Interesting. That closing line is certainly effective.

Thanks for seeking to continue your line of thoughts on this one. They've at least averted the war, if not stopped it entirely, and the Whigs are still around in this timeline as opposed to the rise of the Republicans with Frémont.

I'll keep your words in mind, gentlemen.

Now, unless I'm mistaken as to which Robert Taft was meant in OC's posts, Vice-President Taft is most likely going to die in July of the Warren/Taft Administration's first year, so...

Yeah, this timeline has quite a bit of potential.

Interesting scenario, I'd like to see it fully developed if/when you have the time.

Thanks. I'm giving it some thought. It's either this one, or one of two others I've been considering recently.

I still like OC's map quite a bit, really. That's a 287/244 victory to Warren and Taft, unless I'm very mistaken.

Who's Christina Debarge?

Her name is Kristinia DeBarge. She is a singer/songwriter, just like the two you listed here.

Regarding that interview, she sounds like a possible budding intellect, but we'll have to wait and see what happens. I'd need to know more about her potential political views.

That would be an...um...interesting TL...

Indeed it would be, and while Gomez v. Cirus was tearing the country apart, dark horse Kristinia Debarge would sneak up the middle and take the Big Prize.

I see bloodshed and wanton violence in the streets. Apart from that, I'd probably stay home and not make the effort to vote. Unless there was a decent third party candidate out there.

This is all assuming they're as old/young as they are now, have as much experience of politics as they really have now (none), and have as few songs I can recall as now.

Thanks for the compliment.

President Warren would have been a big Civil Rights champion, you say? Well, that matches with his status as a Progressive Republican, as compared to Taft or Dewey. As well, with Eisenhower's mindset in regards to foreign policy decisions, he could well have gained support from hard-liners regarding opposition to global Communism.

Does anybody else have any comments? Any thoughts on the map proposed by OC?

Harrisman/Estes Kefauver v. Warren/Robert H Taf map. And Warren needed to pick a conservative like Robert H Taft because of the big Union bosses going after the Taft/Hartley act.  And I picked Warren because just like Eisenhower he was no liberal but he was a secular GOP leader who found segregation was inheritley wrong.

I see. Interesting.

President Earl Warren... Doesn't sound too bad, does it? I've never had much use for Progressives in reality, but he would have been well above most anything the DP could offer, in my own view.

How do you (anybody, really) see a President Warren handling the Korean War? NATO?

I have a TL like this.  It's called "A Miracle in Iowa"

I'll have to look up that one.

For this point of discussion, I would have to say the following.

1) Whether or not the revelation would cause Edwards to drop out depends largely on how close he is to the General Elections of '08, and how strong the evidence against him was. It is was not incredibly strong and the GE was getting pretty close, Party leaders might decide to just ride the leading edges of the storm as best they could and hope it came to nothing.

If they had more time, or if the evidence was pretty strong, then Edwards might have to bow out in favor of somebody else.

2) How does he do? I can't do a nationwide map, but against John McCain & Sarah Palin he would likely do quite poorly. We're not talking Nixon vs. McGoven in '72 here, but he would lose.

Warren/Taft v Harrison map

Harriman chooses who to be his VP pick?

Do you feel Warren, being more of a Progressive Republican if my sources are correct, would have made the decision to pick Taft in order to gain the support of the Conservative Republicans?

Final question for this post. You didn't post the numbers, but that's a Warren/Taft win, is it not?

I would have cast my vote to Mr. Reagan, without question.

That may very well be tge case in a NORMAL, election, but is any black person, sane or not, gonna vote for a ticket with motherf##ckin' David Duke on it?

I'd probably look somewhere else, and I'm white.

Racial issues would be...unbelievable in this scenario. I would be shocked if there wasn't some bloodshed in the streets. Maybe an outright descent into civil war, thought I doubt that. A little bit.

I'm just happy a scenario like this one is presently all but impossible.

I'm not doing this for a college project or anything. It's just me putting the names of nominees in boxes, shaking 'em around a bit, and then just pulling out a few names.

Now as most of you probably recall, when the 1952 General Elections were coming up, Truman did his homework and realized he wasn't all that popular, and so, despite being legally able, decided he would not seek reelection. This left the DP spot open, and they chose Adlai Stevenson II.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party hadn't put a man in the White House since 1928, a losing streak leaders of any major party would be desperate to end. A struggle between Conservatives and the Moderates took place, which the latter won, putting Dwight D. Eisenhower in the nominee's spot.

Now, to change the games.

******************************

Dwight D. Eisenhower, despite being supported by the moderate Republican faction based in New England, decides he doesn't want to run. Earl Warren manages to snag the nomination in the end.

Meanwhile, on the Democrat side, Adlai Stevenson declines to run. In the following struggle, they make the choice to send William Averell Harriman to the General Elections.

Now, the questions I'm asking you are...

1) Who does each man choose to be his running mate?

2) How do the General Elections turn out when the dust settles?

Or [gags] Edwards

Perhaps. Maybe even bring John Kerry back for a second round. Who knows? As it happens, they managed to get it done using a man who had effectively no record, no experience, and no talents in regards to politics apart from his ability to speak at length without saying anything truly meaningful.

If nothing else, it was a neat trick. I don't think a white guy named Barry Dunham could've done it.

Better yet, what if he was white?  Think about it.  Not to be racist, but would he be able to stir the pot as much if he were just another Harvard-bred middle-aged white man?

I doubt it. The idea of the First Black President helped him out a lot. To be honest, if the DP had really made the decision to put a white Harvard grad named Barry Dunham on the ticket with Joe Biden and run with it in '08, I think we would now be talking about President John McCain and the first female VP.

Either that, or we would have a President Dunham, elected by a much more slight margin. Who knows, really? Bush was increasingly unpopular, then, and that may have rubbed off on Republicans in general in the GE. It happened in '76 following Watergate.

Then, we have the distinct lack of experience on Mr. Dunham's part. In the Illinois legislature and in his U.S. Senate position, we would have the simple fact that he did very little that was productive while in office.

I don't think he could have pulled it off, to be perfectly honest. I believe the Democrats would have been compelled to choose somebody else, perhaps Clinton, to run.

Well?

What, you mean the television show with Geena Davis?

I don't think it would take Hannity doing too much active "digging" if Mr. Dunham had a real shot in a General Election.

Unless he was actively trying to conceal his real name, and his father's name, it would be known by the public once be became nationally famous.

How much impact would it have on things when people started finding out? That depends.

This thread is positively fascinating. Thank you for writing this. It doesn't even take a very great stretch of the imagination to bring up the image of George Washington refusing to stand for office in the aftermath of so many years in conflict.

I like Crittenden, Fillmore, Van Buren, etc.  Can't you put Milly somewhere?! 

I could see Fillmore being the Whig's candidate around 1860 in this timeline if President Douglas isn't doing so well by then.

I'm curious, does Lincoln still come to prominence? What about the slavery issue?

Big questions.

Senator Stephen J. Douglas (D-IL)/Senator Charles G. Atherton (D-NH) 148 electoral votes
President John J. Crittenden (W-KY)/Vice President Millard Fillmore (W-NY) 136 electoral votes

I find that somewhat ironic. The first two Whigs to be President in this timeline don't want a second run, and when they finally find a guy who does want one, he isn't able to get one.

Funny, and also realistic.

I looked up John Crittenden. It seems he was often mentioned as a prospective candidate for the Presidency in reality, but always refused to run. These days, it's hard to imagine anybody who has been as high up as Attorney General who wouldn't leap at a chance to be elected.

Different times.

Well then this is just the forum, and just the board, for ya! Coming up, 1856 if you don't mind. Then I'll stop.

Continue as long as you wish. 1856 should be an especially interesting year, for this scenario, considering what happened then in reality. I mean, the Whigs had pretty much fallen apart then, as my memory informs me.

Pardon me if I get carried away with this. I feel quite inspired right now.

There's certainly no need to apologize. Those last few posts are exactly the kind of speculation and writing I wanted. Very nicely done, very clear, and certainly interesting.

I like studying politics, especially the election years.

Harrison promised to only serve one term if elected.  He wouldn't run for a second term unless to prevent Clay from winning it.

I hadn't known that. I have to wonder, why did he make such a promise to start with?

How long do you see the Whigs lasting, with a successful President Harrison?

Well, in this scenario Harrison doesn't die and so Tyler's tenure in office doesn't happen, so they have Harrison to start with. The question for me would be whether or not somebody like Clay is likely to challenge him for the nomination in 1844.

Henry Clay wanted the Whig nomination bad, as I understand.

The main problem was the brewing conflict between the Whig leader, Clay, and its President, my man Harrison.  If they can get past that, they should have the recipe to ensure, or at least prolong, the survival of the Whigs as a party for a few more years. In 1844 with a successful Harrison Presidency, they're set up much better for the future as a major party. In RL, both men they elected died in office. Withthis, I think they'd have mroe success, especially without the disaster in Congress that Tyler was.

Do you see them lasting perhaps long enough to have a realistic candidate in 1856, or do the Republicans still take over?