How would an ultra-American imperialist vote in the following elections?

[WalterWhite]

By "ultra-American imperialist", I mean someone who wants the United States to conquer and annex every single country in the entire world.

Assume they are moderate on domestic issues.

How would they vote in the following elections?

1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020

[darklordoftech]

Definitely Republican in 1972-1988 and 2004-2012.

[Ragnaroni]

American Independent from day one to the end.

[bagelman]

American Independent from day one to the end.

I think you misunderstand slightly. They want to increase the power of the United States, giving power to a reactionary segregationist party would not serve that purpose. How could the US rule over Africa if they cannot accept blacks as equal citizens? European colonialism is dead and domestic strife would decrease US power and increase the appeal of communism worldwide, especially in Africa.

They could of course simply be a dimwitted white nationalist, but that's not the premise we're working with. This is someone relatively moderate domestically.

[Sumner 1868]

It depends. Do we mean Scoop Jackson imperialism or Cheney imperialism?

[WalterWhite]

It depends. Do we mean Scoop Jackson imperialism or Cheney imperialism?

None of the above

I am talking about someone who wants the United States to invade, conquer, and annex every single country in the entire world---without exception.

[bagelman]

Anyway they are probably Republican up until 2016. Their vote in 2016 depends on their appetite for peaceful conquest via some sort of World Government lead of course by the greatest nation on Earth. A neoliberal world order lead by the enlightened American intellectual aristocracy is still US conquest as long as world federal or confederal structures are suitably subverted to US control. If they're set on military conquest (Alexander the Great, Napoleon, that guy with the mustache), then they would probably remain loyal to the GOP.

Their favorite presidents would be Reagan and both Bushes, the former two for dealing with the USSR, and Dubya for the neoconservative ideology and conquest of the future states of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their opinion of Trump depends on how fascist they are, and also if they believe in the reactionary "dark enlightenment" which is essentially neo-fascist in character. Trump is isolationist, opposing US conquest of Mexico and is perceived as friendly with a movement to strengthen Russia instead of further preparing it for annexation. Trump also ruined what remained of Dubya's reputation, and this person holds Dubya in esteem for the Iraq War.

Even with these issues in mind, this person would still find some positives with Trump. Trump has stood against the various states of China, which is good, as the various US states of the Chinese cultural region should not be united and should not be allowed to become another counterweight to US hegemony like the USSR was. This also contributes to preparing the US states of Japan, Korea (only the south matters, the north can just be conquered), and Taiwan for annexation.

This is not someone with a high opinion of Obama (leaving the state of Iraq) or Biden (leaving the state of Afghanistan). Clinton wasn't as bad, as he did prepare Albania and Bosnia for annexation.

1976: idk
1980: Reagan. Carter clearly is the wrong man to conquer the world.
1984: Reagan
1988: Bush
1992: Bush
1996: Dole? I know Dole was bold on supporting the US recognizing Taiwan at one point.
2000: Dubya? I don't remember how interventionist he was during the campaign. He'd certainly vote Dubya with hindsight.
2004: Dubya enthusiastically
2008: McCain
2012: Romney
2016: see above
2020: Could see this person being a Clinton-Trump voter, if he voted Clinton.

[WalterWhite]

Anyway they are probably Republican up until 2016. Their vote in 2016 depends on their appetite for peaceful conquest via some sort of World Government lead of course by the greatest nation on Earth. A neoliberal world order lead by the enlightened American intellectual aristocracy is still US conquest as long as world federal or confederal structures are suitably subverted to US control. If they're set on military conquest (Alexander the Great, Napoleon, that guy with the mustache), then they would probably remain loyal to the GOP.

Their favorite presidents would be Reagan and both Bushes, the former two for dealing with the USSR, and Dubya for the neoconservative ideology and conquest of the future states of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their opinion of Trump depends on how fascist they are, and also if they believe in the reactionary "dark enlightenment" which is essentially neo-fascist in character. Trump is isolationist, opposing US conquest of Mexico and is perceived as friendly with a movement to strengthen Russia instead of further preparing it for annexation. Trump also ruined what remained of Dubya's reputation, and this person holds Dubya in esteem for the Iraq War.

Even with these issues in mind, this person would still find some positives with Trump. Trump has stood against the various states of China, which is good, as the various US states of the Chinese cultural region should not be united and should not be allowed to become another counterweight to US hegemony like the USSR was. This also contributes to preparing the US states of Japan, Korea (only the south matters, the north can just be conquered), and Taiwan for annexation.

This is not someone with a high opinion of Obama (leaving the state of Iraq) or Biden (leaving the state of Afghanistan). Clinton wasn't as bad, as he did prepare Albania and Bosnia for annexation.

1976: idk
1980: Reagan. Carter clearly is the wrong man to conquer the world.
1984: Reagan
1988: Bush
1992: Bush
1996: Dole? I know Dole was bold on supporting the US recognizing Taiwan at one point.
2000: Dubya? I don't remember how interventionist he was during the campaign. He'd certainly vote Dubya with hindsight.
2004: Dubya enthusiastically
2008: McCain
2012: Romney
2016: see above
2020: Could see this person being a Clinton-Trump voter, if he voted Clinton.

