1900 Conventions! Huzzah!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Donnelly vs. Roosevelt would truly be a showdown for the ages, but I'm not a huge fan of the two-party sytem. We'll probably need to introduce a Socialist Party to shake things up.

Seems a bit too early, I don't know that we're quite due for a new party (the Whigs just died).  Plus if Donnelly is re-elected and followed by someone like Underwood, Bryan, Allen, Boies, etc then I'd think the new party would be more likely to be a laissez-faire, corporatist party that is rather anti-semetic and nominally anti-immigrantation.  A cross between Mark Hanna and John Davis, perhaps.  Why would the Socialists be pissed with the current state of affairs?

I see, I see. So you think this timeline would lead to some of the major Socialists being sidelined by a more left-wing Progrsesive Era (Donnelly, whoever comes after him, maybe Bryan and Roosevelt)?

Basically, except that I'd think folks like Debs would be Populists in this timeline rather than being butterflied away (remember Debs was an enthusiastic supporter of Bryan in 1896 IRL).  The only way I can see a Socialist Party emerging in this timeline is if we get to the 1920s and the Populists have moved in the direction of folks like Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Thomas Watson, etc.  I could see the Socialist wing of the Populist party splitting off under such circumstances and being led by folks like Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, Glenn Taylor, Norman Thomas, and Upton Sinclair.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Donnelly vs. Roosevelt would truly be a showdown for the ages, but I'm not a huge fan of the two-party sytem. We'll probably need to introduce a Socialist Party to shake things up.

Seems a bit too early, I don't know that we're quite due for a new party (the Whigs just died).  Plus if Donnelly is re-elected and followed by someone like Underwood, Bryan, Allen, Boies, etc then I'd think the new party would be more likely to be a laissez-faire, corporatist party that is rather anti-semetic and nominally anti-immigrantation.  A cross between Mark Hanna and John Davis, perhaps.  Why would the Socialists be pissed with the current state of affairs?

I see, I see. So you think this timeline would lead to some of the major Socialists being sidelined by a more left-wing Progrsesive Era (Donnelly, whoever comes after him, maybe Bryan and Roosevelt)?

Basically, except that I'd think folks like Debs would be Populists in this timeline rather than being butterflied away (remember Debs was an enthusiastic supporter of Bryan in 1896 IRL).  The only way I can see a Socialist Party emerging in this timeline is if we get to the 1920s and the Populists have moved in the direction of folks like Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Thomas Watson, etc.  I could see the Socialist wing of the Populist party splitting off under such circumstances and being led by folks like Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, Glenn Taylor, Norman Thomas, and Upton Sinclair.

I see, I see. IIRC we're just before the part where Watson gets all racist, so that could end up causing a Battle for Dominance over the party and suchlike.

Last day btw!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Donnelly vs. Roosevelt would truly be a showdown for the ages, but I'm not a huge fan of the two-party sytem. We'll probably need to introduce a Socialist Party to shake things up.

Seems a bit too early, I don't know that we're quite due for a new party (the Whigs just died).  Plus if Donnelly is re-elected and followed by someone like Underwood, Bryan, Allen, Boies, etc then I'd think the new party would be more likely to be a laissez-faire, corporatist party that is rather anti-semetic and nominally anti-immigrantation.  A cross between Mark Hanna and John Davis, perhaps.  Why would the Socialists be pissed with the current state of affairs?

I see, I see. So you think this timeline would lead to some of the major Socialists being sidelined by a more left-wing Progrsesive Era (Donnelly, whoever comes after him, maybe Bryan and Roosevelt)?

Basically, except that I'd think folks like Debs would be Populists in this timeline rather than being butterflied away (remember Debs was an enthusiastic supporter of Bryan in 1896 IRL).  The only way I can see a Socialist Party emerging in this timeline is if we get to the 1920s and the Populists have moved in the direction of folks like Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Thomas Watson, etc.  I could see the Socialist wing of the Populist party splitting off under such circumstances and being led by folks like Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, Glenn Taylor, Norman Thomas, and Upton Sinclair.

I see, I see. IIRC we're just before the part where Watson gets all racist, so that could end up causing a Battle for Dominance over the party and suchlike.

Last day btw!

Yep, Watson eventually became an extremely influential (within the South) newspaper publisher while in the Senate (and played a huge role in Leo Frank's lynching in this capacity) and I could easily see him helping engineer a more bigoted takeover of the party.  Btw, I could also see some non-Socialist Populists like Oscar Underwood breaking off and joining the Socialist Party due to 1920s era bigotry taking over the party.  The people who'd really get sidelined are folks like Al Smith who were too economically conservative for the Socialists, but not bigoted enough for the Watson faction of the Populist Party.  I could potentially see a four party system by the time 1932 roles around, but again, the Laissez-Faire right-wingers would probably split from the Unionists before any of the Populist/Socialist stuff happens, imo.  Interesting times

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Donnelly vs. Roosevelt would truly be a showdown for the ages, but I'm not a huge fan of the two-party sytem. We'll probably need to introduce a Socialist Party to shake things up.

Seems a bit too early, I don't know that we're quite due for a new party (the Whigs just died).  Plus if Donnelly is re-elected and followed by someone like Underwood, Bryan, Allen, Boies, etc then I'd think the new party would be more likely to be a laissez-faire, corporatist party that is rather anti-semetic and nominally anti-immigrantation.  A cross between Mark Hanna and John Davis, perhaps.  Why would the Socialists be pissed with the current state of affairs?

I see, I see. So you think this timeline would lead to some of the major Socialists being sidelined by a more left-wing Progrsesive Era (Donnelly, whoever comes after him, maybe Bryan and Roosevelt)?

Basically, except that I'd think folks like Debs would be Populists in this timeline rather than being butterflied away (remember Debs was an enthusiastic supporter of Bryan in 1896 IRL).  The only way I can see a Socialist Party emerging in this timeline is if we get to the 1920s and the Populists have moved in the direction of folks like Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Thomas Watson, etc.  I could see the Socialist wing of the Populist party splitting off under such circumstances and being led by folks like Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, Glenn Taylor, Norman Thomas, and Upton Sinclair.

I see, I see. IIRC we're just before the part where Watson gets all racist, so that could end up causing a Battle for Dominance over the party and suchlike.

Last day btw!

Yep, Watson eventually became an extremely influential (within the South) newspaper publisher while in the Senate (and played a huge role in Leo Frank's lynching in this capacity) and I could easily see him helping engineer a more bigoted takeover of the party.  Btw, I could also see some non-Socialist Populists like Oscar Underwood breaking off and joining the Socialist Party due to 1920s era bigotry taking over the party.  The people who'd really get sidelined are folks like Al Smith who were too economically conservative for the Socialists, but not bigoted enough for the Watson faction of the Populist Party.  I could potentially see a four party system by the time 1932 roles around, but again, the Laissez-Faire right-wingers would probably split from the Unionists before any of the Populist/Socialist stuff happens, imo.  Interesting times

Yeah, we're going to need a more laissez-faire party if the Progressives take over the Union Party (though if McKinley is nominated it may not be necessary), and I'm sure the cancer of bigotry will eventually become too big for the PA. Does your hypothetical four-party system include the Socialists, the by-that-time-racist PA, the moderate/progressive Unionists (a la Smith perhaps?) and the full-on conservatives?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Donnelly vs. Roosevelt would truly be a showdown for the ages, but I'm not a huge fan of the two-party sytem. We'll probably need to introduce a Socialist Party to shake things up.

Seems a bit too early, I don't know that we're quite due for a new party (the Whigs just died).  Plus if Donnelly is re-elected and followed by someone like Underwood, Bryan, Allen, Boies, etc then I'd think the new party would be more likely to be a laissez-faire, corporatist party that is rather anti-semetic and nominally anti-immigrantation.  A cross between Mark Hanna and John Davis, perhaps.  Why would the Socialists be pissed with the current state of affairs?

I see, I see. So you think this timeline would lead to some of the major Socialists being sidelined by a more left-wing Progrsesive Era (Donnelly, whoever comes after him, maybe Bryan and Roosevelt)?

Basically, except that I'd think folks like Debs would be Populists in this timeline rather than being butterflied away (remember Debs was an enthusiastic supporter of Bryan in 1896 IRL).  The only way I can see a Socialist Party emerging in this timeline is if we get to the 1920s and the Populists have moved in the direction of folks like Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Thomas Watson, etc.  I could see the Socialist wing of the Populist party splitting off under such circumstances and being led by folks like Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, Glenn Taylor, Norman Thomas, and Upton Sinclair.

I see, I see. IIRC we're just before the part where Watson gets all racist, so that could end up causing a Battle for Dominance over the party and suchlike.

Last day btw!

Yep, Watson eventually became an extremely influential (within the South) newspaper publisher while in the Senate (and played a huge role in Leo Frank's lynching in this capacity) and I could easily see him helping engineer a more bigoted takeover of the party.  Btw, I could also see some non-Socialist Populists like Oscar Underwood breaking off and joining the Socialist Party due to 1920s era bigotry taking over the party.  The people who'd really get sidelined are folks like Al Smith who were too economically conservative for the Socialists, but not bigoted enough for the Watson faction of the Populist Party.  I could potentially see a four party system by the time 1932 roles around, but again, the Laissez-Faire right-wingers would probably split from the Unionists before any of the Populist/Socialist stuff happens, imo.  Interesting times

Yeah, we're going to need a more laissez-faire party if the Progressives take over the Union Party (though if McKinley is nominated it may not be necessary), and I'm sure the cancer of bigotry will eventually become too big for the PA. Does your hypothetical four-party system include the Socialists, the by-that-time-racist PA, the moderate/progressive Unionists (a la Smith perhaps?) and the full-on conservatives?

That sounds about right, and you make a good point regarding McKinley (although I could see the progressive Unionists eventually splitting off if the McKinley faction takes control of the party, given that a short-term version of that happened in 1912 IRL).

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Donnelly vs. Roosevelt would truly be a showdown for the ages, but I'm not a huge fan of the two-party sytem. We'll probably need to introduce a Socialist Party to shake things up.

Seems a bit too early, I don't know that we're quite due for a new party (the Whigs just died).  Plus if Donnelly is re-elected and followed by someone like Underwood, Bryan, Allen, Boies, etc then I'd think the new party would be more likely to be a laissez-faire, corporatist party that is rather anti-semetic and nominally anti-immigrantation.  A cross between Mark Hanna and John Davis, perhaps.  Why would the Socialists be pissed with the current state of affairs?

I see, I see. So you think this timeline would lead to some of the major Socialists being sidelined by a more left-wing Progrsesive Era (Donnelly, whoever comes after him, maybe Bryan and Roosevelt)?

Basically, except that I'd think folks like Debs would be Populists in this timeline rather than being butterflied away (remember Debs was an enthusiastic supporter of Bryan in 1896 IRL).  The only way I can see a Socialist Party emerging in this timeline is if we get to the 1920s and the Populists have moved in the direction of folks like Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Thomas Watson, etc.  I could see the Socialist wing of the Populist party splitting off under such circumstances and being led by folks like Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, Glenn Taylor, Norman Thomas, and Upton Sinclair.

I see, I see. IIRC we're just before the part where Watson gets all racist, so that could end up causing a Battle for Dominance over the party and suchlike.

Last day btw!

Yep, Watson eventually became an extremely influential (within the South) newspaper publisher while in the Senate (and played a huge role in Leo Frank's lynching in this capacity) and I could easily see him helping engineer a more bigoted takeover of the party.  Btw, I could also see some non-Socialist Populists like Oscar Underwood breaking off and joining the Socialist Party due to 1920s era bigotry taking over the party.  The people who'd really get sidelined are folks like Al Smith who were too economically conservative for the Socialists, but not bigoted enough for the Watson faction of the Populist Party.  I could potentially see a four party system by the time 1932 roles around, but again, the Laissez-Faire right-wingers would probably split from the Unionists before any of the Populist/Socialist stuff happens, imo.  Interesting times

Yeah, we're going to need a more laissez-faire party if the Progressives take over the Union Party (though if McKinley is nominated it may not be necessary), and I'm sure the cancer of bigotry will eventually become too big for the PA. Does your hypothetical four-party system include the Socialists, the by-that-time-racist PA, the moderate/progressive Unionists (a la Smith perhaps?) and the full-on conservatives?

That sounds about right, and you make a good point regarding McKinley (although I could see the progressive Unionists eventually splitting off if the McKinley faction takes control of the party, given that a short-term version of that happened in 1912 IRL).

So would they defect to the PA or become Moderate Heroes?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Donnelly vs. Roosevelt would truly be a showdown for the ages, but I'm not a huge fan of the two-party sytem. We'll probably need to introduce a Socialist Party to shake things up.

Seems a bit too early, I don't know that we're quite due for a new party (the Whigs just died).  Plus if Donnelly is re-elected and followed by someone like Underwood, Bryan, Allen, Boies, etc then I'd think the new party would be more likely to be a laissez-faire, corporatist party that is rather anti-semetic and nominally anti-immigrantation.  A cross between Mark Hanna and John Davis, perhaps.  Why would the Socialists be pissed with the current state of affairs?

I see, I see. So you think this timeline would lead to some of the major Socialists being sidelined by a more left-wing Progrsesive Era (Donnelly, whoever comes after him, maybe Bryan and Roosevelt)?

Basically, except that I'd think folks like Debs would be Populists in this timeline rather than being butterflied away (remember Debs was an enthusiastic supporter of Bryan in 1896 IRL).  The only way I can see a Socialist Party emerging in this timeline is if we get to the 1920s and the Populists have moved in the direction of folks like Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Thomas Watson, etc.  I could see the Socialist wing of the Populist party splitting off under such circumstances and being led by folks like Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, Glenn Taylor, Norman Thomas, and Upton Sinclair.

I see, I see. IIRC we're just before the part where Watson gets all racist, so that could end up causing a Battle for Dominance over the party and suchlike.

Last day btw!

Yep, Watson eventually became an extremely influential (within the South) newspaper publisher while in the Senate (and played a huge role in Leo Frank's lynching in this capacity) and I could easily see him helping engineer a more bigoted takeover of the party.  Btw, I could also see some non-Socialist Populists like Oscar Underwood breaking off and joining the Socialist Party due to 1920s era bigotry taking over the party.  The people who'd really get sidelined are folks like Al Smith who were too economically conservative for the Socialists, but not bigoted enough for the Watson faction of the Populist Party.  I could potentially see a four party system by the time 1932 roles around, but again, the Laissez-Faire right-wingers would probably split from the Unionists before any of the Populist/Socialist stuff happens, imo.  Interesting times

Yeah, we're going to need a more laissez-faire party if the Progressives take over the Union Party (though if McKinley is nominated it may not be necessary), and I'm sure the cancer of bigotry will eventually become too big for the PA. Does your hypothetical four-party system include the Socialists, the by-that-time-racist PA, the moderate/progressive Unionists (a la Smith perhaps?) and the full-on conservatives?

That sounds about right, and you make a good point regarding McKinley (although I could see the progressive Unionists eventually splitting off if the McKinley faction takes control of the party, given that a short-term version of that happened in 1912 IRL).

So would they defect to the PA or become Moderate Heroes?

I'm sure the PA would attack them as such.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Donnelly vs. Roosevelt would truly be a showdown for the ages, but I'm not a huge fan of the two-party sytem. We'll probably need to introduce a Socialist Party to shake things up.

Seems a bit too early, I don't know that we're quite due for a new party (the Whigs just died).  Plus if Donnelly is re-elected and followed by someone like Underwood, Bryan, Allen, Boies, etc then I'd think the new party would be more likely to be a laissez-faire, corporatist party that is rather anti-semetic and nominally anti-immigrantation.  A cross between Mark Hanna and John Davis, perhaps.  Why would the Socialists be pissed with the current state of affairs?

I see, I see. So you think this timeline would lead to some of the major Socialists being sidelined by a more left-wing Progrsesive Era (Donnelly, whoever comes after him, maybe Bryan and Roosevelt)?

Basically, except that I'd think folks like Debs would be Populists in this timeline rather than being butterflied away (remember Debs was an enthusiastic supporter of Bryan in 1896 IRL).  The only way I can see a Socialist Party emerging in this timeline is if we get to the 1920s and the Populists have moved in the direction of folks like Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Thomas Watson, etc.  I could see the Socialist wing of the Populist party splitting off under such circumstances and being led by folks like Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, Glenn Taylor, Norman Thomas, and Upton Sinclair.

I see, I see. IIRC we're just before the part where Watson gets all racist, so that could end up causing a Battle for Dominance over the party and suchlike.

Last day btw!

Yep, Watson eventually became an extremely influential (within the South) newspaper publisher while in the Senate (and played a huge role in Leo Frank's lynching in this capacity) and I could easily see him helping engineer a more bigoted takeover of the party.  Btw, I could also see some non-Socialist Populists like Oscar Underwood breaking off and joining the Socialist Party due to 1920s era bigotry taking over the party.  The people who'd really get sidelined are folks like Al Smith who were too economically conservative for the Socialists, but not bigoted enough for the Watson faction of the Populist Party.  I could potentially see a four party system by the time 1932 roles around, but again, the Laissez-Faire right-wingers would probably split from the Unionists before any of the Populist/Socialist stuff happens, imo.  Interesting times

Yeah, we're going to need a more laissez-faire party if the Progressives take over the Union Party (though if McKinley is nominated it may not be necessary), and I'm sure the cancer of bigotry will eventually become too big for the PA. Does your hypothetical four-party system include the Socialists, the by-that-time-racist PA, the moderate/progressive Unionists (a la Smith perhaps?) and the full-on conservatives?

That sounds about right, and you make a good point regarding McKinley (although I could see the progressive Unionists eventually splitting off if the McKinley faction takes control of the party, given that a short-term version of that happened in 1912 IRL).

So would they defect to the PA or become Moderate Heroes?

I'm sure the PA would attack them as such.

As many are already doing.

Reminder that this has just three hours left, folks!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

OH DAMN IT'S A TIE

[PPT Spiral]

OH DAMN IT'S A TIE

So, what now?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

OH DAMN IT'S A TIE

So, what now?

You'll see...