Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2014, 11:30:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Election What-ifs?
| | |-+  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Bacon King, Dallasfan65)
| | | |-+  American Independent Party?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: American Independent Party?  (Read 2737 times)
BritishDixie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 294
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« on: June 06, 2012, 10:36:53 am »
Ignore

Would it have been possible for the American Independent Party to finish ahead of the Democrats in 1968, and supplant them, as moderate Democrats moved to the Republicans, and Conservative Republicans and Democrats joined the American Independent Party.

I'm wondering as I have an idea for an alternate timeline possibly using this idea.
Logged

Economic score: +6.58
Social score: +5.04
Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2484
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2012, 09:01:48 am »
Ignore

Yes; Wallace was a genius (an evil one), and could win the hearts and support of union voters and blue collar workers with his populist rhetoric.  But he would need to emphasize his support for unions, etc. to get votes outside the south.  If he wanted, he could run to the left of Dems on the economy and to the right of Nixon on social issues, and at least win the Old Confederacy.
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
President: Hillary Clinton
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

---------------------------------------

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
The CINC
Rookie
*
Posts: 34
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2012, 03:35:50 pm »
Ignore

If he emphasized a left-wing economic policy but maintained a conservative stance on social issues he would have created a strong new communitarian party.

If Wallace was elected President in 1968 and his party won seats in Congress, they may have been able to push for a "World War II" style effort to win the Vietnam War. The national guard and reserves would have been called up, the draft would have become air-tight, the country would have been put on a wartime production level, and the military would have been expanded to 20 million men and women.

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normady look pale in comparrison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

Unemployment will have remained low if Wallace kept people at work building and rebuilding the infrastructure. He also could implement universal health insurance and overhauled the tax code and the banking institutions.
Logged
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9031
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2012, 04:00:26 pm »
Ignore

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normandy look pale in comparison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

So, asides from internal civil unrest and massive protests, you've just slaughtered millions. Now what do you do with the massive hulk of Southeast Asia you've just destroyed?
Logged

The CINC
Rookie
*
Posts: 34
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2012, 11:46:01 pm »
Ignore

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normandy look pale in comparison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

So, asides from internal civil unrest and massive protests, you've just slaughtered millions. Now what do you do with the massive hulk of Southeast Asia you've just destroyed?

We may would have killed just as many people or less than the incremental strategy we went with going into Vietnam. Had we mobilized the conflict like we did for WW2 and launched an all-out war against North Vietnam, we would have destroyed the conventional forces in 18 months and followed that with a two-year counter-insurgency campaign. The protests really didn't break out until the Tet offensive. But an overwhelming victory in Vietnam would have put an end to the protests.

After the war, we would have invested billions in a reunified Vietnam, building modern infrastructure, modernizing Vietnamese agriculture and industry, and establishing a network of bases there. Vietnam would become another success story like Japan and Korea.
Logged
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9031
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2012, 08:37:01 am »
Ignore

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normandy look pale in comparison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

So, asides from internal civil unrest and massive protests, you've just slaughtered millions. Now what do you do with the massive hulk of Southeast Asia you've just destroyed?

We may would have killed just as many people or less than the incremental strategy we went with going into Vietnam. Had we mobilized the conflict like we did for WW2 and launched an all-out war against North Vietnam, we would have destroyed the conventional forces in 18 months and followed that with a two-year counter-insurgency campaign. The protests really didn't break out until the Tet offensive. But an overwhelming victory in Vietnam would have put an end to the protests.

After the war, we would have invested billions in a reunified Vietnam, building modern infrastructure, modernizing Vietnamese agriculture and industry, and establishing a network of bases there. Vietnam would become another success story like Japan and Korea.

Bombing all of a nation with B-52s is not conductive to keeping civilian casualties low. Yes, an all-out war would have broken their conventional forces, but now you're stuck doing counter-insurgency for several years... sound familiar? An overwhelming victory complete with images of the massive civilian casualties that would result=protests. And where do you get these billions you're going to throw at the nation?
Logged

The CINC
Rookie
*
Posts: 34
View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2012, 05:03:48 pm »
Ignore

The very first quagmire the US ever faced was not in Vietnam but in the Phillipines after the Spanish-American war. The SAW lasted six months and costed little in blood and treasure. But the subsequent guerilla war in the Philipines lasted two years and cost four times as much as the Spanish-American war. Regardless, we did put the insurrection down and held onto the Phillipines for 50 years. Honestly though, instead of granting the Philipines independence, we should have put the Philipines on the path to US Statehood.

After we defeated the conventional forces in Vietnam, we may had a bloody insurrection against the USA. But we would have quelled the insurrection. Eventually, we would have killed all the insurgents had we mobilized for Vietnam like we did for World War II.
Logged
Senator Cynic
Dr. Cynic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11968
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2012, 02:53:05 am »
Ignore

Yes; Wallace was a genius (an evil one), and could win the hearts and support of union voters and blue collar workers with his populist rhetoric.  But he would need to emphasize his support for unions, etc. to get votes outside the south.  If he wanted, he could run to the left of Dems on the economy and to the right of Nixon on social issues, and at least win the Old Confederacy.

I don't think Wallace was a genius at all. A genius wouldn't have picked LeMay. But actually, you make a great point. Wallace would have needed to outdistance Humphrey with blue collar workers in places like here in Pennsylvania where HHH was popular. Not an impossible feat. Two things conspired to beat him in doing so. First of all, Nixon's Southern Strategy cut his legs out from under him with voters who might have been sympathetic. The other was the unions loyalty to Humphrey, an ally they trusted rather than Wallace, whom I'm sure they figured was not trustworthy.
Logged

Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2484
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2012, 12:14:59 am »
Ignore

Yes; Wallace was a genius (an evil one), and could win the hearts and support of union voters and blue collar workers with his populist rhetoric.  But he would need to emphasize his support for unions, etc. to get votes outside the south.  If he wanted, he could run to the left of Dems on the economy and to the right of Nixon on social issues, and at least win the Old Confederacy.

I don't think Wallace was a genius at all. A genius wouldn't have picked LeMay. But actually, you make a great point. Wallace would have needed to outdistance Humphrey with blue collar workers in places like here in Pennsylvania where HHH was popular. Not an impossible feat. Two things conspired to beat him in doing so. First of all, Nixon's Southern Strategy cut his legs out from under him with voters who might have been sympathetic. The other was the unions loyalty to Humphrey, an ally they trusted rather than Wallace, whom I'm sure they figured was not trustworthy.

Not only this, but the fact that Wallace comes from Alabama, where, like the rest of the deep south, open shop was law.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe right-to-work laws in USA began in the deep south.  So while Wallace's personal record might not be in question, unions (at least the higher-ups in them) would hold their nose and go with Humphrey just because they didn't want someone from this anti-union region (who was also a racial bigot) carrying the banner of the worker's movement.
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
President: Hillary Clinton
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)

---------------------------------------

Libertarian Internationalist Monarchist
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8928
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2012, 07:57:35 am »
Ignore

Hopefully not!  Wallace was pure evil, at least until the assassination attempt.  Lynyrd Skynyrd (which, as my usernane suggests I am a fan of), said it best about Wallace: "Boo, boo, boo!"
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15332
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2012, 08:25:46 am »
Ignore

Hopefully not!  Wallace was pure evil, at least until the assassination attempt.  Lynyrd Skynyrd (which, as my usernane suggests I am a fan of), said it best about Wallace: "Boo, boo, boo!"

Didn't they also say "Now in Alabama, we love the Governor"?
Logged

Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8928
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2012, 09:36:34 am »
Ignore

Hopefully not!  Wallace was pure evil, at least until the assassination attempt.  Lynyrd Skynyrd (which, as my usernane suggests I am a fan of), said it best about Wallace: "Boo, boo, boo!"

Didn't they also say "Now in Alabama, we love the Governor"?
No, they said, "In Birmingham they love the Governor/Boo, boo, boo!/Now we all did what we could do."
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
Fuzzy Bear
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 300


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2012, 07:55:30 pm »
Ignore

One of the problems with the American Independent Party was that they weren't a party; they were a vehicle for Wallace and little more.  They did represent a different viewpoint from the major parties, however, and if they had fielded Congressional candidates in the South that were serious they may have had significant impact.

The biggest difference was NOT race; it was Wallace's super-hawkish viewpoint on the Vietnam War.  It was part of Wallace's appeal beyond the South; that, and a strong posture against the counterculture.  The 1968 Wallace campaign involved racists and Wallace had been an avowed segregationist (or at least taken that posture), but the 1968 Wallace campaign was not about segregation; it was about winning in Vietnam, ending crime and civil disorder domestically, and challenging the counterculture that many Middle Americans who were not necessarily conservatives or reactionaries were offended by.  This is not an endorsement of Wallace's campaign, but Wallace in 1968, unlike Thurmond in 1948, was truly a national campaign.
Logged
blagohair.com
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2341
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2012, 11:35:16 pm »
Ignore

If Wallace had won America would now be a third world country.
Logged

Healthcare is a right, not a moneymaking business - Bernie Sanders

American Exceptionalism: The only industrialized nation in which health care is not a universal right, but gun ownership is.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines