1992 United States Presidential Election

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Also, where were all the complainers during the Republican hegemony?

The GOP was the more progressive party at the time.

...

Literally nothing you just said or implied is true. First, no they were not: the Socialists were more left-wing than them. Second, are you saying that Paul and/or Perot are more progressive than Cuomo?

Read my post again. It took a few elections before Debs got in. Do you seriously think that I believe Paul is more progressive than Cuomo. If he were more progressive than Cuomo, why would I have voted for Paul?

OK, now I have no idea what you're trying to say. You said the GOP was the more progressive party at the time in response to my question, correct? I'm assuming that means that you're implying that their progressiveness was what caused them to have such a hegemony, correct? That means that you are implying that progressiveness causes an un-protested hegemony, correct? Therefore, if you are implying all that I assume you are, your argument is that the Democrats are not the more progressive party at this time, which you just admitted was not true. Also, your original post did not mention Debs at all - are you saying that in fact conservatism is what leads to acceptance of a hegemony?

What are you talking about? The vast majority of this forum is Progressive, and voted straight Republican in the 1870-1900 era. The Republicans were the more Progressive Party until Debs and the Socialists started to appear. The last thirty something years of Democratic rule in this timeline shows that they are now the more Progressive Party. You have massively misread my post.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Also, where were all the complainers during the Republican hegemony?

The GOP was the more progressive party at the time.

...

Literally nothing you just said or implied is true. First, no they were not: the Socialists were more left-wing than them. Second, are you saying that Paul and/or Perot are more progressive than Cuomo?

Read my post again. It took a few elections before Debs got in. Do you seriously think that I believe Paul is more progressive than Cuomo. If he were more progressive than Cuomo, why would I have voted for Paul?

OK, now I have no idea what you're trying to say. You said the GOP was the more progressive party at the time in response to my question, correct? I'm assuming that means that you're implying that their progressiveness was what caused them to have such a hegemony, correct? That means that you are implying that progressiveness causes an un-protested hegemony, correct? Therefore, if you are implying all that I assume you are, your argument is that the Democrats are not the more progressive party at this time, which you just admitted was not true. Also, your original post did not mention Debs at all - are you saying that in fact conservatism is what leads to acceptance of a hegemony?

What are you talking about? The vast majority of this forum is Progressive, and voted straight Republican in the 1870-1900 era. The Republicans were the more Progressive Party until Debs and the Socialists started to appear. The last thirty something years of Democratic rule in this timeline shows that they are now the more Progressive Party. You have massively misread my post.

I think you have massively misread my post as well. I was asking of the people who are complaining about a Democratic hegemony why they weren't complaining about the Republican hegemony.

Also, no offense, but your history is off. Debs and the Socialists first appeared in 1904, and the Republican hegemony was 1900-1920, so that means they weren't the most progressive party during the majority of the hegemony - although, make no mistake, they were progressive. 1872-1900 was anything but a hegemony for anyone. We started with one term of Woodhull of the Equal Rights Party, then two terms of Tilden and one of Cleveland, both Democrats, then one term of Douglass, a Republican, then two terms of Weaver, a Populist.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Also, where were all the complainers during the Republican hegemony?

The GOP was the more progressive party at the time.

...

Literally nothing you just said or implied is true. First, no they were not: the Socialists were more left-wing than them. Second, are you saying that Paul and/or Perot are more progressive than Cuomo?

Read my post again. It took a few elections before Debs got in. Do you seriously think that I believe Paul is more progressive than Cuomo. If he were more progressive than Cuomo, why would I have voted for Paul?

OK, now I have no idea what you're trying to say. You said the GOP was the more progressive party at the time in response to my question, correct? I'm assuming that means that you're implying that their progressiveness was what caused them to have such a hegemony, correct? That means that you are implying that progressiveness causes an un-protested hegemony, correct? Therefore, if you are implying all that I assume you are, your argument is that the Democrats are not the more progressive party at this time, which you just admitted was not true. Also, your original post did not mention Debs at all - are you saying that in fact conservatism is what leads to acceptance of a hegemony?

What are you talking about? The vast majority of this forum is Progressive, and voted straight Republican in the 1870-1900 era. The Republicans were the more Progressive Party until Debs and the Socialists started to appear. The last thirty something years of Democratic rule in this timeline shows that they are now the more Progressive Party. You have massively misread my post.

I think you have massively misread my post as well. I was asking of the people who are complaining about a Democratic hegemony why they weren't complaining about the Republican hegemony.

Also, no offense, but your history is off. Debs and the Socialists first appeared in 1904, and the Republican hegemony was 1900-1920, so that means they weren't the most progressive party during the majority of the hegemony - although, make no mistake, they were progressive. 1872-1900 was anything but a hegemony for anyone. We started with one term of Woodhull of the Equal Rights Party, then two terms of Tilden and one of Cleveland, both Democrats, then one term of Douglass, a Republican, then two terms of Weaver, a Populist.

Your right, I for whatever reason recalled Ben Butler, and several other Radical Republicans being President. The people complaining about a Democratic hegemony would have complained about the earlier Republican hegemony, as LaFollette, Roosevelt, and George Norris were very Progressive. The GOP of that era was the more leftwing party, until the Socialists came to power in the 1920's.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Ron Paul.

And how on Earth did McClaughry get elected Governor in uber-liberal Vermont?

There were two votes for Paul's VP: Stassen and McClaughry. I went with the cooler dude. As with several of the Socialist VP candidates, I gave them higher office than they had in real life. Also, recall that this is Vermont 1990, not the evil version we have today.

Vermont was uber-liberal even then, and only moderate to liberal Republicans (like Robert Stafford and Jim Jeffords) got elected.  Having a conservative guy like McClaughry win statewide there is about as realistic, maybe less so, than my character MacKenzie gettint elected there, although I had him becoming a Senator in the late 80s, when Vermont was still largely Republican.  Not that I have anything against Vermont; they have great dairy and maple syrup, and I dearly love their voting patterns from about 1854-1958 (until the election of William Meyer to Congress), and to a lesser extent until 1992.

[LastVoter]

Actually we can vote for Nader in 1996, because of the new rules. I urge everyone on the left to unite behind his candidacy.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Actually we can vote for Nader in 1996, because of the new rules. I urge everyone on the left to unite behind his candidacy.

You still haven't explained how Mario Cuomo is a neo-liberal

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Also, where were all the complainers during the Republican hegemony?

The GOP was the more progressive party at the time.

...

Literally nothing you just said or implied is true. First, no they were not: the Socialists were more left-wing than them. Second, are you saying that Paul and/or Perot are more progressive than Cuomo?

Read my post again. It took a few elections before Debs got in. Do you seriously think that I believe Paul is more progressive than Cuomo. If he were more progressive than Cuomo, why would I have voted for Paul?

OK, now I have no idea what you're trying to say. You said the GOP was the more progressive party at the time in response to my question, correct? I'm assuming that means that you're implying that their progressiveness was what caused them to have such a hegemony, correct? That means that you are implying that progressiveness causes an un-protested hegemony, correct? Therefore, if you are implying all that I assume you are, your argument is that the Democrats are not the more progressive party at this time, which you just admitted was not true. Also, your original post did not mention Debs at all - are you saying that in fact conservatism is what leads to acceptance of a hegemony?

What are you talking about? The vast majority of this forum is Progressive, and voted straight Republican in the 1870-1900 era. The Republicans were the more Progressive Party until Debs and the Socialists started to appear. The last thirty something years of Democratic rule in this timeline shows that they are now the more Progressive Party. You have massively misread my post.

I think you have massively misread my post as well. I was asking of the people who are complaining about a Democratic hegemony why they weren't complaining about the Republican hegemony.

Also, no offense, but your history is off. Debs and the Socialists first appeared in 1904, and the Republican hegemony was 1900-1920, so that means they weren't the most progressive party during the majority of the hegemony - although, make no mistake, they were progressive. 1872-1900 was anything but a hegemony for anyone. We started with one term of Woodhull of the Equal Rights Party, then two terms of Tilden and one of Cleveland, both Democrats, then one term of Douglass, a Republican, then two terms of Weaver, a Populist.

Your right, I for whatever reason recalled Ben Butler, and several other Radical Republicans being President. The people complaining about a Democratic hegemony would have complained about the earlier Republican hegemony, as LaFollette, Roosevelt, and George Norris were very Progressive. The GOP of that era was the more leftwing party, until the Socialists came to power in the 1920's.

I wish .

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Since Gore doesn't have a chance here, I'll join the Nader wagon after my guy gets his fair share. If George McGovern can get two terms, let an icon like Mario Cuomo have a turn!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Since Gore doesn't have a chance here, I'll join the Nader wagon after my guy gets his fair share. If George McGovern can get two terms, let an icon like Mario Cuomo have a turn!

I was thinking of Bill Bradley (or maybe someone else, if Cathcon puts anyone in for variety - though if my knowledge of the rules is correct he probably won't), but if he's not nominated I'll have to strongly consider Nader.

[Lambsbread]

Ugh, Cuomo. But I can't stand Gore.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Since Gore doesn't have a chance here, I'll join the Nader wagon after my guy gets his fair share. If George McGovern can get two terms, let an icon like Mario Cuomo have a turn!

I was thinking of Bill Bradley (or maybe someone else, if Cathcon puts anyone in for variety - though if my knowledge of the rules is correct he probably won't), but if he's not nominated I'll have to strongly consider Nader.

Was Jack Kemp in the 1984 Republican primaires? Was Ron Paul in the 1992? Things have changed.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Since Gore doesn't have a chance here, I'll join the Nader wagon after my guy gets his fair share. If George McGovern can get two terms, let an icon like Mario Cuomo have a turn!

I was thinking of Bill Bradley (or maybe someone else, if Cathcon puts anyone in for variety - though if my knowledge of the rules is correct he probably won't), but if he's not nominated I'll have to strongly consider Nader.

Was Jack Kemp in the 1984 Republican primaires? Was Ron Paul in the 1992? Things have changed.

Hold on, I've been assuming that you only add people to spice things up if there was an incumbent president at the time, like Reagan or Bush I. Are you intending to do so in 2000, as there were only the two candidates?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

15 minutes to go...

[LastVoter]

15 minutes to go...

No surprises here.

[Gass3268]

Good News!

[Hatman 🍁]

Called it.

[Maxwell]

FUUUUUUUUUUUU

Next time...

[Antonio the Sixth]

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

[Donerail]

Map's not up yet. Paurot alliance in the EC?

[Goldwater]

Yay, another Democratic victory...

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Map's not up yet. Paurot alliance in the EC?

OMG PAULTARDZ RIGGED TEH ELECTION!!!!

But seriously, Cuomo won by 8 points, and TR won in 1916 with a lower percentage than what Cuomo has now.

[Lumine]

Hmmmm... Well, we still have Perot and Lyndon Larouche to create chaos in 1996.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

The last few elections seem pretty hack-ish, but Mario is completely deserving. I'm a homer, but it's true.

I'm sure Cuomo will be the last of this streak, though.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I think I accidently voted for Pat Buchanan .