A Time For Unity - The Lost Decades - A Tale of a Potential Future

[Dan the Roman]

The Democratic Primary race, and realistically the whole general election were turned upside down by two events. Rick Perry's selection of Martha Coakley as his VP and apparent determination to run as a national unity candidate and the subsequent announcement on January 30th, that the Progressives would field a "national slate".

It was unclear initially what this would entail, but it was made clear two weeks later, shortly after Cuomo swept the Super Tuesday states that this meant that every candidate, from Walton on downwards, would run under a single-national issue plank.

This caused shock among political observers who were convinced that this "blunder" would spell suicide for the Progressive campaign, especially once they released their "America 2100" platform, on economic issues pherhaps one of the most openly left-wing documents any party had run under since 1932.

Selections included

On Energy Independence

We believe that energy security will be the greatest challenge of the 21st Century, and towards that end development of our national resources is paramount. While we agree that off-shore drilling is vital to any such program, we unlike the Republicans, do not view natural resources as government property to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and the process by which developmental grants have been given to exploit federal lands over the last three decades have been illegal, unconstitutional, and unconscionable. We therefore will require a review of all contracts regarding public lands to determine whether they were validly concluded or require renogiatation.

Furthermore, we support drilling for oil with the understanding that it is only beneficial if the earnings are wisely invested and not squandered by corrupt politicians or sold to foreign owned consortium. To this end, a Progressive Government would establish a state monopoly to handle all petroleum extraction, with all proceeds going to a sovereign wealth fund that would inaccessible to the government, with the interest used partially for further investments and partially to fund a national healthcare service. Such a fund has made Norway one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, and we believe that with our much greater resources America can prosper if parasites and profiteers are removed.

We also believe that previous administrations have been insufficiently assertive in upholding the United State's rights to the Arctic. While Canada has been assigned 45% of the Arctic, America has received a mere 7%. Given our role on the continent, and in providing security, it is senseless for American blood and treasure to be spent defending a Canadian monopoly.


International Affairs
We support, as an effort to extend our security, US membership in OPEC, and official recognition of the "Caliphate of Mecca". We feel lack of recognition harms our economy to know end.

We believe George Washington was right to advise us to avoid entaglements, and we believe that the US should pursue a goal of being first among equals rather than attempting to dominate, and that the US should pursue an independent policy focused on its interests. Towards that end, we would ban all lobbying by foreign powers.

On the Economy.

We believe that manufacturing is the heart of a strong economy and nation. The ability to import cheap vehicles from Taiwan is of little value if Taiwan is under SCO blockade, and previous generations of Democratic and Republican governments have sacrificed the working people of this nation on the altar of globalization. We hold that self-sufficency should be the driving force of our economic policy as it was for the United States, Germany, Britain and Japan during the 19th century, rather than disasterious globalization policies of the last 40 years.

We nevertheless do live in a globalized world, and as such it is impossible for American manufacturing to compete internationally, when its competitors receive massive subsidies in the form of state health-care. We hold that the Employer Mandated system, co-ops included are a revenue tax on buisnness and a regressive tax on individuals. Towards that end we would create a national health-plan covering all businesses that could be supplemented by individual plans. We hold that such a plan would be vastly cheaper and more efficient, as pharmaceutical companies will be required to sell drugs to such a plan at the lowest rate they sell them to other national plans, which will reduce drug costs by as much as 80%, allowing all Americans to enjoy far superior health-care free of charge.

We feel that Americans suffer under excessive tax burdens, and it is absurd at a time when millions of Americans are choosing between eating three meals or taxes that many of the richest institutions in this country go untaxed, especially when they receive billions in tax-payer funded grants. Towards that end, we will extend the capital gains taxes to all non-profit institutions with endowments of over 1 billion.

On Education

We feel that in the search for esoteric knowledge our schools and Universities are failing a generation of students. Towards that end, government funding would be focused primarily on the sciences and true humanities such as history rather than on esoteric or corrupting subjects such as Gender Theory, Marxist thought, or "Cultural Studies".

We feel that civics courses that would instill pride in our heritage our forgotten, and we would encourage all secondary schools to provide a civics curriculum that would be subject to national testing.

We do not see a place for religion in schools, and that applies equally to state atheism as it does to any other religion. Our schools have become indoctrination centers for secular humanists and professional nihalists, leading directly to promiscuity and drug use among young Americans.

Crime

We feel that the scourge of organized crime and drugs is one of the greatest threats facing our nation. We believe that liberal social policies that restricted police handed our inner cities over to professional criminals, while legalization and "decriminalization" brought those criminals to our suburbs. We believe that drug gains are engaged in a war against this nation and should be treated accordingly, and all powers should be granted to police and assorted community groups to combat them. We see the effects of such a policy in Massachusetts, where crime fell 70%after community organizations such as the "Patriots" were giving legal remit to suppress gang violence.

We feel that prisons are for rehabilitation and towards that end those that undermine it our efforts. We therefore propose a two-strikes policy whereby the second offense inside prison shall result in the death penalty.

Social Issues

We oppose discrimination in all forms, whether it be in the open, or under the guise of "Affirmative Action" or "Diversity". A Progressive government would ban government from engaging in such a practice, and deny federal funding to any private institutions that engage in such behavior.

We believe that stable family structures are vital, and therefore we believe that marriage penalties in terms of taxation should be eliminated, child-rearing encouraged, and promiscuity discouraged. We believe that maximizing availability of marriage rights is vital to this, as is efforts to shut down establishments where sin is encouraged.


The reaction to the platform differed. Perry was overjoyed, as he now railed against he forces of National Socialism that had thrown of their mask. He had hoped to fight a campaign on economic issues, a place where he felt that the Republican party's message of free markets and classical economics had appeal even outside of the party itself.

Michael Walton was fully aware of what Perry wanted and had deliberately decided to set off the trap. He had no desire to be President with a minority in congress, and as such, 2020 was more a branding opportunity for the party than a winning one. The important thing was not that people vote for the platform, but that the American people remember it over the next four years as the Republican Administration(which he suspected would be reelected) failed on its every promise.

There was a second target, and that was the Democrats. The Democrats, who had fought their entire primary race around abortion, found themselves saddled in late April with the wrong candidate for the wrong campaign. Andrew Cuomo was a generic Northern Liberal Democrat, and his efforts to pose as the defender of "a woman's right to chose" and gay marriage fell flat, not least because his opponents had taken those issues off the table. Rick Perry had picked a VP who supported both, while the Progressives had released an economic platform, the extent to which it hit social issues at all, was mainly focused on fighting crime and opposing affirmative action.

As a result, while initial polls showed a tight three-way race, the Democrats soon found themselves cut out as they lacked a message.

April 2020
Rick Perry(R) 33%
Michael Walton 29%
Andrew Cuomo 29%
Undecided        7%

June 2020
Rick Perry 36%
Michael Walton 31%
Andrew Cuomo 27%

[Dan the Roman]

What also made the campaign of 2020 unique was that being the first genuine 3-way contest since 1912, it threw the electoral map into confusion. Candidates could with states with less than 40% of the vote, and it created the incentive for the Progressives to play down their domestic behavior in the NE and for the Republicans to move to the center.

For the Democrats it was almost as fatal as their candidate. While the Republicans had a solid base in deep south that as of yet the Progressives had not cracked, and the Progressives could rely on their organization to almost certainly deliver the states they ran, the Democrats had no such benefit. Even in New York, Governor Cuomo found himself unable to lock down a safe win.

An aggregate map of polls in the middle of July is demonstrative of this.

National figures
Perry - 36%
Walton 33%
Cuomo 28%

The map demonstrates the extent to which the electoral system worked against the Democrats and for the Republicans. It also inspired Perry to take his national unity message to traditionally democratic states, attempting to appeal to liberal voters worried about a Progressive takeover. He warned them that Progressives' "socialist" plans would further destroy the economy and impoverish the country.

The Progressives focused on their theme of "America for Americans" accusing the Perry Administration and the Pence, Bush, and for good measure Obama administration of selling off national assets at bargain basement prices, while America's factories shut down. With unemployment still at 14% this found ready listeners. The Progressives focused in particular on their plans to set up a national petroleum monopoly and the benefits a sovereign wealth fund would create allowing the nation to save not borrow.

In July and August they managed to draw Perry into a defense of the Oil companies, something that did not play well for his campaign, especially when the Progressives were promising that it would fund a national health-care plan. Perry mocked this, arguing that it would fail like previous efforts, which allowed the Progressives to point to their strengths; namely their record of actually implementing campaign promises.

As the campaign heated up clashes between Patriots and Minutemen, the new Republican militia occurred at campaign stops across the country, with the Patriots tending to get the better of it outside the deep south.

In the midst of this, Andrew Cuomo went forgotten. The Democratic campaign focusing on social issues seemed quaint, while anyone who truly wanted health-care or economically left-wing policies, had better options in the Progressives. A disastrous performance on the O'Reilly Factor, in which he could not come up with a single compelling reason why he should be President.

Selected Trancript from the O'Reilly Factor August 11th 2020

O'Reilly: Governor, let's take a step back here, can you tell us what a Cuomo Presidency would be like.

Cuomo: Well Bill there has been a lack of focus on the problems of ordinary Americans. The Republicans have managed to get away with an economic recovery that has not brought jobs, and that is necessary.

O"Reilly: So you would create jobs? How would you do that? Fund domestic manufacturers like the Progressives suggest?

Cuomo: We don't think that will work Bill. We need to focus on common sense policies that will make it easier for small businesses to hire and lower overhead costs for companies.

O'Reilly: But you oppose President Perry's proposed business tax cut targeted at small businesses. And wouldn't removing quotas on hiring as the Progressives suggest help.

Cuomo: Affirmative action is a scapegoat and the Tax cuts are going to the wealthy.

O'Reilly: Alright, moving to a different matter, health-care, the Progressives want a public system, so does your party, why should we support you on this?

Cuomo: Because passing bills requires compromise, especially with three parties in Congress and they don't know how to compromise. We want to work with Republicans and Progressives and anyone else to come together to craft a bill everyone can agree on.

(end of excerpt)

Cuomo's campaign hit a further rough spot when Jack Wagner declined to run for Vice President, and Cuomo was left with Governor Stephenie Herseth of South Dakota, who in other circumstances might have helped, but in this one did not solve any of his problems.

Michael Walton, by contrast, chose Former Democratic Senator Jim Webb, a political coup. As one commentator mentioned, "Who says the Democrats are losing, there's one on each ticket".

This was of course no reassurance to Andrew Cuomo, who by the last week of September had fallen far behind.

September 23rd
Perry/Coakley 37%
Walton/Webb 34%
Cuomo/Herseth 25%

[Beet]

The scary thing is that I'm liking these Progressives-- seriously. Once you look past the shady tactics, the decisiveness and economic populism is highly attractive. I think you correctly identify the GOP as the "hardier" party. The insight that it's pointless to come to Washington without overwhelming support and that it can be a poisoned chalice in bad times is quite right. But I'm just a little skeptical that anyone who came that close to power would give it up for a strategic calculation. I think most politicians, including ones who would be very successful, even brilliant, otherwise, would grab for the Presidency if they could smell it. This is even if they knew they would probably be better off waiting. It's human nature.

[Dan the Roman]

The scary thing is that I'm liking these Progressives-- seriously. Once you look past the shady tactics, the decisiveness and economic populism is highly attractive. I think you correctly identify the GOP as the "hardier" party. The insight that it's pointless to come to Washington without overwhelming support and that it can be a poisoned chalice in bad times is quite right. But I'm just a little skeptical that anyone who came that close to power would give it up for a strategic calculation. I think most politicians, including ones who would be very successful, even brilliant, otherwise, would grab for the Presidency if they could smell it. This is even if they knew they would probably be better off waiting. It's human nature.

But thats where they differ. They don't want office. They want power. The entire platform is based on the idea they can deliver. Now little things like filibuster or the court will not stop them, but they need a plausible working majority in congress. From this point on they are going to keep gaining strength. Perry can run an effective campaign on keeping them out, but if he can't or is unwilling to solve serious issues then they make gains in 2022, and run an I-told-you-so-campaign later.

As you note, the Republicans are putting up much more of a fight. The objective for 2020 is to destroy the Democrats. Once the Democrats are destroyed, the overwhelming majority of their voters will go to the Progressives. Some, especially on the high-end income level may go to the GOP, but as the Progressives figured out in Massachusetts, even where those groups are strongest, they can be overcome.

Basically this election is playing out exactly as they wanted it to. Polarization, the sidelining of the Democrats, and Perry committing himself to all things to all people, and creating a coalition so large that he can't help but disappoint everyone. And when he does, they will be ready for the final battle with the GOP.

As for the attractiveness of the Progressives, wait until you see their first year in office. A lot gets done, so much in fact, that few will care how it got done. Anyway, with them I wanted to look at a potential Obama failure and see what effect it would have on young people. A lot of Democratic posters argue that because of social views it is inevitable that they will be Democratic. Conservative posters argue that Obama's failure will drive them to the GOP and Conservatism. I am posited a third possibility. That they will keep the basic policy leanings but lose faith in the political class as a whole and rather than slinking off, do something about it.

[Beet]

Well, today's young people are liberal more on social issues than the economic issues you emphasize. You may be vastly overestimating the country's economic leftism because you have a focus on Massachusetts. The idea of Massachusetts leading any sort of national movement seems, farfetched. But I don't want to get too far into nitpicking. This storyline is very impressive, especially since you're looking so far into the future with detail. Keep it coming...

[Dan the Roman]

Well, today's young people are liberal more on social issues than the economic issues you emphasize. You may be vastly overestimating the country's economic leftism because you have a focus on Massachusetts. The idea of Massachusetts leading any sort of national movement seems, farfetched. But I don't want to get too far into nitpicking. This storyline is very impressive, especially since you're looking so far into the future with detail. Keep it coming...

Thanks for the kind remarks.

Today's young people have not entered college with dreams of being 250K a year attorneys by age thirty and ended up working for 11 dollars an hour entering data into excel. I had four friends who graduated in 2006 and went to Georgetown law. That is what they are doing for work while living with their parents. The crushed hopes has a way of shifting politics, especially if it is combined with crushed hopes in Obama.

