1956 United States Presidential Election

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm with Kefauver!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Yo, Cath, when a VP ascends to office, do they have to select a new VP? TR, Norris, and Stedman didn't.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Yo, Cath, when a VP ascends to office, do they have to select a new VP? TR, Norris, and Stedman didn't.

That invention will occur roughly around the time that it does in real life. May be after the next death, or after November 22nd, 1963.

Cool. You see, as I have mentioned before, if Kefauver dies on August 10th, 1963, and Humphrey dies on November 22nd, 1963 without choosing a VP, we'd have an interesting development on our hands. That would be quite fun to see.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Do we want the Republicans to win? No. We do not. Let's rally around Kefauver, who can lead Atlamerica forward.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Eisenhower leads by 2, guys!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

How can you tell?

What people say.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Predictions, anyone? I, for one, think Eisenhower's going to pull it out by a very narrow margin due to leftist vote-splitting (but not serious splitting, like Perot (arguably), the tiny kind, like Nader 2000). How well do you guys think Unpledged Electors will fare?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Come on Progressives, let's all get behind Kefauver!!!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Eisenhower

Seatown, I'm truly ashamed of you. This is the same man, ladies and gentlemen, who gleefully attempted to sabotage the primaries of other parties in the name of the Left, and now is casting his ballot for a Republican - not a Democrat, not a Socialist, but a Republican. Do you hate the Democratic Party that much, Mr. Seatown? Do you realize that no matter what, we will not have another Socialist President in our lifetime? Do you even care about truly advancing progressivism or are you just a demon, sent to this planet by Satan himself to ruin the Atlamerican left?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Are people seriously voting against Eisenhower just because he has an 'R' next to his name?

No, I'm voting for Kefauver because he's a leftist and he's electable. Seatown seems quite happy to vote for people just because they have an "S" next to their name, so I'm just wondering why he's voting for Eisenhower when we have a Socialist candidate available.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

My vote is a protest against Cathcon's handling of the series.

You're a lunatic.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Also, for 1960, I think the Democrats should nominate Kennedy/Humphrey. If we nominate Humphrey, he'll die early and we don't want that.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Also, for 1960, I think the Democrats should nominate Kennedy/Humphrey. If we nominate Humphrey, he'll die early and we don't want that.

We don't know for certain if Kennedy will die in 1963. In this timeline, FDR survived for the 45-49' term.

FDR died of a cerebral hemorrhage, Kennedy was shot. McKinley still died in this timeline, so I assume all presidential assassinations occurred as IRL unless there was an explicit reason for them not to occur (such as Lincoln not fighting the Civil War).

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

My vote is a protest against Cathcon's handling of the series.

You're a lunatic.

The Socialist party deserves better than a Congressman and a no name VP for it's primary after having such a successful 40 years.

Who would you have them run? A. Philip Randolph? A no-name union president?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

My vote is a protest against Cathcon's handling of the series.

You're a lunatic.

The Socialist party deserves better than a Congressman and a no name VP for it's primary after having such a successful 40 years.

^^^^

Forcibly turning the Socialist Party, the most successful party of the past 40 years or so, into a minor party is ridiculous. If any party should disappear, it's the Republicans who haven't won since 1916.

Parties have come back before. Who could predict that the Democrats would flop so badly in '48 and '52? Who could predict the Socialist Era? We don't know a damn thing about what's going to happen in the future.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

But forcing no-name candidates on the Socialists means that we do know what is going to happen in the future.

Are there any big-name candidates? Was goddamn Seymour Stedman not a no-name candidate? He was a lawyer who happened to be elected Vice-President. Was Norman Thomas not a no-name candidate? He was a mayor or something! Daniel Hoan is not a no-name candidate! He served for 24 years as mayor of Milwaukee IRL and several years as Governor of Wisconsin in Atlamerica. That's not a no-name to me.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This will cease to be interesting if the Socialists disappear (even if I only voted for their candidates three or four times).

All hail the One-Party State!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I think we all need to calm down a bit and realize that there's no way Cath is going to change his mind or the rules, so we just need to accept the fact that there are not going to be any more Socialist Presidents and that Eisenhower will probably win this thing and Kennedy/Humphrey '60.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This will cease to be interesting if the Socialists disappear (even if I only voted for their candidates three or four times).

All hail the One-Party State!

Yes, without the Socialists, Democrats will win literally every election from here until the end.

I don't see myself voting Republican ever again in this thing. Eisenhower was good, and Chase Smith is a good Veep selection, but here goes the march to the far right. I can't be the only one who will be a party line Democrat from here on out.

Oh, don't worry, there'll still be some moderates left. I believe someone did 1968 once, with RFK vs. Rockefeller (I believe) vs. Wallace, and RFK only won by a few votes.

If Eisenhower wins, and gets elected again in 60, Smith ran in 64, so that'd be great continuity

Will Eisenhower get reelected, though? The Dems have some pretty formidable players in '60.

[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?

[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.

[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.