Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State

[claybaskit]

1960:Richard M.Nixon Republican Henry Cabot Lodge
Def: John F. Kennedy Democratic Lyndon B. Johnson

def:1964; Hubert H. Humphrey Democratic Leroy Collins


The 1960 television debates are cancelled because j.f.k. got sick.
vice president Nixon narrowly defeated senator Kennedy Cuba "leader Fidel Castro is overthrown first term. there is no Cuban missel crisis

 

[Bolt451]

So the other day I was comparing the current leaders of the opposition to past ones, and came to the conclusion that the current political setup seemed to map quite well to that of the late 1950s and early 1960s. That was until I looked a bit further, and realised that this meant I was comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Hugh Gaitskell.

I then decided to build a world where this comparison made sense.

So for Gaitskell to be considered a mad radical, this means that Labour never fully breaks through, and so he's considered a mad radical in the context of a Liberal rather than (at least nominally) Socialist party, hence the Radicals. My 1966 is pretty much exactly 2019, with Rab = BoJo, Gaitskell = Corbyn, Lynch = Sturgeon, Thorpe = Swinson, Castle and Callaghan = Lucas and Bartley, Heath = Chuka Ummuna, Powell = Farage. I then worked backwards.

The actual PoD is Galipolli is a success - WWI ends by 1916 - Easter Rising is avoided and Home Rule passed.

if 1914-16 is WW1, what causes the Wartime Ministry of 21-24?

 

[rosa]

Thanks

1. My bad.

2. Also my bad - it was a rouge copy-paste and meant to be Riley Clubb, who's currently sitting on the Walla Walla City Council

Ah, ok. Makes sense. I do like it tho

 

[I Saw A Red Sky]

Grand Councilors

1898–1901: Liao Shouheng
1901–1906: Yuan Shikai †
1906–1906: Shanqi

Prime Ministers of the Imperial Cabinet

1906–1910: Kang Youwei (Friends of the Constitution)
1910–1913: Zaize rebellion; Kansu rebellion; Yangtze intervention
1910–1915: Yinchang (Constitutional Protection Association)
1915–1921: Chen Guangyuan (Constitutional Protection Association)
1921–1924: Kang Youwei (Constitutional Dialogue Party)
1922–1925: Second Sino-Japanese War
1924–1925: Zhang Jian (Nonpartisan)
1925–0000: Cai Genyin (Constitutional Renewal Association)

The Wuxu revolution is saved by the bayonets of Yuan's New Army, for the price of the military's lasting participation in imperial politics. Ronglu is executed, the Dowager Empress is forced into permanent retirement, and Guangxu's reforms continue apace spearheaded by the Han-dominated new gentry and emerging industrial class. The imperial slouch towards constitutionalism is tolerated by the increasingly sidelined Qing aristocracy, but Kang's odd synthesis of Confucian thought and frighteningly genuine desire for social reform is not. Things reach a breaking point in the 1910s, Kang's fragile coalition collapses, and when he reemerges a decade later he finds himself confronted by a China that rejects his revolutionary vision as obsolete and backwards-looking.

 

[kratostatic]

if 1914-16 is WW1, what causes the Wartime Ministry of 21-24?

Well in the draft 1920-1923 is the Wars of the Russian Revolutions.

The ongoing Tsargrad Emergency, the Polish Rising of 1920, the subsequent December Revolution and the opportunistic attempts by a humiliated Germany and Turkey (and a frustrated Japan) to capitalise on this force the UK to intervene to protect the settlement made at the end of the last war. As Bonar Law's Unionists are nowhere near a majority he invites everyone into the government.

I'm not going to pretend that I've particularly thought this through mind.

 

[lerk]

Trumpism Ten Years Later

I don't think AOC would've gotten into politics without Trump, tbh. Trump's victory really energized the left in a lot of ways and if he isn't around then I don't think it'll happen

 

[Bolt451]

Well in the draft 1920-1923 is the Wars of the Russian Revolutions.

The ongoing Tsargrad Emergency, the Polish Rising of 1920, the subsequent December Revolution and the opportunistic attempts by a humiliated Germany and Turkey (and a frustrated Japan) to capitalise on this force the UK to intervene to protect the settlement made at the end of the last war. As Bonar Law's Unionists are nowhere near a majority he invites everyone into the government.

I'm not going to pretend that I've particularly thought this through mind.

Oh I like that. Dividing ww1 and the Russian revolution into two conflicts

 

[theev]

I don't think AOC would've gotten into politics without Trump, tbh. Trump's victory really energized the left in a lot of ways and if he isn't around then I don't think it'll happen

She was a prominent activist on the Bernie 2016 online sphere

 

[Callan]

She was a prominent activist on the Bernie 2016 online sphere

Yeah, without Sanders' (easily butterflied away) 2016 candidacy you just don't get AOC and the likes.

 

[lerk]

She was a prominent activist on the Bernie 2016 online sphere

Come on with this logic any leftist on Twitter with >10,000 followers can become a politician. Hillary's loss to Trump vindicated the American left and had them set the goal of trying to wrestle control of the party from the centrist establishment. Without it Hillary Clinton (like pretty much every President in modern times) becomes the leader of the Democratic Party and thus it does not get thrown into a few years of confusion during the years that it was out of office.

 

[Japhy]

Come on with this logic any leftist on Twitter with >10,000 followers can become a politician.

I think this line is kind of a useless one considering how people develop FH TLs.

 

[theev]

Come on with this logic any leftist on Twitter with >10,000 followers can become a politician. Hillary's loss to Trump vindicated the American left and had them set the goal of trying to wrestle control of the party from the centrist establishment. Without it Hillary Clinton (like pretty much every President in modern times) becomes the leader of the Democratic Party and thus it does not get thrown into a few years of confusion during the years that it was out of office.

The Obama administration was the biggest inciting incident for the left to take control of the party, if anything Trump may have damaged that by forcing a lot of liberals to close ranks around otherwise very vulnerable Democrats. It’s very likely Pelosi would not have held on as speaker as long as she has now if Hillary had won.

And she’s a bit different from just a twitter account. She was a semi-prominent activist/organizer with the campaign. A lot of people knew about her well before she launched her primary against Joe Crowley.

 

[zaffre]

Three years ago today AOC was literally just An Asteroid, but we also know that she had the skillset and opportunity to primary a congressman because she did primary a congressman - not sure where Nothing Bad Ever Happens To Incumbents In The Second Year Of A Clinton Administration is coming from, exactly, but I don't think *solely* Hillary winning puts Crowley in a great spot, although minimizing activist anger over Trump helps.

I'm also not super convinced that Sanders' campaign itself is all that easy to butterfly (I mean, it is if Romney wins or whatever, but by that standard most campaigns are easy to butterfly) because all the factors for a Clinton coronation are predetermined and he ran with no real hope of winning away - shades of Corbyn '15, but it's easy to butterfly Corbyn winning, it's not easy to butterfly the Labour left trying to stand a candidate at all.

 

[Cevolian]

To add to this, FH TLs are as much about the story as they are about plausibility, particularly when they come in PM list form. It seems strange to be quibbling about the plausibility of AOC’s rise without Trump in literally a President MyPillow list (which is, btw, very good) because, well, the point so obviously isn’t strict plausibility. It’s about suggesting something interesting about the present and about how we view it, ditto for the recent past. This was often a problem on the Other Place’s PM list thread, but the fact of the matter is endless “and then the plausible thing happened and John Thune beat Hillary in ‘20” lists not only aren’t fun just because they stick to the plausible (they’re also not very realistic tbh) they also miss the whole point of the format as I see it, which is to have fun with an idea which wouldn’t quite work as a full TL.

 

[Nyvis]

Three years ago today AOC was literally just An Asteroid, but we also know that she had the skillset and opportunity to primary a congressman because she did primary a congressman - not sure where Nothing Bad Ever Happens To Incumbents In The Second Year Of A Clinton Administration is coming from, exactly, but I don't think *solely* Hillary winning puts Crowley in a great spot, although minimizing activist anger over Trump helps.

I'm also not super convinced that Sanders' campaign itself is all that easy to butterfly (I mean, it is if Romney wins or whatever, but by that standard most campaigns are easy to butterfly) because all the factors for a Clinton coronation are predetermined and he ran with no real hope of winning away - shades of Corbyn '15, but it's easy to butterfly Corbyn winning, it's not easy to butterfly the Labour left trying to stand a candidate at all.

Sanders tried to tap Warren to run because he didn't want to do it but really wanted Hillary to have some opposition, I think?

Warren wouldn't be nearly as energizing for the left considering she's outspoken about being a capitalist out to fix capitalism, without any class based analysis.

 

[zaffre]

Sanders tried to tap Warren to run because he didn't want to do it but really wanted Hillary to have some opposition, I think?

Warren wouldn't be nearly as energizing for the left considering she's outspoken about being a capitalist out to fix capitalism, without any class based analysis.

I say this aware that it was a distinction between the two, but (very close to mic) no one in 2016 actually cared what Sanders' class-based analysis was. Agree that Warren would have done worse, but mainly because in 2020 she ran a bog-standard wine track campaign that bogged down in policy details and couldn't concentrate votes anywhere, and in a race where Hillary is already sucking up all the #ShePersisted energy I think Warren does even worse.

Also, may be inventing this out of thin air, but I think Warren is the inverse of Bernie in that she has a much better working relationship with Hillary than Biden? Hence why a 2016 run wasn't really considered.

 

[Elektronaut]

shades of Corbyn '15, but it's easy to butterfly Corbyn winning, it's not easy to butterfly the Labour left trying to stand a candidate at all.

You've got this the wrong way round. Very easy for Corbyn (Or any Campaign Group nominee) to not be nominated; very hard for Corbyn not to win once nominated because that vote was formed from election loss emotional trauma, the hacktivist New Labour maturity of the rest of the field and OMG don't know who that bloke is but he has a beard.

 

[zaffre]

You've got this the wrong way round. Very easy for Corbyn (Or any Campaign Group nominee) to not be nominated; very hard for Corbyn not to win once nominated because that vote was formed from election loss emotional trauma, the hacktivist New Labour maturity of the rest of the field and OMG don't know who that bloke is but he has a beard.

"Trying to stand" was conscious (albeit not great) word choice - I'm aware that he came quite close to not obtaining the nominations, but there's also literally no analogue for that in a US presidential context and the Campaign Group not even attempting to get him (or Abbott, or McDonnell) on the ballot is imo the better equivalent for Sanders-Just-Doesn't-Go-For-It, and presumably a tougher ask.

 

[Nyvis]

I say this aware that it was a distinction between the two, but (very close to mic) no one in 2016 actually cared what Sanders' class-based analysis was. Agree that Warren would have done worse, but mainly because in 2020 she ran a bog-standard wine track campaign that bogged down in policy details and couldn't concentrate votes anywhere, and in a race where Hillary is already sucking up all the #ShePersisted energy I think Warren does even worse.

In terms of the broad public? I doubt anyone cared. But in terms of inspiring working class people to run for office? I think it does matter. Warren still has that technocratic vibe, and only differentiates herself on more progressive policy, while Sanders did try to reach out wider than that.

Also, may be inventing this out of thin air, but I think Warren is the inverse of Bernie in that she has a much better working relationship with Hillary than Biden? Hence why a 2016 run wasn't really considered.

Yep this is exactly why she didn't run in 2016 and Sanders decided to jump in.

 

[Catalunya]

I say this aware that it was a distinction between the two, but (very close to mic) no one in 2016 actually cared what Sanders' class-based analysis was. Agree that Warren would have done worse, but mainly because in 2020 she ran a bog-standard wine track campaign that bogged down in policy details and couldn't concentrate votes anywhere, and in a race where Hillary is already sucking up all the #ShePersisted energy I think Warren does even worse.

Also, may be inventing this out of thin air, but I think Warren is the inverse of Bernie in that she has a much better working relationship with Hillary than Biden? Hence why a 2016 run wasn't really considered.

Now I’m imagining a scenario where Hillary sits out 2016 for some reason and Biden runs instead with Warren challenging him. Trump still wins and in 2020 Hillary is seen as the only person that can beat Trump as she defeats the darling of the left Warren in the primaries and Bernie Sanders coming in third with a voter base made out of radical leftists and Gabbard voters.