1956 United States Presidential Election

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I would really hate to have to choose between Ike and JFK.

Choose JFK, he has cookies.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Also, Cath, why would they pass the RL 22nd Amendment (it's probably 20th or something ITTL becuse I'm assuming we didn't have Prohibition) limiting people to two terms. We've had quite a precedent for presidents serving three terms, so why would Congress and the states choose to limit that now?

[Hatman 🍁]

I hope that once the SP is gone, we will still have the choice to vote for minor parties, like Socialist Labor in 1960.  No way I'm supporting that scoundrel Kennedy.

[Donerail]

I hope that once the SP is gone, we will still have the choice to vote for minor parties, like Socialist Labor in 1960.  No way I'm supporting that scoundrel Kennedy.

Parties in 1960 will probably be something like Gore/McCarthy vs. Rockefeller/Goldwater vs. Byrd/Thurmond.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I hope that once the SP is gone, we will still have the choice to vote for minor parties, like Socialist Labor in 1960.  No way I'm supporting that scoundrel Kennedy.

Parties in 1960 will probably be something like Gore/McCarthy vs. Rockefeller/Goldwater vs. Byrd/Thurmond.

Ugh, no. Maybe Humphrey/McCarthy or Humphrey/McGovern; I'm not much of a fan of Gore, Sr.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Do y'all think LBJ would have done the Vietnam thing had he served during Kennedy's time?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

*Sigh* Looks like a landslide, folks. Goddamn Socialist hardliners just don't know when to compromise.

[Hatman 🍁]

*Sigh* Looks like a landslide, folks. Goddamn Socialist hardliners just don't know when to compromise.

I could say the opposite is true. After all, the Socialists are the incumbent party. Plus, we want the Socialists to hang around. But thanks to you sell out moderates, the once great SP will now die a painful death, and I'll be forced to vote for fringe candidates from now on.

Hass '60!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

*Sigh* Looks like a landslide, folks. Goddamn Socialist hardliners just don't know when to compromise.

I could say the opposite is true. After all, the Socialists are the incumbent party. Plus, we want the Socialists to hang around. But thanks to you sell out moderates, the once great SP will now die a painful death, and I'll be forced to vote for fringe candidates from now on.

Hass '60!

We could have let the Socialist Party die a good and noble death, passing the torch to a new generation of liberal Democrats, but you folks had to go and ruin it, didn't you? It's not selling out to vote for the most electable progressive candidate, it's common sense.

And Hass got 0.07% of the vote in 1960, which I don't think is above our threshold.

[Hatman 🍁]

*Sigh* Looks like a landslide, folks. Goddamn Socialist hardliners just don't know when to compromise.

I could say the opposite is true. After all, the Socialists are the incumbent party. Plus, we want the Socialists to hang around. But thanks to you sell out moderates, the once great SP will now die a painful death, and I'll be forced to vote for fringe candidates from now on.

Hass '60!

We could have let the Socialist Party die a good and noble death, passing the torch to a new generation of liberal Democrats, but you folks had to go and ruin it, didn't you? It's not selling out to vote for the most electable progressive candidate, it's common sense.

And Hass got 0.07% of the vote in 1960, which I don't think is above our threshold.

Since when is there a threshold, when we elect someone in the 1800s who was not even on the ballot?

[TNF]

Do y'all think LBJ would have done the Vietnam thing had he served during Kennedy's time?

Any president would have in the context of the Cold War.

[Napoleon]

I would really hate to have to choose between Ike and JFK.

Yeah but I would and up voting for JFK.

[OAM]

Do y'all think LBJ would have done the Vietnam thing had he served during Kennedy's time?

Any president would have in the context of the Cold War.

Perhaps so, but LBJ very much less so.  At the very least he would have taken a different route.  JFK only cared about foreign policy, and LBJ about domestic.  When LBJ became president he pretty much just continued what he thought JFK would have done, because he didn't have many ideas of his own in that regard.  If LBJ was elected in 1960, how Vietnam went would probably be up to whoever his VP was.

Funny, as I'm currently skipping my history of the Vietnam War class due to snow...

[Maxwell]

Personally, I can't wait for three term George McGovern, assuming we didn't make the 22nd Amendment.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Do y'all think LBJ would have done the Vietnam thing had he served during Kennedy's time?

Any president would have in the context of the Cold War.

Perhaps so, but LBJ very much less so.  At the very least he would have taken a different route.  JFK only cared about foreign policy, and LBJ about domestic.  When LBJ became president he pretty much just continued what he thought JFK would have done, because he didn't have many ideas of his own in that regard.  If LBJ was elected in 1960, how Vietnam went would probably be up to whoever his VP was.

Funny, as I'm currently skipping my history of the Vietnam War class due to snow...

Which is why I support Kennedy/Humphrey or LBJ/Humphrey. How well do you guys think LBJ would fare against an incumbent Eisenhower?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

*Sigh* Looks like a landslide, folks. Goddamn Socialist hardliners just don't know when to compromise.

I could say the opposite is true. After all, the Socialists are the incumbent party. Plus, we want the Socialists to hang around. But thanks to you sell out moderates, the once great SP will now die a painful death, and I'll be forced to vote for fringe candidates from now on.

Hass '60!

We could have let the Socialist Party die a good and noble death, passing the torch to a new generation of liberal Democrats, but you folks had to go and ruin it, didn't you? It's not selling out to vote for the most electable progressive candidate, it's common sense.

And Hass got 0.07% of the vote in 1960, which I don't think is above our threshold.

Since when is there a threshold, when we elect someone in the 1800s who was not even on the ballot?

Hass ran in '56. There must be a reason he's being excluded.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Personally, I can't wait for three term George McGovern, assuming we didn't make the 22nd Amendment.

I believe we did, as Cath mentioned "the term limit rule" in the Uber-Convention. And McGovern will serve his terms from '73 to '81, after Humphrey '63-'73 and before Kennedy '81-'89.

[Donerail]

Personally, I can't wait for three term George McGovern, assuming we didn't make the 22nd Amendment.

I believe we did, as Cath mentioned "the term limit rule" in the Uber-Convention. And McGovern will serve his terms from '73 to '81, after Humphrey '63-'73 and before Kennedy '81-'89.

That'd be a wild ride for the nation. From a man with no principles, to a man of great principle, to a man who was probably guilty of manslaughter. Interesting jumps there.

[Dr. Cynic]

Personally, I can't wait for three term George McGovern, assuming we didn't make the 22nd Amendment.

I believe we did, as Cath mentioned "the term limit rule" in the Uber-Convention. And McGovern will serve his terms from '73 to '81, after Humphrey '63-'73 and before Kennedy '81-'89.

That'd be a wild ride for the nation. From a man with no principles, to a man of great principle, to a man who was probably guilty of manslaughter. Interesting jumps there.

Yeah, he showed so much more principle than Humphrey would have by dumping a running mate after telling him he'd stick by him.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Still waiting on that late surge of Kefauver voters...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

*Sigh* Looks like a landslide, folks. Goddamn Socialist hardliners just don't know when to compromise.

I could say the opposite is true. After all, the Socialists are the incumbent party. Plus, we want the Socialists to hang around. But thanks to you sell out moderates, the once great SP will now die a painful death, and I'll be forced to vote for fringe candidates from now on.

Hass '60!

We could have let the Socialist Party die a good and noble death, passing the torch to a new generation of liberal Democrats, but you folks had to go and ruin it, didn't you? It's not selling out to vote for the most electable progressive candidate, it's common sense.

And Hass got 0.07% of the vote in 1960, which I don't think is above our threshold.

Since when is there a threshold, when we elect someone in the 1800s who was not even on the ballot?

I think you just answered your own question (?)

[Hatman 🍁]

*Sigh* Looks like a landslide, folks. Goddamn Socialist hardliners just don't know when to compromise.

I could say the opposite is true. After all, the Socialists are the incumbent party. Plus, we want the Socialists to hang around. But thanks to you sell out moderates, the once great SP will now die a painful death, and I'll be forced to vote for fringe candidates from now on.

Hass '60!

We could have let the Socialist Party die a good and noble death, passing the torch to a new generation of liberal Democrats, but you folks had to go and ruin it, didn't you? It's not selling out to vote for the most electable progressive candidate, it's common sense.

And Hass got 0.07% of the vote in 1960, which I don't think is above our threshold.

Since when is there a threshold, when we elect someone in the 1800s who was not even on the ballot?

I think you just answered your own question (?)

It would appear that way, except I meant to say *elected. But I see your point.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

*Sigh* Looks like a landslide, folks. Goddamn Socialist hardliners just don't know when to compromise.

I could say the opposite is true. After all, the Socialists are the incumbent party. Plus, we want the Socialists to hang around. But thanks to you sell out moderates, the once great SP will now die a painful death, and I'll be forced to vote for fringe candidates from now on.

Hass '60!

We could have let the Socialist Party die a good and noble death, passing the torch to a new generation of liberal Democrats, but you folks had to go and ruin it, didn't you? It's not selling out to vote for the most electable progressive candidate, it's common sense.

And Hass got 0.07% of the vote in 1960, which I don't think is above our threshold.

Since when is there a threshold, when we elect someone in the 1800s who was not even on the ballot?

I think you just answered your own question (?)

It would appear that way, except I meant to say *elected. But I see your point.

Guys, we obviously have a threshold. If we didn't, Debs would've been on the ballot in 1900 (he wasn't) and Hass would be on the ballot now (he isn't).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I Like Ike and Margaret!!!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Well, we can do it next time. Eisenhower was OK, I guess, and it's good to have some variety. I guess the Great Democratic Hegemony will be limited to 56 years.