The reason I did Massachusetts is because the forces underpinning Democratic rule are not ideologically in sync that well with the party, namely the ethnic machines, working-class voters etc. Most would not vote for a Republican, but as Cahill is proving in polls, will vote against a Democrat who they feel does not represent them.

[Person Man]

Well, today's young people are liberal more on social issues than the economic issues you emphasize. You may be vastly overestimating the country's economic leftism because you have a focus on Massachusetts. The idea of Massachusetts leading any sort of national movement seems, farfetched. But I don't want to get too far into nitpicking. This storyline is very impressive, especially since you're looking so far into the future with detail. Keep it coming...

Thanks for the kind remarks.

Today's young people have not entered college with dreams of being 250K a year attorneys by age thirty and ended up working for 11 dollars an hour entering data into excel. I had four friends who graduated in 2006 and went to Georgetown law. That is what they are doing for work while living with their parents. The crushed hopes has a way of shifting politics, especially if it is combined with crushed hopes in Obama.

The reason I did Massachusetts is because the forces underpinning Democratic rule are not ideologically in sync that well with the party, namely the ethnic machines, working-class voters etc. Most would not vote for a Republican, but as Cahill is proving in polls, will vote against a Democrat who they feel does not represent them.

gee you have me pinned down quite weill.  Could these changes be ineviatable if our generation continues to get pennies on its dollars (your attorney friends are getting a dime of their dollars and so am I...in fact if that is representative of Georgetown, I am pretty happy to have stayed in Wyoming. At least I can feel happy for the 54 classmates that did get jobs..I had 78 classmates...)
I mean, if I am still not doing well when I am 30, I would probably become a Progessive...the year would be 2015 and I would be marching in one of those Patriot parades against the bankers, professors and celebrites that had denied me my manhood. Heck, maybe in ten years after that, I would be a Major or Leutinant Colenel in the new American SS. A black shirt is better than no shirt. In fact, it would be cool if you modeled a Patriot villian after me when the Patriots do take hold...bwahaha...

[Dan the Roman]

Well, today's young people are liberal more on social issues than the economic issues you emphasize. You may be vastly overestimating the country's economic leftism because you have a focus on Massachusetts. The idea of Massachusetts leading any sort of national movement seems, farfetched. But I don't want to get too far into nitpicking. This storyline is very impressive, especially since you're looking so far into the future with detail. Keep it coming...

Thanks for the kind remarks.

Today's young people have not entered college with dreams of being 250K a year attorneys by age thirty and ended up working for 11 dollars an hour entering data into excel. I had four friends who graduated in 2006 and went to Georgetown law. That is what they are doing for work while living with their parents. The crushed hopes has a way of shifting politics, especially if it is combined with crushed hopes in Obama.

The reason I did Massachusetts is because the forces underpinning Democratic rule are not ideologically in sync that well with the party, namely the ethnic machines, working-class voters etc. Most would not vote for a Republican, but as Cahill is proving in polls, will vote against a Democrat who they feel does not represent them.

gee you have me pinned down quite weill.  Could these changes be ineviatable if our generation continues to get penneies on its dollars (your attorney friends are getting a dime of their dollars and so am I...in fact if that is representative of Georgetown, I am pretty happy to have stayed in Wyoming. At least I can feel happy for the 54 classmates that did get jobs..I had 78 classmates...
I mean, if I am still not doing well when I am 30, I would probably become a Progessive...the year would be 2015 and I would be marching in one of those Patriot parades against the bankers, professors and celebrites that had denied me my manhood. Heck, maybe in ten years after that, I would be a Major or Luetinant Colenel in the new American SS. A black shirt is better than no shirt.

To be fair, in two of their cases they dropped out for running out of money, which in a way is worse because it leaves you in a limbo of paralegal work with debts accumulating.

As for these things being inevitable, this is the second time this has happened in a sense. In 1992 Clinton came in with promises and failed on everyone. What I find interesting is that for all the anger on the Right, the anger on the Left is also boiling over on being betrayed again and that Obama spent his political capital rescuing Goldman Sachs instead of getting health-care through. I think if you combine that with economic problems, and Republican party that while far more effective politically, is still economically tone-deaf, you have a large opening.

Its also somewhat of a warning for the Republicans playing with the Tea Party movement. They may well succeed in using it to destroy Obama, but the anger there may eventually turn around and destroy them as well.

[Person Man]

...and they won't just destroy themselves in the process...it will cause a major wound on our country...and there will be someone that will come to draw on that power that the country has gathered to heal itself.

[Historico]

Ok. Dan I see where your ideas are going with this into this timeline, That we Generation Y voters are what is really running this new Political Force/Party, sprung from an essentially failed Obama Presidency but with Bush era policies still very fresh in our minds, the GOP is seen as unpalatble as well. Now, As a Young, Black Poli Sci Major...I may be a little biased in my support for Barack(I was elected Delegate to the TX Democratic Convention last year), but it does seem lik that he has spent alot of his political capital trying to get this Health Care Passed(I personally think he should have waited till after the 2010 elections, to use it as major campaign issue for his reelection) and that unless we see a rapid recovery from this recession things might be kinda murky for the next few years.

I do agree that all of this is foresight, but it is generaly understood that the Election of Obama in '08 essentially ended the Reagan Era of American Politics (1968-2008), and that possibly the country is ready to shift back towards the left. I think your right to assume that given the sh**thole that were in and the high emotional output by our generation into Obama it's not a toal given just yet. I also think that your focus on actually creating a viabale Political Party not just having an Insurgent, Charismatic Independent running with voters who are more caught up in the moment rather than actually revolutionizing the American Polictal system. The 2020 election could have easily been another Personality cult election like La Follette in '24, Wallace in '68, Anderson in '80 and Perot in '92/'96, but young voters in the Northeast actually fought to form their own party(You could show that the party had it's beginnings from the large scale Grassroots orgainzers from the Obama campaign of '08) and then fronted a candidate. That's why I think Walton will win.

Btw I do agree that Massachusetts might be a strech to form a new party from, I would thought the Independent minded voters in New Hampshire would sprout something. Anyways, Dan, you got me hooked into this timeline, because like you said the Progressives wan't power, and I know they wont be quick to relenquish that Power once they get it...Keep it comming

[Person Man]

Yeah, it does seem pretty awesome, doesn't it? Unlikely but awesome...

[Dan the Roman]

In October came the Presidential debates and an increased intensity to the campaigns. The first debate degenerated into confrontation in and outside the room, with President Perry accusing Governor Walton of following in the footsteps of Mao, Lenin and Hitler, while Governor Walton lashed back, accusing him of presiding over an Administration whose policy was of retreat abroad, and appeasement of special interests at home, except as it applied to Americans where repression and murder were the policy.

The debate further degenerated when Governor Cuomo, desperate, seized on the crime segment of the Progressive plank, and accused them of advocating death squads for drug dealers. The exchange, in which Governor Walton defended the party's actions and accused the Democratic Party of being the Party of Crack, Hookers, and Welfare Queens. When Cuomo attempted to assert that the Democrats would better produce a health-care plan because they could work with all parties, Governor Walton suggested that they would submit a plan to Congress that would never escape committee and asked how many decades of failure were enough.

Outside the situation was worse as armed groups of Republicans and Progressive supporters stood in confrontation only separated by a force of National Guard. About 70 minutes in, a fight broke out which soon had both sides surging together and overwhelming the National Guard as several shots were fired. The doors to the auditorium were barred and the candidates were escorted out.

Both the Progressives and Republicans blamed each other for the disturbances, while the Democrats attempted to blame both. The immediate result was the decision by President Perry to pull out of the second debate at Harvard University due to security concerns and a lack of faith in the Progressives to apply the law impartially. In retaliation, the Progressives pulled out of the third debate at Ole Miss, arguing that their campaigners and volunteers had been attacked in Mississippi and the local police refused to protect them.

The debate over debates dominated October as each side accused the other of destabilizing the country. It was a sign of the irrelevance of the Democrats that a final agreement was made to host a debate at NYU under the guns of the national guard. There on October 31st the candidates made their final appeals.

Perry: We have in front of us a choice. A choice between democracy and tyranny. Between order and anarchy. Between freedom of choice and socialism. Our opponents here offer plenty of solutions but they are the solutions of  government, a government they have already demonstrated how they will run. We have faith in the free market to generate wealth and drive us out of recession, in private companies motivated by the capitalist ethic to make the most of our natural resources, and to create wealth. We have a choice between a policy that would put the government in charge of Oil refineries and health-care when it can barely manage a census. , I believe in the America the founding fathers created. The one where the freedom of speech, association and to own property is sacrosanct. Now that freedom is under threat, more threat than it has been at any time in our history, and it is imperative we chose wisely. I urge not just Republicans but Democrats as well to join us in this campaign, and not to throw your votes away in the most important campaign in the history of this nation.

Cuomo: This campaign in miniature has been the tale of the last four years, the tale of a Republican government so intent on playing politics that it has pushed the nation to the brink. The President is correct that democracy faces an unprecedented crisis, but does not mention that it is a consequence of the policies of the Administration he has been part of. Another four years will only lead to more poverty, more rewards for the rich, more confrontation abroad and more Americans without health-care.

By contrast, the Progressives have shown us exactly what they will do. Their view of social policy is to send armed paramilitaries into cities and have them shoot suspected drug dealers on site with legal impunity. A party that professes murder without due process is not one we can trust in government. They have an ambitious agenda, but how will they pass it without compromise. The ability to compromise is vital to government, and since neither of my opponents can manage it, neither can govern. Only the Democrats are willing to reach across the aisle to deal with the problems that have been discussed here.

Walton: We heard from the President that we have a choice next week. We do. A choice between the same old politicians running the same old government. A government that can't pass the most basic health-care bill or save auto manufacturers from collapse, but can always find the time to bail out Goldman Sachs, or to sell off our resources. What you have is a choice. Behind door number one are the Democrats who will say all of these things are bad, how much they would love to change them, but then announce that they can't and promptly do the exact same thing, except they love abortion. Behind door number two are the Republicans, who make no pretense of even disliking things traits and instead argue that greed, incompetence and corruption are virtues, while all the while the dollar is dropping to nothing, the national debt heads skywards, foreigners mine our oil and gas, and that very oppressive state they warned us about guns children down in the streets. They say government is incompetent and broken and they are right because it is filled with people like them.  You can chose one of them, or vote for real change. Vote to throw out the politicians, ruin the lobbyists, crush the garbage that fills the airwaves and corrupts our discourse, and restore true government to this land. Four decades of virtual treason at the highest levels is long enough.

The final polls after the third debate demonstrated how open the race was:

November 1st
Perry 38%
Walton 35%
Cuomo  26%

But a warning sign was in the numbers for Cuomo, indicating that 30% of his voters would cast ballots for Perry if it was the only way to stop Walton from winning.

This came true, when on an election day which took place under the cover of 200,000 National Guard and US Army troops Rick Perry won a narrow reelection.

Perry/Coakley 41% 366
Walton/Webb 36% 162
Cuomo/Herseth 23% 10

The lopsided electoral margin disguises how close many states were and a small shift in the vote would have delivered New York, California, Washington, Arizona and Illinois, and with them the election. The Democratic performance was a disaster, and things only got worse when one examined the Gubernatorial elections, where the GOP picked up Washington, and the Progressives picked up Missouri, Montana, and New Hampshire.

They also made a breakthrough in the congressional races.

US House
Republican Party              40.1% 202 seats
United Progressive Party 33.8% 131 Seats
Democratic Party              25.9% 103 Seats

US Senate
Republican Party   41(-7)  
Democratic Party   36(-6)
United Progressive Party 23(+13)

[Dan the Roman]

Now try governing with that Congress if your Rick Perry, especially on things like off-shore drilling, or even passing a budget.

[Historico]

Now try governing with that Congress if your Rick Perry, especially on things like off-shore drilling, or even passing a budget.

And thus the 2020 Election has seen largest Third Party performance since Teddy Roosevelt and the original Progressives in 1912. So dan do you plan on stringing the Democrats out for another eight years, so you can have written on it's tomb stone, The Democratic Party of the United States...1828-2020, but with Cuomo only pulling 10 electoral votes, they may actually go the way of the Whigs much earlier. I have a feeling Coakley will somehow end up bein President, as our first female but what will it take to get her into office, I shudder to think lol. Keep it comming

[Dan the Roman]

Now try governing with that Congress if your Rick Perry, especially on things like off-shore drilling, or even passing a budget.

And thus the 2020 Election has seen largest Third Party performance since Teddy Roosevelt and the original Progressives in 1912. So dan do you plan on stringing the Democrats out for another eight years, so you can have written on it's tomb stone, The Democratic Party of the United States...1828-2020, but with Cuomo only pulling 10 electoral votes, they may actually go the way of the Whigs much earlier. I have a feeling Coakley will somehow end up bein President, as our first female but what will it take to get her into office, I shudder to think lol. Keep it comming

The question for the Democrats will be partially answered by the off-year elections in 2021, which I stupidly swapped with the ones in 2019 originally and am now ret-coning. While I can write I evidently can't count on my fingers.

The main thing is that the destruction of the Democrats has been a team effort. The Progressives could never have consolidated themselves in Massachusetts, much less spread throughout New England and the Midwest without the active support of the Pence Administration. The Republicans did not run candidates in 2018, and basically told their voters to vote for them. Pence hoped that by replacing the existing two-party system with one in which at least one of the parties was unacceptable to a majority of Americans he could currents Republican victories even if they performed catastrophically in government. the risk however, is that oppositions often tend to be elected no matter how awful they are if the government fails miserably.

Basically a lot depends on the Administration which now has contrasting needs. It needs to do something, but the very approach Perry took, trying to be a unifying candidate, means he will have to offend someone. He also needs to be more assertive with an international situation which is falling apart, but it needs to do so without having people call its bluff, since the US military is in crap shape.

Good luck, a bunch of trade agreements with China, Iran and the Caliphate, and a successful economic recovery could bring success. But good luck has been in short supply lately, and the Administration is in bad shape to handle the challenges decisively.

[Person Man]

So, basically America is at the brink, but there could be a way out of it IF all of our cards are played right.

