1888 Conventions

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Senator Zebulon Vance/Senator Henry Teller

Vance gave hundreds of speeches condemning anti-Semitism and calling for Southerners to show more religious tolerance towards non-Protestants in general (and towards Jews in particular). 

In RL, Henry Teller was a Republican Senator from Colorado who supported bimetalism (he supported Bryan in 1896 and switched to the Democratic party over the issue) and strongly opposed the Dawes Act.  His reasons for opposing it were that he correctly believed it was a plot to steal land that rightfully belonged to Native Americans and because the bill was designed to destroy Native-American culture through forced assimilation, and indeed, the Dawes Act was part of the cultural genocide that the U.S. committed against the Native-Americans as a corollary to the more traditional type of genocide against them (a systematic attempt to annihilate all Native-Americans living in the present-day continental U.S.).  Teller also argued that the U.S. should withdraw all troops from Cuba at the end of the Spanish-American war and allow the Cuban people to determine the political future of their country.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I suppose I'll be supporting Custer.

Clearly you are an agent provocateur sent by the military industrial complex!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I introduce the option to merge, and no one wants to merge.

The Destiny Party wants to

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Where would Theodore Roosevelt be at this point in time? In real life, he'd held a seat for a few years in the NY State Assembly, had become a widower, had lost an election for mayor, and had gotten re-married before Harrison made him a Civil Service Commissioner in 1889. With the Union party currently in the hands of its "reform" faction, might he have a good relationship with fellow New Yorker Grover Cleveland? Or is he still out West?

As well, it'd be interesting to see how he might interact with a President Custer.

Roosevelt is a mildly-decorated veteran of the Dakota War and just got elected to the New York Assembly. He's fond of Cleveland's stance on patronage, but is more partial to Cassius Clay's legacy (despite how checkered it may be.) Despite this he tends to eschew the current Union faction's party on tariffs and would like to see more bold action regarding trusts.

I introduce the option to merge, and no one wants to merge.

The Destiny Party wants to

The Destiny Party will likely survive another election or two regardless. The "merger" option outright consolidates the Whigs and Radicals in favor of the People's Alliance, which would provide for more competitiveness in this series.

I swear half the voters are just voting for a name that's famous in real life.

Are you sure? There's a pretty vocal libertarian-leaning cohort in this series (myself, shua, Deus, Spiral, Max etc) which roughly squares up with Cleveland's vote total, give or take. For the record, I voted Whig: Merger this time.

I do agree that the famous names tend to do better than ones that are less prominent IRL (much to my disappointment) but I don't think it's solely attributable to that.

Good point, though I don't see how the libertarian-leaners can outvote most everyone else.

Also, can I change my vote to a formal People's Alliance merger?

I'd urge Dallasfan not to allow this, if people can change their votes than it is only a matter of time before people start manipulating the system.  What if a bunch of Hoover supporters suddenly decided they actually wanted to switch to Garner in the 1932 primary  I'd argue that the efforts by many Socialist-leaning voters in Cath's first version of this game proved that plenty of people will abuse the system if given the opportunity and allowing people to change their vote encourages this (and btw, how someone really voted in unverifiable).  Additionally, if it is just a one time thing, that'd hardly be fair to anyone else).  Its obviously Dallasfan's call, but I think it'd be a mistake to let anyone change their vote.

On a different note, those supporting a merger (which appears to include at least a plurality of the radical party) could still vote for Vance  There's no law saying you can't cross party-lines.  For my part, my support or opposition to a merger depends on the candidates, I like Vance better than Smith or Custer, and thus voted for him.  Additionally, I think the last election proved that a Whig/Radical merger wouldn't make things competitive with the Destiny party still floating around.  Lastly, I wonder what the results would look like if we couldn't see them until after the election (I suspect people might vote differently and be less inclined to just play it safe if they didn't know who was a long-shot and who was heavily favored (just a thought).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we compromise with Custer/Vance?

Custer's a non-starter for me as President, plus you guys got your choice last time.  I suppose I could live with Vance/Custer although unless the other parties line up behind Vance, I'm sticking with Vance/Teller.  In fact, given that Weaver didn't make it on the ticket at all last time, I kinda feel like I'd rather see a Vance/Teller ticket if possible (although again, Vance/Custer is acceptable if there is no other option).  Yeah, the more I think about it I'm sticking with Vance for President.  Maybe we could have Cleveland vs. Vance/Custer vs. Vance/Teller like what the Populists did with the Democrats (the votes for President all went to Bryan, but the Populists ran Watson for Vice-President instead of Sewell).  

Regarding Congressional races, we could split off regionally: Whigs compete in the South and the rural West/Midwest, the People's Alliance on the west coast/the industrial Midwest/Mormon areas, and Radicals in the Northeast.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we compromise with Custer/Vance?

Custer's a non-starter for me as President, plus you guys got your choice last time.  I suppose I could live with Vance/Custer although unless the other parties line up behind Vance, I'm sticking with Vance/Teller.

What's your problem with Custer, hero of the Common Man?

His involvement in the Indian Wars.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we compromise with Custer/Vance?

Custer's a non-starter for me as President, plus you guys got your choice last time.  I suppose I could live with Vance/Custer although unless the other parties line up behind Vance, I'm sticking with Vance/Teller.

What's your problem with Custer, hero of the Common Man?

His involvement in the Indian Wars  

And yet you'd probably support Theodore Roosevelt who fought in the apparently un-justified Spanish-American War.

No, actually I wouldn't.  TR was a major HP, not really sure why certain liberals like him given that he was never more than a pseudo-reformer.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we compromise with Custer/Vance?

Custer's a non-starter for me as President, plus you guys got your choice last time.  I suppose I could live with Vance/Custer although unless the other parties line up behind Vance, I'm sticking with Vance/Teller.

What's your problem with Custer, hero of the Common Man?

His involvement in the Indian Wars  

And yet you'd probably support Theodore Roosevelt who fought in the apparently un-justified Spanish-American War.

No, actually I wouldn't.  TR was a major HP, not really sure why certain liberals like him given that he was never more than a pseudo-reformer.

Ah, you've reached the "Enlightened S(t)age". Good, good....

?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well there's Spiral, shua, Maxwell, Deus, and Sanchez - that makes five. Bmotley announced his support for Cleveland, making six, and I (who admittedly voted Whig:Merger) would make seven. Cleveland has 9 votes at the convention thus far.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Randall was intended to hurt Cleveland.

Turnout is also about half of what it was in Cathcon's first version IIRC.  Also, I agree Randall should hurt Cleveland in theory, but in practice he doesn't seem to have done so.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we compromise with Custer/Vance?

Custer's a non-starter for me as President, plus you guys got your choice last time.  I suppose I could live with Vance/Custer although unless the other parties line up behind Vance, I'm sticking with Vance/Teller.

What's your problem with Custer, hero of the Common Man?

His involvement in the Indian Wars  

And yet you'd probably support Theodore Roosevelt who fought in the apparently un-justified Spanish-American War.

No, actually I wouldn't.  TR was a major HP, not really sure why certain liberals like him given that he was never more than a pseudo-reformer.

Ah, you've reached the "Enlightened S(t)age". Good, good....

?

I'm just being an asshole. More to the point: I find left-wingers who gush over TR annoying, but I also find it annoying when they gush over Eugene Debs, so I'll just mindlessly make rude (or in this case, mis-interpreted or confusing) comments regarding either.

Ah, no worries.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I encourage everyone who supports the Whigs or Radicals to vote to merge so we don't have vote-splitting in the general election.

I urge fellow anti-Cleveland voters to reject the efforts of Custer/Smith supporters to hijack the Whig convention.  I realize they may share the same goal of defeating Cleveland, but the fact is that only Vance ideally with Senator Teller as his running-mate) has what it takes to defeat Cleveland and a merger would keep him from being nominated.  It is also quite surprising that those who blocked Weaver over his views on immigration would have us unite behind an eager participant in the Indian genocide.  I'd urge Whigs, Radicals, and members of the People's Alliance to support Vance!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd be for Vance, but only under a united ticket.

Vance isn't an option if there's a merger.  He wasn't listed as one of the People's Alliance candidates

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd be for Vance, but only under a united ticket.

Vance isn't an option if there's a merger.  He wasn't listed as one of the People's Alliance candidates

That's too bad. If he is the Whig nominee though, won't we have a four-way race, since there's no merger?

The Radicals voted for a merger and the Destiny and People's Alliance parties voted for Custer, so it would be Vance vs. Custer. vs. Cleveland.  Another possibility is that since the Radicals voted for a merger and The People's Alliance lacks Whig participation, the People's Alliance doesn't run anyone and/or the Radicals disappear entirely.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we see how things play out in 1888, then run Vance/Custer in 1892. Vance dies in 1894, so they each get two years as President.

Nah, there may be better options.  Like Weaver

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we see how things play out in 1888, then run Vance/Custer in 1892. Vance dies in 1894, so they each get two years as President.

Nah, there may be better options.  Like Weaver

Wasn't Weaver the racist?

Nope

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we see how things play out in 1888, then run Vance/Custer in 1892. Vance dies in 1894, so they each get two years as President.

Nah, there may be better options.  Like Weaver

Or Vance. Imagine President Zebulon Vance.

Let's see how '88 goes.  What about Weaver/Custer in '92.  I could get behind that and then switch to Bryan/Teller in '96.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

How about we see how things play out in 1888, then run Vance/Custer in 1892. Vance dies in 1894, so they each get two years as President.

Nah, there may be better options.  Like Weaver

Or Vance. Imagine President Zebulon Vance.

Let's see how '88 goes.  What about Weaver/Custer in '92.  I could get behind that and then switch to Bryan/Teller in '96.

I think we can all agree that we're going to have Bryan/Somebody in '96, and Teller seems pretty cool. How about the Whigs merge with the People's Alliance and Destiny parties in '92 so we can sort this all out democratically instead of having two candidates running on the left, a situation which has had negative results for us in the past four elections? I'm not a fan of Weaver, and you're not a fan of Custer, so we probably shouldn't go with that. Perhaps Vance/Bryan in '92, no matter what happens this go-around?

As Cath noted, Bryan would be unconstitutional in 1892 and I think we should check the options before settling on Vance for that year (obviously it doesn't have to be Weaver, but let's make sure there isn't a better option that year that folks can agree on), other than that I completely agree.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Also this has been over for about a day.

Can we get a general election, Dallas?