three states supported Sinclair in that election.

Ford/Hatfield is acceptable. I'm voting to help ensure that it isn't another epic landslide.

Wow, so many great choices... Can't get myself to decide between Brown, Church, Udall or Chisholm (Humphrey's time has gone, unfortunately).

Anyone wants to convince me to vote for their guy?

Church/Birch is geographically diverse, solidifies the democratic coalition, and rhymes. What's not to like?

Chisholm/Church is geographically, sexually, and racially diverse, also solidifies the Democratic coalition, and is alliterative.

Chisholm/Church

Hmmmm...  I'm going to play unreasonable voter and blame Angew for that landslide. Still, it looks like McGovern has become the real symbol of success in politics.

You're not too unreasonable. I for one would've voted for McCloskey if someone better than Agnew were the other half of the ticket, if only to make it closer.

Bleh to McGovern.    I don't see why I should vote for him when I never have before.  He wasn't really as progressive as people think.  He was the last Democratic candidate for president to have a states rights position on abortion and some other social issues.  On the issues that he was progressive, he didn't really have any thoughts of his own but just relied on his staff to find out what the "liberal position" was.  Yikes!

If primaries are working ideally, everyone should vote for who they think is best, not just because he happens to be the current mediocre president.  That's what I think at least.

Also, Morse dies in 1974 so keeping him pretty much leaves the office vacant for 75% of the term.  *shrugs*.

Assuming McGovern and Morse win re-election, an appointment (possibly determined by Atlamerica's voters) will take place.

Appoint Chisholm!

I see no reason why the President should go down in a Primary. Or the Vice-President, for that matter.

I don't like how my hometown was gerrymandered into a district with Bill Shuster who is from out by Gettysburg while we have three or four other Congressmen of both parties who are closer to here than Shuster is. So, not only are we now represented by a Republican, but a Republican who probably has no idea where the hell Monongahela is. I'd rather be represented by Murphy, even if he's a Republican, because at least he's local.

According to Wikipedia, while Shuster currently resides in Hollidaysburg, he was born in McKeesport, so he has ties to the region.

Shirley Turner (D-Mercer)

HP. I'm not too enamored with Democrats at the state level, and she was one of six New Jersey Democrats to vote against same sex marriage.

As a New Jerseyan, I proudly cast a vote for favorite son Clifford Case.

Hatfield for VP.

Smith has taken the lead again! Now we get to blame the Republicans for Vietnam!

Not necessarily. If the election stays this close, the unpledged electors may get to play kingmaker.

The W. H. Harrison Administration was quite possibly the best administration we've ever had. Scandal-free, the administration suffered no catastrophes of any sort. America did well.

Can't tell if sarcasm or actual libertarian logic

There's a difference?

[possibly slightly]

Smith.

Chase and Barry "Let's nuke Vietnam" Goldwater will be much, much possibly slightly worse than LBJ.

Though why you would vote for either when there's a far better option is beyond me.

Anyways, Morse wasn't a segregationist that I know of, and Fulbright was many things besides that. You could do far worse.

Wayne Morse wasn't a segregationist, but he did vote against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.  So did JFK.

Massachusetts
AYE      D     Kennedy, John    MA

"Morse joined the Democratic Party in 1955, but two years later he voted against Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson’s watered-down Civil Rights Bill, calling it an “unconscionable compromise.”"

So yeah, Morse voted against the 1957 one because it didn't go far enough, and Kennedy voted for it.

Sources?   Everything I've read says that Morse voted against it in exchange for a dam, and JFK voted No.

Here is the line SJoyce quoted on Morse (page 7).

In a country that elected Frederick Douglass President in 1888, I doubt there are any open segregationists by 1964.

Also, liberals: don't be fooled into voting for Smith because of LBJ and Vietnam. She's escalated fighting there so far, so if you care about it that much then vote unpledged.

But keep in mind that both Fulbright and Russell were segregationists. If you're like Sjoyce and care more about war then civil rights and health care for the elderly, then you can vote for them. Otherwise there's no good reason to do so.

I dislike Wallace for reasons other than racism, but in the context of this timeline, which is undoubtedly far more progressive on racial issues, I could certainly get behind Fulbright.

Unpledged electors for Fulbright/Morse.

Johnson/Morse

I'm going to take every single person who did what Sewer did and murder them with my bare hands. I don't care how much prison time I serve.

You can start with seatown and the rest of the Socialists who sabotaged party primaries in the past.

But certainly not this. I'll vote for DDE over Random Southern Democrat.

It's not Random Southern Democrat, it's Happy! At least I think it is.

I could live with Happy, but I wouldn't want to end up supporting Faubus or Patterson.

LBJ as VP killed it for me.

This.

Unpledged electors.

But certainly not this. I'll vote for DDE over Random Southern Democrat.

I think it is wrong to base one's vote on the assumption that the winner of an election will be assassinated. For starters, you're basically deciding who to kill for the good of the party. Secondly, doing so would require knowledge that a voter in 1960 wouldn't have. Third, you still don't have absolute proof that an assassination will happen on November 22, 1963 in the first place. Just because many of the circumstances are the same doesn't mean the assassination will still happen.

But I'm sure that this forum's far left doesn't care about these trivial details.

Symington/Morse

Symington refused to speak in front of segregated audiences throughout his career and he was from Missouri.  Morse voted against the Gulf of Tokin Resolution.  Both men of great principle