[War on Want]

What is up with the Northwest? I'd assume that this would be the Democrat's strongest region because of the delay in Progressive activity there, the affulence of the Democratic Party, the Bohemian nature of the Left here and with these factors being true without fighting, the Republicans wouldn't be able to make much inroads with Democratic voters.

[Vepres]

Fascinating time line. Though when one thinks about it it is a bit far fetched, the level of detail and excellent writing style create a very strong suspension of disbelief. Keep it up!

[Person Man]

It sorta seems like it could happen, even if we are reasonably prudent in the future.

[Devilman88]

Could you make a map showing the breake down of the seante? I would like to know which senators are in which party.

[Dan the Roman]

Could you make a map showing the breake down of the seante? I would like to know which senators are in which party.

I will try and do one, though there something of a lack of colors to indicated mixed delegations. The big determining factor is that the Progressives did not run a full slate until 2020, and were starting from 0 of 33 seats. By 2021 they hold both seats in Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey. They hold one seat in Rhode Island, Arkansas, Missouri, Michigan, West Virginia, Kentucky, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Oregon, and Maryland.

As for the Pacific Northwest, one reason California and Washington went for Perry was because of the strength of the Democratic performance which allowed the Republicans to win both with around 35-36%. The Progressives did best in the industrial areas where the Democrats cratered completely, as well as in the Progressive run states where there were "other inducements" involved. That will change in the next chapter.

It should be posted late tonight or early tomorrow. Just got off a 9 hour plane trip and a bit exhausted.

[Person Man]

Could you make a map showing the breake down of the seante? I would like to know which senators are in which party.

I will try and do one, though there something of a lack of colors to indicated mixed delegations. The big determining factor is that the Progressives did not run a full slate until 2020, and were starting from 0 of 33 seats. By 2021 they hold both seats in Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey. They hold one seat in Rhode Island, Arkansas, Missouri, Michigan, West Virginia, Kentucky, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Oregon, and Maryland.

As for the Pacific Northwest, one reason California and Washington went for Perry was because of the strength of the Democratic performance which allowed the Republicans to win both with around 35-36%. The Progressives did best in the industrial areas where the Democrats cratered completely, as well as in the Progressive run states where there were "other inducements" involved. That will change in the next chapter.

It should be posted late tonight or early tomorrow. Just got off a 9 hour plane trip and a bit exhausted.

Yeah. I can see that. Transatlantic flights....ughh.... well, you get your rest because we can't wait to see what you do next.

[Person Man]

Bump!

[Devilman88]

Could you make a map showing the breake down of the seante? I would like to know which senators are in which party.

I will try and do one, though there something of a lack of colors to indicated mixed delegations. The big determining factor is that the Progressives did not run a full slate until 2020, and were starting from 0 of 33 seats. By 2021 they hold both seats in Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey. They hold one seat in Rhode Island, Arkansas, Missouri, Michigan, West Virginia, Kentucky, Vermont, Pennsylvania and Oregon, and Maryland.

As for the Pacific Northwest, one reason California and Washington went for Perry was because of the strength of the Democratic performance which allowed the Republicans to win both with around 35-36%. The Progressives did best in the industrial areas where the Democrats cratered completely, as well as in the Progressive run states where there were "other inducements" involved. That will change in the next chapter.

It should be posted late tonight or early tomorrow. Just got off a 9 hour plane trip and a bit exhausted.

Ok thank you very much.

[Dan the Roman]

There was was substantial celebration in Republican ranks. They had held the Presidency, and if congressional losses had been significant, they had been matched by those of the Democrats, who it was expected would act as de facto coalition partners for the Republicans in congress.

This perspective was to be tested almost immediately. For while the Progressives had lost, their movement into the national political mainstream as a third force, and arguably the largest opposition party had not failed to attract the attention and fears of major financial figures. It had also adopted the interests of certain ambitious ones in particular. On November 12th, Massachusetts Attorney General Walker Berman met with James Murdoch, and 9 other moguls to persuade them that the Progressives were neither inherently anti-business or anti-wealthy, provided that those individuals and institutions did not meddle in politics in favor of destructive and parasitical elements.

The result was an agreement to fund the party's activities. While the Party's PAC and campaigning arms were soon seeing a massive infusion of cash, the Progressive leadership soon found a way around campaign finance laws. While the Progressive campaign committees were regulated, the "Patriots" as a "charity" could not only receive unlimited donations, but those donations were tax deductible. As a result, donors were soon redirected to the Progressive Patriotic Action Initiative, which received nearly 550 million in donations between November and January of 2020.

The Administration in Washington soon began to grow alarmed, not just at the fact that money was being used to fund tens of thousands of organizers in an off-year, but that it was allowing a massive increase in the armed wing of the "Patriots" which was increasing its strength from 500,000 to well over a million.

On February 5th, only a little over two weeks after President Perry had promised the "decisive triumph of freedom" in his inaugural address, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte presented a report put together by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alleging that the "Patriots" had acquired in the last month 80,000 Assault rifles, 60,000,000 rounds of ammunition, as well as reportedly 350 RPG anti-tank weapons. The Attorney General's recommendation was that immediate action be taken to limit the sale of Automatic, or convertible Semi-Automatic weapons, and to ban possession of military hardware.

This led to the first general political crisis of the Administration. Perry, whose career had been dedicated to not just opposing but mocking gun control laws was reluctant to propose such a bill, especially because he was unsure of the loyalty of Congressional Republicans. Even with unified Democratic support, it would take 15 Republicans in the Senate and 113 in the House to pass such a bill, and that was assuming no Republicans joined the Progressive Senators in a filibuster. Furthermore, unified Democratic support was not a given, as Vice President Coakley had informed the President that a number of Democrats were wary of supporting a bill without majority Republican support, lest they be forced to carry the water on their own for an unpopular Administration policy.

Democrats were further concerned that any such bill would be water-down to the point of ineffectiveness while still remaining political poison. There fears proved well founded. When a bill was finally proposed it attempted to limit the sale of only Automatic Weapons to organizations of over 1000 to an amount of one tenth of their member ship, up to a maximum of 1000. It also exempted fraternal organizations in an effort to exempt the NRA. As to heavier weaponry, it made possession of "armaments intended for a military purpose" a compounding offense.

Given that the bill was written largely to be ineffective it was impressive the amount of outrage it caused. The NRA was furious, threatening to withdraw support from the Administration, and the Progressives announced their uncompromising opposition. It was unclear if it could pass congress, especially when the Progressives announced plans not only to filibuster in the Senate but in the House as well, reading the bible, the phonebook, the Constitution, and ironically, Orwell's 1984. By the time the bill was pushed through to a vote on the 23rd of February it passed by a narrow 229-205 margin with 101 of 105 Democrats and 128 of 202 Republicans voting in favor. All 131 Progressives opposed as did 4 Democrats and 73 Republicans.

The bill now went to the Senate where it promptly elicited a filibuster by he Progressives which was broken by a vote of 62 to 33, with 9 Republicans and one Democrat joining the Progressives. It was passed on March 9th by a vote of 56 to 42.

President Perry was overjoyed at his success, but Vice President Coakley and Congressional Democrats were displeased that they had basically been providing support for unpopular policies of a Republican administration. Furthermore, on March 14th, the Progressives staged rallies in 20 cities across the country including nearly 400,000 Patriots armed with Assault rifles, publicly thumbing their noses at the law. As expected, no efforts were made to arrest the participants, humiliating the administration in what should have been a moment of triumph.

There was little the President could do, and by the end of March he was enmeshed in a more important matter. Someone had been listening to the Progressive platform as dealt with Oil ownership, and on March 29th the Caliphate nationalized all oil resources in the former territory of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait. In outrage, President Perry denounced the theft of private property and in joint action with the Royal Navy, sent the US Fleet to the Gulf. In retaliation, the Caliphate declared an oil boycott of the United States and Britain, though did not make any effort to prevent sales through a third party. It would be up to Perry to take this step by ordering a blockade of the Caliphate's ports, effectively reducing world oil supplies by more than 20%.

The result was an immediate increase in gas prices to nearly 11 dollars a barrel amid Progressive demands for a vote on authorization of force. The Progressives argued that a blockade was an act of war, and therefore required congressional authorization. Many Democrats felt that the Administration's actions were excessive at best and potentially catastrophic at worst, and within a week of the blockade there were 191 co-sponsors for the Progressive motion, including nearly half the Democratic caucus. This, it went without saying, terrified Democratic leaders who sensed a challenge if they were forced to whip their members for the administration.

President Perry felt differently, and was insistent that a vote be stopped. The result was a Progressive motion to vacate the chair, which forced the Democratic leaders to rally support for a Speaker who was blocking a motion favored by a majority of their members. In the end, Speaker Blake(R-Alabama) survived on a vote of 231 to 186, with the remainder being mostly Democratic abstainers.

The Administration had survived, but Democrats were increasingly unhappy about supporting it without concessions. This was to come to a head over the administration's energy independence act.

In response to the oil shortage, which soon reached epic proportions when the Caliphate began to cease selling oil in dollars(a sensible move giving they were no longer selling the United States) and the dollar lost nearly 20% of its value overnight. With alternative options for the purchase of oil disappearing, virtually everyone was united in favor of expanded oil exploration within the territory of the United States.

They were not, however, unite under what conditions this would take place. The Progressives wanted their sovereign wealth fund, while Democrats wanted at a minimum environmental concessions and a excess profits tax on oil companies. The Administration wanted neither and assumed the Democrats would go along as they had before. This, however, was not to be. Pushed consistently, the Democrats were determined to get something in-exchange for their support.