The last 100 years with a 5% more liberal electorate.

[PJ]

Ok this is my 1st timeline. It's basically descriptions of the past 100 years if we were 5% more liberal, so similar to Canada. It is caused by the progressive era continuing into modern times. Assume that all elections before 1912 are the same.

1912-

Entering the race are the leader of the Liberal wing of the Democratic party, Woodrow Wilson, creator of the new Progressive Party, Theodore Roosevelt, who is angered by Taft's new conservative policies, and incumbent president, Republican William Taft. Knowing he had no chance of winning the election, despite winning the primary, Taft left the race a month before the election, despite protests from his party, and gave up on campaigning. He was still a large write-in candidate, but won no states. Woodrow Wilson wins the general election, despite great success by Roosevelt's third party.

[PJ]

1916- Supreme Court Justice Charles Hughes reunites the Republican Party, or what was left of it. 50% of Progressive voters now support Wilson 6 months before election. Charles Hughes wins the Republican primary as a moderate and selects Indiana Senator Charles Fairbanks as VP nominee. Hughes campaigns for war preparation, calling Wilson, "unprepared to face evil," while Wilson portrayed Hughes as a war monger, calling him "too eager to shed American blood." During this time a slight majority favored Wilson. Once Wilson pointed out that involvement in the war would require complete devotion of the nation, including taxpayer dollars funding the war, Wilson's popularity skyrocketed. Hughes arguments that extra taxes for war funding were necessary didn't help.
Election results:

[PJ]

1920- Warren Harding is for the Republican nomination and James Cox is chosen for the democratic nomination, both are form OH.. Harding campaigns for a return to normalcy, a non-interventionist foreign policy, neglecting to join the league of nations, and an end to progressive policies. Harding's spending advantage makes Cox almost unknown throughout most of the nation, aided by the fact that Harding criticized Wilson's, rather than Cox's positions. Results:

[PJ]

1924- After numerous scandals, Warren Harding died in office, and was succeeded by VP Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge worked to unaffiliate himself from the previous administration, but was still criticized for advocating Harding's position of not joining the League of Nations. After the death of Theodore Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette became the leader of the progressive movement. He secretly met with John Davis, a favorite in the Democratic nomination, a month before the DNC to discuss a combined effort to unseat Coolidge. Davis accepted, and a month later, the first convention of the Progressive Democratic Party occured. Robert LaFollette won the nomination, and chose Davis as his running mate in order to obtain the south. LaFollette's liberalism combined with Davis's moderate conservatism was a powerful component. On election day, Coolidge won the electoral vote, but LaFollette won the popular vote. The election lasted for a month, before the Supreme Court determined that Coolidge would win re-election.

[PJ]

Ok this is my 1st timeline. It's basically descriptions of the past 100 years if we were 5% more liberal, so similar to Canada. It is caused by the progressive era continuing into modern times. Assume that all elections before 1912 are the same.

1912-

Entering the race are the leader of the Liberal wing of the Democratic party, Woodrow Wilson, creator of the new Progressive Party, Theodore Roosevelt, who is angered by Taft's new conservative policies, and incumbent president, Republican William Taft. Knowing he had no chance of winning the election, despite winning the primary, Taft left the race a month before the election, despite protests from his party, and gave up on campaigning. He was still a large write-in candidate, but won no states. Woodrow Wilson wins the general election, despite great success by Roosevelt's third party.

What about Debs?  With a more liberal electorate, he should be getting more votes.  Also, Wilson ain't exactly a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.  If Taft gives up and there is a more liberal electorate, I'd expect the result map to be more like:

Roosevelt: 339
Wilson: 189
Debs: 3

Debs was still pretty successful. That's why most of the states in the west are in the 30's and 40's.

[PJ]

Why so much controversy over it?  I mean yeah, losing the PV but winning the EV is a big deal, but it's not like this is the first time it happened.  The only reason the SC was so involved in 2000 was because it was over rules regarding recounts.

Iowa was the closest state in the election. Similar to Florida in 2000. Lots of voting controversies. Sorry, I forgot to mention it originally.

[PJ]

Once Wilson pointed out that involvement in the war would require a complete devotion of the nation, including spending cuts on his extremely popular government programs for military funding, Wilson's popularity skyrocketed. Hughes arguments that spending cuts were necessary didn't help.

Huh?  Government spending was not an issue in the 1916 election.  Indeed, what increases there had been in government spending had been done in the context of programs such as aid to road construction, that would help prepare the country in the event of war.  Hughes' opposition to legislating the eight-hour day would be applicable, but if anything, it was the Democrats who were the fiscal conservatives back then, not the Republicans.

When he was governor of NJ, he started a worker compensation program. I assumed there would be others. Sorry, I'll edit it.

[PJ]

Would a necessarily liberal electorate re-elect Wilson so strongly? Also, I'm not entirely sure on the idea of a proud conservative Democrat teaming up with a guy that couldn't get along with the folks in his own party. If La Follette was unwilling to deal with Coolidge, I have doubts about his ability to work with a person who in all likelihood would have governed even more conservatively.

It was purely a strategic move by LaFollette. He knew that neither he, nor Davis could win the Presidency by themselves. You do have a point though. Continue watching for further updates on the Progressive Democrats.

[PJ]

Ok this is my 1st timeline. It's basically descriptions of the past 100 years if we were 5% more liberal, so similar to Canada. It is caused by the progressive era continuing into modern times. Assume that all elections before 1912 are the same.

1912-

Entering the race are the leader of the Liberal wing of the Democratic party, Woodrow Wilson, creator of the new Progressive Party, Theodore Roosevelt, who is angered by Taft's new conservative policies, and incumbent president, Republican William Taft. Knowing he had no chance of winning the election, despite winning the primary, Taft left the race a month before the election, despite protests from his party, and gave up on campaigning. He was still a large write-in candidate, but won no states. Woodrow Wilson wins the general election, despite great success by Roosevelt's third party.

What about Debs?  With a more liberal electorate, he should be getting more votes.  Also, Wilson ain't exactly a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.  If Taft gives up and there is a more liberal electorate, I'd expect the result map to be more like:

Roosevelt: 339
Wilson: 189
Debs: 3

Wilson may not have been as liberal as Roosevelt or Debs, but he was a leader of the progressive movement and endorsed Women's suffrage.

[PJ]

1928- President Coolidge decides not to run for re-election. Herbert Hoover is nominated on the Republican ticket, and associates himself with the successful economy. After narrowly losing the election of 1924, the DNC, now the PDNC, is tense, and the convention narrowly elects Al Smith of NY as the nominee for the Progressive Democrats. Conservative members of the party refuse to endorse Smith, but remain within the party. Smith is widely criticized by Republicans and Progressive Democrats alike for being Catholic, Anti-prohibition, and involvement in previous scandals. Smith gains support in the North, but the South is less of a stronghold. Results:

[PJ]

Wilson may not have been as liberal as Roosevelt or Debs, but he was a leader of the progressive movement and endorsed Women's suffrage.

Thanks for the laugh.  Wilson practically had to be dragged screaming and kicking into supporting Women's Suffrage.  He did so, but only because it was politically expedient, not because he was a true believer in it.  I'll grant that on labor issues he was on the liberal side, but when it came to civil rights, he was fairly conservative verging at times into being reactionary.

If politicians only endorsed what they believed in, politics would be very different. Let's say that in this timeline, Wilson supported it without the kicking and screaming, or at least not as much of it. You're right though.

[PJ]

Would a necessarily liberal electorate re-elect Wilson so strongly? Also, I'm not entirely sure on the idea of a proud conservative Democrat teaming up with a guy that couldn't get along with the folks in his own party. If La Follette was unwilling to deal with Coolidge, I have doubts about his ability to work with a person who in all likelihood would have governed even more conservatively.

Wilson may have won the electoral vote by a landslide, but he won the popular vote in many states by relaltively small margins.

[PJ]

1932- The US was in its greatest depression in history. The PDNC is excited, as the Progressive Democrats believe It may be their first chance to win the presidency. Still, a barrier exists between the liberal and conservative members of the party. Popular NY governor Franklin Roosevelt wins the nomination narrowly, due to huge support among progressives and a minority of Southern supporters. Still, the conservative wing is not pleased, and some even suggest creating a new party, or supporting Hoover. To satisfy the conservatives, Roosevelt announces his VP, John Garner, a Progressive Democrat from TX with conservative tendencies. This wins the support of the whole party. The election is no contest. Hoover's popularity was already at record low levels before campaigning even started. Roosevelt's criticisms of Hoover were met with weak attempts by Hoover to defend himself. Almost every newspaper predicted a win for Roosevelt. Results:

[PJ]

1936- It almost seemed as though President Roosevelt ran uncontested. Though not all of the New Deal had been made into law, the pieces that had were so popular that Roosevelt's opponent, Alf Landon, was very unsuccessful, and almost ignored in heavily democratic parts of the country. Results:

[PJ]

Why so much controversy over it?  I mean yeah, losing the PV but winning the EV is a big deal, but it's not like this is the first time it happened.  The only reason the SC was so involved in 2000 was because it was over rules regarding recounts.

Iowa was the closest state in the election. Similar to Florida in 2000. Lots of voting controversies. Sorry, I forgot to mention it originally.

No Prob.  Didn't mean to unleash a barrage of criticism.  I'm still enjoying the thread quite a bit.

Thanks, I'm glad you like it.

[PJ]

So the results appear to be the same as IRL but with different margins. Is that just an effect of the fact that quite a few of these elections were landslides IRL?

Yeah pretty much. Most of these elections were either landslides for D's or R's in real life. Once we get to closer elections it will get really interesting. The fate of the progressive democrats could also effect these elections.

[PJ]

1940- The tensions that had previously arisen within the Progressive Democrats were occuring once again. Roosevelt's national success was the only thing holding the party together. The progressive and moderate wings of the Progressive Democrats encouraged Roosevelt to run for a third term, in order to keep the party in control nationally. The conservative wing did not oppose to this, because their support of some of Roosevelt's policies made them more popular than the conservatives that opposed Roosevelt. Running against Roosevelt was Wendell Wilkie, who criticized Roosevelt's non-interventionism in WWII, his handling of the economy, and his decison to run for a 3rd term. However, most Americans were happy with the economy and supported Roosevelt, resulting in yet another landslide for the Progressive Democrats.

[PJ]

1944- In the midst of WWII, Roosevelt, the first Progressive Democrat President, remained very popular, despite being the longest serving president in history. His opposition, Thomas Dewey, the Republican Governor of New York, ran an active yet unsuccessful campaign, that was defeated by Roosevelt's immense popularity. Results:

[PJ]

1948: Franklin Roosevelt has died in office. The United States has risen out of the Great Depression and WWII. Harry Truman succeeded Roosevelt as president. The PDNC of 48 was disasterous. The Conservative wing of the Progressive Democrats, lead by Strom Thurmond, was increasingly angry about being outnumbered within their own party. The Civil Rights movement was gaining support within the party, which caused more protest by the Conservative wing of the PD. Many Southern Progressive Democrats walked out of the convention in anger. These politicians split off from the Progressive Democrats to reform the Democratic Party, the remaining Progressive Democrats to be called the Progressives. The Progressives that remained were nearly unanimous in reelecting Truman. Meanwhile the Republican Party was anxious to return to power, and re-nominated Thomas Dewey as the nominee. Truman defeated both Dewey, and the Democratic nominee, Strom Thurmond.
Results:

[PJ]

For 1948, red=progressive, blue=republican, and green=democrat

[PJ]

1952- The first Progressive President, Harry Truman, has declined to run for a second term. Foreign relations were tense around the world, due to the Cold War, the Korean War, and the communist revolution in China. A recession made the Progressive party unpopular, so they nominated Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, a talented orator. Dwight Eisenhower, a famous WWII general, won the Republican nomination. The democrats also re-nomianted Strom Thurmond. In a record close race, Eisenhower narrowly won the popular and electoral vote, while the democrats were unsuccessful, as the Progressives were successful in the south. Results:

[PJ]

1956- In a rare occurence, the three major parties, the Republicans, Progressives, and Democrats renominated the same candidates, President Dwight Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, and Strom Thurmond respectively. After an end to the Korean War and a prospering economy, Eisenhower was immensely popular. Stevenson, who was one of the most moderate members of the Progressives, swept the deep south by avoiding Civil Rights. Eisenhower alos avoided it, and only Thurmond opposed it. After a landslide victory for Eisenhower, both the Progressives and the Democrats faced disappointment. After the two time defeat of Stevenson, the Progressives lacked a leader. And Strom Thurmond once again had not won a single state, leading members of the Democrats to speculate with joining another party.
Results:

[PJ]

Yeah. There will be a lot of different results from 68 onward.

[PJ]

1960- The economic recession of the time had made the republican party unpopular, leading the progressives and Democrats to hope for a victory. John F kennedy was nominated by the Progressive Party, and Harry Byrd was nominated by the democrats. Despite the fact that the democrats had nominated someone new for the first time since 1948, Byrd was only leading in polls in MS. He approached the Republican candidate, Richard Nixon, to discuss a potential alliance, a controversial topic within the party which Byrd's VP, Strom Thurmond, opposed. Nixon had not yet selected a VP. On August 1960, Nixon shocked America when he announced that he would leave the Republican Party to work with Byrd on creating a new party, which would according to Nixon, "unite Americans of similar and opposing viewpoints for a greater tomorrow. This party will be named after the great party founded by the founding fathers, the Democratic Republican Party." The party held no public office, but nominated Nixon as President and Byrd as VP for the 1960 election. The republican party was divided on the issue, as some supported Nixon and decided to run under the Democratic Republicans, while others ran under the Republican party. The remaining republican party did not have time to nominate another candidate, and reluctantly endorsed Nixon. Nixon had poor campaign strategies however, and hoped Byrd being on the ticket would help him carry the deep south, while it only helped him carry MS.

[PJ]

1964: After the assasination of extremely popular president John F Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as President. In the election of 64, Johnson successfully associated himself with Kennedy's popularity, which was higher than the actual results of 1960's election for nearly all of Kennedy's term. Johnson further campaigned for Civil Rights, which was initially supported by Kennedy. Meanwhile, the Democratic Republican party was eager to hold presidential office for the first time, and nominated Barry Goldwater. However, the Republican Party still existed, and Nelson Rockefeller was currently the leader of the party, which mainly consisted of moderate conservatives, and held very few seats in congress. They were outnumbered by Progressives and Democratic Republicans alike. At The Republican Convention, Rockefeller surprised America when he announced, that knowing he couldn't win, he would leave the race before the election. Not only that, but he announced his support for Johnson instead of Goldwater. Goldwater's opposition to Civil Rights made him extremely unpopular. On election night, Johnson won a whopping 66% of the popular vote. Results: