1992 United States Presidential Election

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Cuomo, enthusiastically.

Fellow progressives, don't miss this chance to have one of our greatest heroes elected!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Fulani. Can't bring myself to vote for any of the other choices.

Why not Cuomo? And don't say you're afraid of Al Gore because Cuomo is not going to die in office. He's still alive IIRC.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Cuomo, grudgingly. We need a strong left-wing  primary challenge in 1996, enough neoliberalism.

Seatown, tell me how exactly Cuomo is a neoliberal. Is it because he's a Democrat in the 1990s?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I like the bit where Ross Perot stole the presidency from Cuomo.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Cuomo will win. The anti-Cuomo vote is going to be split between Perot and Paul, allowing Cuomo to win with less than 40%.

But quite a few Democrats and swing voters are going for Perot, no?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's Cuomo 38% (11/29), Paul 34% (10/29), Perot 24% (7/29), and Fulani 3% (1/29).

It'll be fun if this turns out to be like IRL 1992.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

It's Cuomo 38% (11/29), Paul 34% (10/29), Perot 24% (7/29), and Fulani 3% (1/29).

It'll be fun if this turns out to be like IRL 1992.

I'm pretty sure Paul is leading right now. The Right always underpolls.

Indeed, indeed. Just look at 1960.

Although, for a counterexample, look at 1972.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

]sixth term in power for the Democrats, unprecedented in the history of the country.

We've already had six terms. This would be our seventh .

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Perot

Go team Perot!   Don't let the negative nancies get you down. 

It'll be fun to see the look on your faces when unskewedpolls.com turns out to be wrong.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Perot isn't getting enough support. All you guys will achieve is splitting the left vote and allowing Paul to win.

I don't think most of us care about Democrats that much anymore, considering they are a neoliberal party at this point. We will have a chance to fix things up in 2000 with Nader though.

I've been mad at Democratic voters since they screwed both Humphrey and Udall out of the Presidency.

You should be mad at Socialist voters, then. After all, Sewer was the one who expressly stated his desire to punish the Democrats.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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

[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?

[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?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

When do the results come in?

Tomorrow afternoon at about 5:45 EST.

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[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?

[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.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Very sad news.

Looks like our hopes rest with Ralph Nader now.

How about a compromise? Cuomo '96 and Nader '00?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Well, onto 1996 as it is. Really though, is all this pageantry necessary? I mean there's got to be a point where the voters just wouldn't care and assumed the outcome was predetermined and not give a damn who was president.

Oh, don't worry, I think Nader will be a force to be reckoned with in 2000 if not 1996.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Well, onto 1996 as it is. Really though, is all this pageantry necessary? I mean there's got to be a point where the voters just wouldn't care and assumed the outcome was predetermined and not give a damn who was president.

Oh, don't worry, I think Nader will be a force to be reckoned with in 2000 if not 1996.

Yay! The reign of the Democrats will be ended by someone who's to the left of the Democrats!

That's always the best way to end a hegemony!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Well, onto 1996 as it is. Really though, is all this pageantry necessary? I mean there's got to be a point where the voters just wouldn't care and assumed the outcome was predetermined and not give a damn who was president.

Oh, don't worry, I think Nader will be a force to be reckoned with in 2000 if not 1996.

Yay! The reign of the Democrats will be ended by someone who's to the left of the Democrats!

You might get a token republican term or two out of it!

Now, now, Seatown, let's not get ahead of ourselves. We all know that Glorious Leader Herman Cain will rise up in 2012 and claim his mantle as Eternal President.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Well, onto 1996 as it is. Really though, is all this pageantry necessary? I mean there's got to be a point where the voters just wouldn't care and assumed the outcome was predetermined and not give a damn who was president.

Oh, don't worry, I think Nader will be a force to be reckoned with in 2000 if not 1996.

Yay! The reign of the Democrats will be ended by someone who's to the left of the Democrats!

You might get a token republican term or two out of it!

Now, now, Seatown, let's not get ahead of ourselves. We all know that Glorious Leader Herman Cain will rise up in 2012 and claim his mantle as Eternal President.

Cain is running in 2000 though

Yeah, but 2000 is not his allotted time. This way, we can have two terms of Cuomo, two terms of Nader, and infinite terms of Herman Cain!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Yay!