I think this person would have enthusiastically supported Trump over his attempts to buy Greenland from Denmark.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Anyway they are probably Republican up until 2016. Their vote in 2016 depends on their appetite for peaceful conquest via some sort of World Government lead of course by the greatest nation on Earth. A neoliberal world order lead by the enlightened American intellectual aristocracy is still US conquest as long as world federal or confederal structures are suitably subverted to US control. If they're set on military conquest (Alexander the Great, Napoleon, that guy with the mustache), then they would probably remain loyal to the GOP.

Their favorite presidents would be Reagan and both Bushes, the former two for dealing with the USSR, and Dubya for the neoconservative ideology and conquest of the future states of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their opinion of Trump depends on how fascist they are, and also if they believe in the reactionary "dark enlightenment" which is essentially neo-fascist in character. Trump is isolationist, opposing US conquest of Mexico and is perceived as friendly with a movement to strengthen Russia instead of further preparing it for annexation. Trump also ruined what remained of Dubya's reputation, and this person holds Dubya in esteem for the Iraq War.

Even with these issues in mind, this person would still find some positives with Trump. Trump has stood against the various states of China, which is good, as the various US states of the Chinese cultural region should not be united and should not be allowed to become another counterweight to US hegemony like the USSR was. This also contributes to preparing the US states of Japan, Korea (only the south matters, the north can just be conquered), and Taiwan for annexation.

This is not someone with a high opinion of Obama (leaving the state of Iraq) or Biden (leaving the state of Afghanistan). Clinton wasn't as bad, as he did prepare Albania and Bosnia for annexation.

1976: idk
1980: Reagan. Carter clearly is the wrong man to conquer the world.
1984: Reagan
1988: Bush
1992: Bush
1996: Dole? I know Dole was bold on supporting the US recognizing Taiwan at one point.
2000: Dubya? I don't remember how interventionist he was during the campaign. He'd certainly vote Dubya with hindsight.
2004: Dubya enthusiastically
2008: McCain
2012: Romney
2016: see above
2020: Could see this person being a Clinton-Trump voter, if he voted Clinton.

This person definitely went for Ford (who had tried to stop the complete end of US support for South Vietnam post-Watergate) over "human rights agenda" Carter in 1976.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

American Independent from day one to the end.

If anything, this would actually make less sense than "Democratic from day one to the end" for this hypothetical voter, considering the Democrats' liberal internationalism (which arguably dates back to Jefferson's "empire of liberty" and the Jacksonians' "Manifest Destiny") and the paleoconservative/isolationist element of the AIP (despite the fact that the AIP was not as uniformly anti-interventionist as many today would be inclined to believe).

[darklordoftech]

Likely a very partisan Republican before 2016 and thinks Reagan is the greatest post-Lincoln President.

[WalterWhite]

Likely a very partisan Republican before 2016 and thinks Reagan is the greatest post-Lincoln President.

Their favorite presidents would probably be James Polk and Thomas Jefferson. They would hate Harry Truman for letting the Philippines become independent.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Likely a very partisan Republican before 2016 and thinks Reagan is the greatest post-Lincoln President.

Their favorite presidents would probably be James Polk and Thomas Jefferson. They would hate Harry Truman for letting the Philippines become independent.

The other President they might hate is Carter for giving up the Panama Canal Zone. Besides those 2, there are other Presidents they might like for expanding the US, including Monroe, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, McKinley, and both Roosevelts.

[Battista Minola 1616]

I would imagine that someone who genuinely believes that either does not vote at all or does not particularly factor that in voting (since the United States has not been in the business of literal conquest and annexation in a while). Even in the latter case, probably crankish enough that voting patterns would not make much sense, but I suspect a fan of Trump.

[First1There]

Likely a very partisan Republican before 2016 and thinks Reagan is the greatest post-Lincoln President.

I like how even this screwball ideologue has Lincoln as his favorite president. And it makes sense too. How is America supposed to expand without keeping itself together.

[Agonized-Statism]

Generic Romney-Clinton "the Republican Party left me" realigner.

[darklordoftech]

Likely a very partisan Republican before 2016 and thinks Reagan is the greatest post-Lincoln President.

I like how even this screwball ideologue has Lincoln as his favorite president. And it makes sense too. How is America supposed to expand without keeping itself together.

You can't take over the world if you don't exist.

[wnwnwn]

Voted for minor third parties in the Cold War era. Voted for Osama as write-in in 2004.

[darklordoftech]

1796: Adams
1800: Adams
1804: Jefferson
1808: Madison
1812: Madison
1816: Monroe
1820: Monroe
1824: not sure
1828: Jackson
1832: Jackson
1836: Van Buren
1840: Van Buren
1844: Polk
1848: Cass
1852: Pierce
1856: unsure
1860: Lincoln
1864: Lincoln
1868: Grant
1872: Grant
1876: Hayes
1880: Garfield
1884: Blaine
1888: Harrison
1892: Harrison
1896: McKinley
1900: McKinley
1904: Roosevelt
1908: Taft
1912: Roosevelt
1916: Hughes
1920: Cox
1924: Davis
1928: Smith
1932: Roosevelt
1936: Roosevelt
1940: Roosevelt
1944: Roosevelt
1948: unsure
1952: Stevenson
1956: Eisenhower
1960: unsure
1964: Goldwater
1968: Nixon
1972: Nixon
1976: Ford
1980: Reagan
1984: Reagan
1988: Bush
1992: unsure
1996: unsure
2000: unsure
2004: Bush
2008: McCain
2012: Romney
2016: unsure
2020: Trump