Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2014, 12:13:44 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Bacon King, Dallasfan65)
| | | |-+  If you could change one Election's result, what would it be? (National/Regional)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: If you could change one Election's result, what would it be? (National/Regional)  (Read 903 times)
Siren
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 887


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2012, 12:45:14 am »
Ignore

Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 but with the caveat that he chooses Herbert Hoover as his running mate.  That way, we could still benefit from TR's policies but when he eventually passes away, Hoover will be ready to take the reigns and usher in a 1919 version of the Marshall Plan at Versailles.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28453
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2012, 02:05:32 am »
Ignore

Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 but with the caveat that he chooses Herbert Hoover as his running mate.  That way, we could still benefit from TR's policies but when he eventually passes away, Hoover will be ready to take the reigns and usher in a 1919 version of the Marshall Plan at Versailles.

Leaving aside the issues that with Teddy elected in 1912, it is quite likely he lives longer (his health was considerably worsened by the Amazon expedition he undertook after losing in 1912) and that with Teddy in office, the US most likely either enters World War I earlier or not at all, there is one salient problem with that.  Hoover was just a mining engineer in 1912.  A well-read and respected one in his field to be sure, but not well known outside it.  It was his humanitarian efforts during World War I that brought Hoover to notice and stirred his interest in public service.
Logged

My ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D/Working Families) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
TBD: Lex 1 School Board
Yes: Am. 1 (allow charity raffles)
No: Am. 2 (end election of the Adj. General)
No: Local Sales Tax
Yes: Temp Beer/Wine Permits
Senator TNF
TNF
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10500
Venezuela


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2012, 09:58:10 am »
Ignore

1968, easily.
Logged

OAM
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 607


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2012, 12:18:58 pm »
Ignore

Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 but with the caveat that he chooses Herbert Hoover as his running mate.  That way, we could still benefit from TR's policies but when he eventually passes away, Hoover will be ready to take the reigns and usher in a 1919 version of the Marshall Plan at Versailles.

Leaving aside the issues that with Teddy elected in 1912, it is quite likely he lives longer (his health was considerably worsened by the Amazon expedition he undertook after losing in 1912) and that with Teddy in office, the US most likely either enters World War I earlier or not at all, there is one salient problem with that.  Hoover was just a mining engineer in 1912.  A well-read and respected one in his field to be sure, but not well known outside it.  It was his humanitarian efforts during World War I that brought Hoover to notice and stirred his interest in public service.

I think it'd be counter-ballanced by the stress of another term (TR was pretty heavily burdened already), let alone one at war.  And yeah, it might require a bit of wiggling before the actual election, but I think it's doable.  Hoover did support TR in 1912 after all.  Even if it requires more doing than the scope of the thread permits, I think it's worthy of a TL.
Logged
Northeast Lt. Speaker Spenstar
Spenstar3D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 621
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2012, 01:42:55 pm »
Ignore

Here's another one: what if the power of the 2002 and 2008 recessions switched?
Logged

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166705.0
Insert Shameless TL Plug Here!
The 2016 TL that (so far) features Al Franken makes me really want him to run, haha!
Senator Lumine (PPT)
LumineVonReuental
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4072
Chile


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2012, 03:16:52 pm »
Ignore

1960. Nixon would have been a better president, and if you butterfly away his defeats in 1960 and 1962 you have a less paranoid and a more confident Nixon, which should butterfly away Watergate. This way, the black voters still go with the GOP and they avoid becoming the "racist" party. Besides, John Kennedy was worse than Nixon morally speaking, and the only things that saved his reputation are the fact that he didn't get caught by the public and his horrible death (at the hands of a lunatic, by the way, not by result of a conspiracy).
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2395


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: 5.91

P P
View Profile
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2012, 09:02:31 pm »
Ignore

Here's another one: what if the power of the 2002 and 2008 recessions switched?

Hillary Clinton runs and wins in 2004 and is re-elected in 2008.  Not so sure about 2012. 
Logged

Liberalrocks
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 910
United States


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2012, 10:25:00 pm »
Ignore

1972 McGovern win would be interesting for the progressive movement
1976 A Ford Victory, Ford being a social moderate would that have stopped the religious rights capture of the GOP? How would he have handled the iran hostage situation?
1984 Vice President Ferraro.....
2000 Of course no brainer Gore victory.
2008 Hillary wins nomination and presidency.....
« Last Edit: December 22, 2012, 10:27:32 pm by Liberalrocks »Logged

"If Hillary gave Obama one of her balls they both would have two ! "-James Carville. #Hillary16The World of Hillary Clinton - hillary clinton - gay rights are human rights - the world of hillary clinton by The World of Hillary Clinton, on Flickr
GPORTER
gporter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7294
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2012, 11:28:34 pm »
Ignore

1992 being first choice; 2008, 1888, and 1932 all get honorable mention.
Logged

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=195483.new#new
the birth of modern america & onward election Former Vice President Blanche Bruce defeats incumbent President Grover Cleveland in 1904. In an age of unpredictable election outcomes Bruce finds himself reelected in 1908 against an opponent whose name escapes me at the moment. Blanche Bruce served as Vice President under Frederick Douglas whom Cleveland defeated in 1900. His Vice President runs to replace Bruce in 1912.
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5405
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2012, 12:09:01 am »
Ignore

Off the top of my head, '64 Goldwater is probably the one I'd most like to change. Other than that, it's very difficult to think of something which isn't very recent (ie, within my lifetime). McCain '08 comes to mind as well.

In Israel, I'd want to keep Sharon alive and winning the '06 election, clearly...
Logged

Illegally selling arms to North Korea, providing most of the money to anti-Morales rebels in Bolivia, and using the remainder as hush money for his three ex-mistrisses. 
Xiivi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 989
United States


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2012, 12:18:29 am »
Ignore

1848 -  Polk runs for a second term, beats Zachary Taylor. Continues on to serve out his entire term.  History forever changed.

Yes!  Polk running, not dying, and getting to serve a full second term would have been wonderful.

But if I can't have that due to the whole him dying thing; then 1876 should have gone to Tilden.
Logged

Stop posting. Just stop. Entirely. In your brief sojourn here you have yet to post a single not trollish semi-lucid thought. Ever.

You are an utter waste of bandwidth. Go away. DIAF. Disappear. Begone. Go.
wilji1090
Rookie
*
Posts: 47
United States


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2012, 12:57:37 pm »
Ignore

1944: FDR still runs and wins with the notion that he kept Wallace on the ticket. While this would leave Europe in a precarious situation with Stalin's clutching at territory, and likely have seen the invasion of Japan, I believe that Wallace would have eventually turned around in time to oppose Stalin at every chance he got. Though, the consequence here would be that Joe McCarthy would've likely gained far more influence in Congress.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines