Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 23, 2018, 05:37:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99
2401  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Conservapedia on: March 23, 2013, 09:08:12 am
I get a good laugh reading some of the articles on the site once in a while due to the fact that they are so absurd and lack any real logic behind them whatsoever.
2402  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1972 Presidential Election: Hubert Humphrey (D) vs Gerald Ford (R) on: March 23, 2013, 09:00:45 am
It would really depend on several factors. If the War in Vietnam was dying down and if the economy was doing better than in RL, I would probably vote for Humphrey, as I generally admire him as a politician despite that fact that I disagree with his views on some issues. If Vietnam was still a big issue and if the economy was worse than in RL, I would most likely vote for Ford.
2403  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Woodrow Wilson: HP or FF? on: March 23, 2013, 08:56:15 am
I would say lean HP due to his racial policies and somewhat excessive actions against civil liberties during World War 1, although he is defiantely was not as bad as he is portrayed to be by people such as Glenn Beck. That being said, I would rather have Woodrow Wilson as President than either Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Sam Brownback, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan anyday.
2404  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1968 Republican National Convention on: March 23, 2013, 08:48:43 am
Either Rockefeller or Reagan would have been better than Nixon in my opinion. A Rockefeller/Reagan ticket would have been awesome in 1968, although it probably would not have happened due to the ideological differences between the two.
2405  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: What happens if Lieberman becomes president in September 2001? on: March 21, 2013, 09:37:18 am
It would make a great timeline.

My scenario:

Lieberman gets in with huge approval ratings, equal to those of Bush. The war in Afghanistan will be inevitable. Lieberman will go in even more than Bush did, go after Bin Laden with everything the military has. After all, with a dead president it has become even more personal. They had been close in getting Osama in real life so it's not out of the question that in this scenario they will get for real. That will be some where in late 2001 or early 2002. It will keep his ratings sky high going in to the midterms. Lieberman might use his popularity to get some things done on the domestic front. With Republicans reluctant to oppose a extremely popular president they might work with him on issues like health care and education.

During the midterms the Democrats win the majority in the Senate (the Democrats would never have gained the majority in the scenario because of Lieberman's resignation from the Senate and the Republican governor of Connecticut appointing a Republican to his seat. That seat will be won back a Democrat in 2002, Max Cleland wins his reelection bid. Shaheen wins in New Hampshire and with Jeffords becoming an independent it gives the Democrats a majority. Early in the new year, McCain also leaves the Republican and becomes a Democrat. The Democrats also win enough seats to gain a majority in the House making Dick Gephart the Speaker.

After Gore's death, Lieberman decides to give the Vice Presidency to former Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. And for the Presidential elections of 2004 this will also be the ticket for the Democratic Party.

Lieberman doesn't go in to Iraq but he starts to undermine Saddam Hussein, trying to get him out of office. The War in Afghanistan stills goes on. Al Qaeda has been hit hard, but the Taliban is still going on. But with the death of Bin Laden the war is seen as more successful. Lieberman hopes to get the troops out by 2006. 2003 Is a good but also difficult year for the President. His ratings start the drop and by the summer they fall below the 60% for the first time. Still, most people approve of his work and most Republicans don't see a reason to jump in the race for the Presidency. The number one candidate, Jeb Bush, decides to stay out, and with McCain having joined the Democrats the party has no real front runner for 2004.

Lieberman wins the nomination for his party's candidacy easily. With the Republicans it's a longer process but ultimately Governor George Pataki of New York gets the nomination. Having won reelection in 2002 in a good year for the Democrats, he is seen as their strongest candidate. But most experts don't give him much change against the popular President.

The campaign is a boring one. The candidates agree for the most part on foreign policy and after 9/11 foreign policy and national security are the number issue with the voters. The Republicans attack Lieberman on domestic spending and the economy (the economy is still recovering from the Dot Com bubble and 9/11) but most voters see in the President a strong and determent leader.

On November 2 Lieberman wins a strong victory. Altough is approval ratings have dropped to around 50%, it is enough to win a majority of the vote, the first for a Democrat in 28 years.



Lieberman - Kerrey: 51% and 325 ECV
Pataki - Alexander: 47% and 213 ECV

His second term and his only elected term start strong for Lieberman. With increased majorities in the House and the Senate and the election behind him, the President starts to build a coalition to fight against Saddam. Still in the power after years of pressure, Lieberman decides to take him out. His newly appointed Secretary of State, John McCain, is all for it and travels the world to get the support from other nations. With the War in Afghanistan slowly winding down, the attention is now focused on Iraq and for months the White House prepares the plans for a invasion and prepares the nation for a new war. However most countries decide to stay out and the US only has a small coalition. It is deemed enough. After Saddam kicks the UN weapons inspectors out in early 2006 the war starts and within weeks the Iraqi army is defeated. Saddam however flees and is nowhere to be found. The approval ratings for the President rise again after the success in Iraq and after ending 2005 with a approval rating of just 43% they are now above 55% again.

On the domestic front things are more difficult. The Republicans, after recovering from losing the fourth presidential election in a row, decide to make life much more difficult for the President. So nothing really is achieved. Katrina hits New Orleans but is far better handled by the administration.
The new year however will not bring better news. With the midterms coming up, the Democrats worry about the backlash. After 14 years of Democratic rule the nation wants fresh blood.

The Iraq War goes in to much of the same problems that it had in real life, but less severe. With Al Qaeda more of less gone, rogue terrorists create havoc in Iraq, but never to a degree as they did in real life. By the elections of 2006 the Democratic Party is in trouble. Divided over the foreign policy of the President and with the President's approval ratings at 45% things look bleak. During the midterms the Republican Party gains a small majority in both houses of Congress, making it almost impossible for Lieberman to get anything done in his last two years. He decides to focus even more on foreign policy. With Iraq becoming more problematic he needs a big success. The peace process is the most obvious and he decides to use his Jewish background to force Israel to make a deal with the Palestinians. In the summer of 2007, after months of negotiations a peace accord is agreed between Abbas and Olmert. A new Palestinian state is founded, consisting of the West Bank and Gaza with Ramallah as it's captital. Israel is allowed to get three major settlements on the West Bank, defended by the Israeli army. Al other settlements will be demolished. Jerusalem is given a special status, neither nation can claim it and make it their capital. The Wall will remain for now but it will be redrawn to place it along the border. The checkpoints will also stay in place.
The accords are seen as a big achievement and after that Lieberman decides he has done enough. The economy however starts to collapse. And 2008 will prove to be a very hard year. With the economic downturn the prospects for the Democrats are dark. Many topcontenders decide to stay out and the nomination goes to Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. The Republicans nominate Jeb Bush and in November he defeats Edwards in a landslide victory 53% - 45%:



On January 20, 2009 Lieberman leaves the White House. The economy is in trouble (altough not as bad as in real life, because no tax cuts and a later Iraq War), and a messy War in Iraq. He does however has is successes and most experts agree that Lieberman was for the most part a good and successful President.

Good scenario overall! I always thought that either Rick Santorum or George Allen would have had been in a good position to run for the Republican Nomination in 2008 in a scenario were Al Gore was elected in 2000, or were the both defeated in 2006 as in RL?
2406  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Which poster makes the least sense? on: March 21, 2013, 09:29:56 am
All of the members mentioned on this thread make sense in my opinion, although I may disagree with their viewpoints at times. For the member that makes the least sense to me overall, I'd probably go with Mookiffuttiff, as he posted some jibberish on the Election What If board under the title "Dre Headphonesgzabl mlvr jnybkvhsm xtjtay eaio nyocihmch m." I'm pretty sure that Mookiffuttiff is a sock account though.
2407  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Vinyl Records--Cool or Square? on: March 21, 2013, 07:34:45 am
I have a huge collection of early Rock & Roll, R&B and Doo Wop songs from the 1950s on 78RPM Records as well as on LPs and 45s, so records collecting is at least cool in my opinion.
2408  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: Obama/Biden vs Santorum/Palin 2008 on: March 01, 2013, 01:22:16 pm
Interesting scenario! I would have loved to see Obama destroy Santorum in the debates in 2008. I think that Obama would end up carrying Arizona, Georgia, Missouri by fairly slim margins while Santorum would do much better in the South and Midwest than McCain did and might make Iowa and Ohio somwhat closer than in RL. In addition, Santorum might have won all of Nebraska's congressional district electoral votes. Overall, Obama would have won by a landslide if Rick Santorum got the Republican nomination in 2008.



Obama/Biden: 403 Electoral Votes
Santorum/Palin: 135 Electoral Votes
2409  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Christie not invited to CPAC on: February 27, 2013, 01:02:15 pm
These guys deserve to lose at this point. They are going to nominate loverboy no substance Marco Rubio and lose again and be all pissed off because their purity test didn't work AGAIN and basically the party keeps screwing up.
I don't think that Rubio will be nominated in 2016 either, as he has expressed support for a watered-down version of the DREAM Act, which alienated the far-right base of the Republican Party. I'm sure that Rick "Frothy" Santorum will win the nomination at this point.
2410  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rick Santorum opposes "gang of 8" on immigration, gays in the boyscouts on: February 21, 2013, 12:28:53 pm
I'm now starting to realized even more that Rick Santorum is definitely a "conscientious objector to the 21st century."
2411  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: List of Alternate Presidents on: February 17, 2013, 07:14:54 am
1980-1988 Ronald Reagan/Jack Kemp
1988-1992 Jack Kemp/Elizabeth Dole

1992-2000 Michael Dukakis/Evan Bayh

2000-2008John E. "Jeb" Bush/John McCain (2000-2003), Condoleezza Rice (2003-2008

2008-2014 Barack Obama/John Edwards
2014-2016 John Edwards/Hillary Clinton

2016-2024Marco Rubio/Chris Christie (2016-2020), Susana Martinez (2020-2024

2024-2028 Anthony Coumo/Julian Castro

2028-2036 Susana Martinez/Paul Ryan

I guess you could title this as "If Dukakis didn't run in 1988"
Interesting list. I think that if Dukakis did not run in 1988, the Democrats would have had a better chance of winning because Dukakis was not the strongest candidate. Whichever Democrat won in 1988 would have most likely been defeated in 1992 considering the state of the economy though. If Dukakis did run again in 1992, he would have easily defeated George H.W. Bush, but would have done far worse in the South than Bill Clinton
2412  General Discussion / History / Re: Texas Senate election, 1960 on: February 11, 2013, 10:06:11 am
Could it have anything to do with Coke Stevenson supporting Tower?
That is possible, as Coke Stevenson was still widely popular in 1960, despite being out of office for over a decade.
2413  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: If Al Smith had beat Hoover in 1932...How would the parties look... on: February 05, 2013, 12:33:08 pm
Don't you mean if Smith had beaten Hoover in 1928?  Republicans would portray Democrats as the party of the rich (which they are), and as a result of this excellent propaganda, would be the majority party from 1932 to the present.  In other words, the same as what happened in real life, only with the roles of the two parties reversed.  A perfect and classic example of how a party (in this case, the Democrats) is often better off by losing an election.
Yes, that is what I meant. Do you think the Republicans would have nominated Hoover again in 1932 to run against Smith, or would they have picked someone else like William Borah, Frank Lowden or even Theodore Roosevelt Jr?
2414  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: If MLK wasn't killed on: February 04, 2013, 09:53:55 am
well, he was a democrat, but I think he was mainly an independent
No, he wasn't a Democrat.  The Congressional candidates he endorsed were mostly Republicans.  He was neither a Democrat nor a Republican.  I remember watching an old interview he did for NBC in 1957, and he said that both parties were found wanting on civil rights.

Quote
I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party.
-Martin Luther King Jr., in 1958
I thought that MLK covertly supported LBJ in 1964 against Barry Goldwater, but began to turn against him after the Vietnam War began to heat up around 1966 or 1967. I know that LBJ said some pretty nasty things about him around 1967 though.

So, if that stuff leaked to MLK, he would probably endorse Nixon. I really doubt he would endorse Wallace.
I highly doubt that MLK would have endoresd Nixon in 1968 due to Nixon pursuing a "Southern Strategy" in order to appeal to the votes of voters who supported segregation. He might have reluctantly supported Humphrey or not supported anyone in the 1968 election. I am almost certain that MLK would have strongly supported George McGovern in 1972 though and might have even been his running mate if he was more openly involved in politics by then.

Well, in my tl he said that he didn't want to be anybody's running mate. He said he was more Independent than anything politically-wise. Thanks for the info on that! Smiley
If that were the case, maybe John Anderson would have picked MLK as his running mate instead of former Wisconsin Governor Patrick Lucey when he ran as an Independent candidate against Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Or maybe MLK would have ran as an Independent in John Anderson's place.
2415  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: If MLK wasn't killed on: February 03, 2013, 05:15:24 pm
well, he was a democrat, but I think he was mainly an independent
No, he wasn't a Democrat.  The Congressional candidates he endorsed were mostly Republicans.  He was neither a Democrat nor a Republican.  I remember watching an old interview he did for NBC in 1957, and he said that both parties were found wanting on civil rights.

Quote
I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party.
-Martin Luther King Jr., in 1958
I thought that MLK covertly supported LBJ in 1964 against Barry Goldwater, but began to turn against him after the Vietnam War began to heat up around 1966 or 1967. I know that LBJ said some pretty nasty things about him around 1967 though.

So, if that stuff leaked to MLK, he would probably endorse Nixon. I really doubt he would endorse Wallace.
I highly doubt that MLK would have endoresd Nixon in 1968 due to Nixon pursuing a "Southern Strategy" in order to appeal to the votes of voters who supported segregation. He might have reluctantly supported Humphrey or not supported anyone in the 1968 election. I am almost certain that MLK would have strongly supported George McGovern in 1972 though and might have even been his running mate if he was more openly involved in politics by then.
2416  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: If Al Smith had beat Hoover in 1932...How would the parties look... on: February 03, 2013, 11:32:17 am
One scenario that I always found interesting is what if Al Smith defeated Herbert Hoover in 1928 beacuse of the prospects of the Great Depression occuring under his watch. I know that the Republicans would have made solid gains in the 1930 midterms and almost certaintly won the Presidency in 1932, but I do not know who the Republicans would have nominated to run against Al Smith in 1932.
2417  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Next landslide election? on: February 02, 2013, 12:00:32 pm
2016 could be a landslide election if either Chris Christe gets the Republican Nomination and runs against Martin O'Malley or Elizabeth Warren or if Hilary Clinton or Brian Schweitzer get the Democratic Nomination and run against Rick Santorum.
2418  General Discussion / Alternative History / Re: If President Ford had won in '76... on: January 28, 2013, 08:11:14 pm
The GOP might be in a lot better shape today.
You're probably right, as the Christian Right might not have gained control of the Republican Party if Ford won in '76.
2419  General Discussion / History / Re: Will LBJ's reputation ever be rehabilitated? on: January 22, 2013, 05:32:22 pm
Assuming these are true (of which you've provided no evidence) does it surprise you that a man who was raised in a racist society would use racist terms to describe black Americans? Abraham Lincoln didn't even think blacks and whites could live together for the majority of his life, and wanted to deport blacks back to Africa as late as 1862.
Actually, he wanted to establish a voluntary colonization program.  Colonization was a very common position among abolitionists.
Lyndon Johnson was a racist man, like nearly all white Southerners (in both parties; Southern Republicans were anti-CRA too). Being a racist doesn't mean you can't be a civil rights supporter either. Lyndon Johnson also said this:

Quote from: President Johnson before urging Congress to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act
At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama. There is no Negro problem. There is no southern problem. There is no northern problem. There is only an American problem.
There were plenty of Southern Republicans who were pro-civil rights, like Charles Pickering and Frank M. Johnson.  As a Senator, LBJ fought to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act and made it nothing but a nominal bill.  JFK also opposed that bill.
While granted that Frank M. Johnson was always pro-civil rights, Charles Pickering was not, at least at first. In 1964, he said that "the people of Mississippi were heaped with humiliation and embarrassment at the Democratic Convention" in Atlantic City, New Jersey, after the national party seated two civil rights activists from the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party with the all-white delegation that he had strongly supported.
2420  General Discussion / History / Re: Will LBJ's reputation ever be rehabilitated? on: January 22, 2013, 05:24:33 pm
RFK was really overrated when it came to civil rights.
Please watch the documentary "Freedom riders".  RFK called the Freedom Riders foolish, and thought they deserved to be taught a lesson (apparently for making him and his brother look bad) when the Mississippi police arrested them.  He only really began to care about civil rights when he realized that not doing anything made him look bad.
Also, lets not forget that his brother gave speeches to segregated (white only) audiences in the South while other prominent Democrats such as Stuart Symington refused to do so.
Ted was the only truly liberal Kennedy, fully capable of articulating progressive positions (because there's more to being a good politician than casting a vote) but he had his demons too.


Not to mention he ordered the FBI to wiretap MLK.

As of JFK, as Senator he voted for the bill that let the state courts try (and naturally acquit) those who prepeared and/or participated in lynchings. This bill was strongly opposed by the people such as Humphrey and Symington.
I read that Symington actually had the best record on Civil Rights issues out of all the candidates running for the 1960 Democratic Nomination, although he came across as being ambivalent regarding the issue.
2421  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: If MLK wasn't killed on: January 22, 2013, 05:19:06 pm
well, he was a democrat, but I think he was mainly an independent
No, he wasn't a Democrat.  The Congressional candidates he endorsed were mostly Republicans.  He was neither a Democrat nor a Republican.  I remember watching an old interview he did for NBC in 1957, and he said that both parties were found wanting on civil rights.

Quote
I don't think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses ... And I'm not inextricably bound to either party.
-Martin Luther King Jr., in 1958
I thought that MLK covertly supported LBJ in 1964 against Barry Goldwater, but began to turn against him after the Vietnam War began to heat up around 1966 or 1967. I know that LBJ said some pretty nasty things about him around 1967 though.
2422  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton vs. Santorum on: January 22, 2013, 05:14:09 pm
Seeing these margins, surely a reasonable number of Republican would switch to vote for Hillary which begs the question, assuming someone he's not running opposed, who would vote for Santorum? And why?
Rick Santorum seems to be fairly popular in some of the Southern states such as Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennesse and Texas and in the Midwestern states of Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri and Iowa. His hardline views on foreign policy and social issues such a gay marriage and abortion make him popular in those regions beacuse the people there are generally more socially conservative and hawkish on foreign policy issues than in other areas of the country.
2423  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Most extremist GOP/Tea Party ticket possible for 2016? on: January 19, 2013, 01:44:28 pm
Any ticket with Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann on it.
2424  General Discussion / History / Re: Texas Senate election, 1960 on: January 17, 2013, 02:16:56 pm
If LBJ was not picked as Kennedy's running mate, he would have most likely been re-elected by an even greater margin, probably with at least 60% of the vote or more. Likewise, if Kennedy did not pick LBJ as his running mate, Nixon would have had a better shot at winning Texas and possibly North and South Carolina. You then would have had a President Nixon in 1961.
2425  General Discussion / History / Re: Cotton Ed Smith on: January 17, 2013, 02:05:20 pm
Wow! He makes Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond seem like bleeding heart liberals in comparison.
Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines