• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State

what if acerbo law still on tv today

2001-2006: Silvio Berlusconi (Forza Italia)
2001 (Majority) [420/210] def. Walter Veltroni (Democrats of the Left) [95/48], Francesco Rutelli (The Daisy) [83/42], Gianfranco Fini (National Alliance) [69/35], Fausto Bertinotti (Communist Refoundation) [28/14], Umberto Bossi (Lega) [22/11], Pier Ferdinando Casini (White Flower) [18/9]
2006-2007: Romano Prodi (Olive Tree)
2006 (Majority) [420/210] def. Silvio Berlusconi (Forza Italia) [134/67], Gianfranco Fini (National Alliance) [70/35], Pier Ferdinando Casini (UDC) [38/19], Fausto Bertinotti (Communist Refoundation) [33/17], Umberto Bossi (Lega) [29/15], Emma Bonino (Rose in the Fist) [26/13]
2007-2008: Walter Veltroni (Democratic majority)
2008-2013: Silvio Berlusconi (People of Freedom)
2008 (Majority) [420/210] def. Walter Veltroni (Democratic) [136/68], Umberto Bossi (Lega) [34/17], Pier Ferdinando Casini (UDC) [23/11], Antonio Di Pietro (Italy of Values) [17/9]
2013-0000: Luigi Di Maio (Five Star Movement)
2013 (Majority) [420/210] def. Pier Luigi Bersani (Democratic) [92/46], Silvio Berlusconi (People of Freedom) [77/39], Mario Monti (Civic Choice) [30/15], Roberto Maroni (Lega) [11/5]
2018 (Majority) [420/210] def. Matteo Renzi (Democratic) [65/33], Matteo Salvini (Lega) [61/30], Silvio Berlusconi (Forza Italia) [49/25], Giorgia Meloni (Brothers of Italy) [15/7], Pietro Grasso (Free and Equal) [11/6], Emma Bonino (More Europe) [9/4]
 
A quick list for my entry into the latest Vignette Challenge. I'll add further detail after a few days when enough people see it and I can feel safe in explaining it here without spoiling it.

A Royal Tragedy

List of Queens and Kings of the United Kingdom.
1832-1901: Queen Victoria
1901-1910: King Edward VII
1910-1930: Queen Louise Windsor
1930-????: Queen Alexandra Windsor


Prince/Princesses of Wales
1841-1901: Prince Albert Edward
1901-1910: Princess Royal Louise Victoria
1910-1930: Princess Alexandra Windsor
1930-1943: Prince Alastair Windsor
1943-????: TBD


Prince-Consorts of the United Kingdom
1910-1913: Alexander Duff, Duke of Fife
1930-1938: Prince Arthur of Connaught
 
i saw someone did an electoral map on ah.com of if you eliminated democrats and republicans from the total and i want to a backward list from that

but its gone 2am

2017-2021: Gary Johnson (Liberal)
2016 (with Mike Gravel) def. Donald Trump (Conservative [National]), Evan McMullin (Conservative [Constitutional]), Bernie Sanders (Socialist)

The Liberal Party's dominance, maintained for over thirty years since their victory in 1980 was assured again in 2016 albeit on the smallest margin in their history. The Conservatives, the long suffering opposition have struggled to shake off their corporatist roots and instinct for authoritarianism since their defeat in the 1980 following the bloody Hot Summer of 79, and the end of their own long period of dominance. McMullin represented the new generation which has held control of the Conservatives since the 1990s, the modernisers who have sought to shake off those bad memories and establish a new conservatism that accepts much of the Liberal Consensus. However, the Liberal Consensus and the acquiesence of the Conservatives to it has allowed populist movements on the left and right to grow and this year the Conservative Convention split with much of the 'Old Guard' rallying behind Trump's reactionary message which painted pre-1980 America in a rosy tint. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the Socialist - once an ally of the Liberals in their electoral and otherwise war with the Conservatives in the 70s - finally broke through into electoral relevance as a once reliable core of young and student voters have shifted to the left.

Nevertheless, the Liberals achieved victory over the vast majority of the electoral college, just as the have done for nearly forty years. With dissent rising even within the ranks of the Liberals, questions are being asked over how much longer this can last.
 
As promised, a list of fictional and not-so-fictional Presidents of the United States, largely drawn from media I've consumed over the years -with two exceptions)

Since this is a silly little one-off, you'll excuse the departures from the traditional format and colouring, if any.

Some references are more obvious than others, and God help the poor soul who could get them all in one sitting without using Google.


Truth is Strange, This is Stranger...


1861-1865 Abraham Lincoln (Republican)*
1865-1869 Andrew Johnson (National Union, then Democratic)
1869-1877 Impey Barbicane (Republican)
1877-1881 Samuel Tilden (Democratic)
1881-1882 Robert W. Winthrop Sr. (Republican)*

1882-1885 John Sherman (Republican)
1885-1889 Winfield Scott Hancock (Democratic)
1889-1891 Funny Valentine (Republican)*
1891-1893 Rance Stoddard (Republican)

1893-1897 Winfield Scott Hancock (Democratic)

1897-1903 Joseph Foraker (Republican)*
1903-1905 Hiram Otis (Republican)
1905-1909 Charles Foster Kane (Democratic)

1909-1913 Nicholas Murray Butler (Republican)
1913-1921 Robert W. Winthrop Jr. (Republican)

1921-1929 John Pierpont "Jack" Morgan II. (Republican)
1929-1933 Donald Curtis (Republican)

1933-1937 Franklin Roosevelt (Democratic)
1937-1939 Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip (Corporatist)
1939-1940 Lee Sarason (Corporatist)*

1940-1942 General Dewey Haik (Military Dictatorship)
1942-1945 General Emmanuel Coon (National Salvation Military Council, later National Salvation Union)
1945-Alphonse Capone (Democratic)




After a five year-long civil war, the public assassination of the President of the Republic, the arduous fight over Reconstruction and the near-impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, the Republican Party found itself nervous and dispirited at the prospect of the 1868 Presidential Elections. In dire need of a popular unifying figure behind which both party and nation could rally, the choice was obvious: there was no name in the Union more well-known, no man more popular, no figure so revered as that of Impey Barbicane, President of the Baltimore Gun-Club, first American to circumnavigate the Moon.

Despite his youth –he was only 44 at the time, being the youngest man elected to the presidency at the time-, and his cold, austere demeanor, Barbicane made a grand candidate. Having made his fortune in lumber and his name in the design and construction of artillery during the war, neither his patriotism nor his talent for business could be doubted, nor could his visionary man, as the man who had led the greatest of American projects, that marvel of engineering that had made the United States the first amongst the nations of the world: the construction of the Columbiad, and the launch of its projectile towards the moon from Stone Hill, Florida, on July 16th of 1865.

The gamble paid off, and Barbicane defeated democratic candidate Horatio Seymour by a rather large margin, a fact that owed more to his personal popularity than to any policy he might have spouted –he revealed none during the campaign-, speech he might have given –as he did not give any-, or role in the campaign, -in which he had no part-. The cost of the gamble, though, was another matter entirely, as Barbicane’s vision for the nation was often at odds with that of Congressional Republicans, who often struggled to keep the President in check and were often unable to keep him under any sort of control. And while Reconstruction continued with the unenthusiastic support of the White House, it was always clear that the President’s interests laid elsewhere.

Amongst the various crises which unfolded during the Barbicane Administration, from the Stahlstadt Disaster which shook Oregon in 1871 to the sinking of Standard Island on 1875, undeniably the most infamous was the one known to history as Barbicane’s Folly, that is, the Purchase of the North Pole. Inspired by the ambitions of the Gun Club, the same that had launched Mankind’s first mission to the moon 9 years before, the auction of 1874 had seen the United States Government purchase the rights over the Arctic Territory north of the 84th parallel, the purchase didn’t only seek to give the Union a monopoly over the Boreal regions and its potential trade routes –a fact that few could have considered at the time-, but also its vast mineral resources, cited by Barbicane during the heated Congressional investigation on the matter in 1874-1875. In spite of the vast sums spent on a project of dubious practicality, the involvement of suspicious private interests which provided a large part of said funds –how much of the Scorbitt fortune was spent has still not been fully revealed, more than a century later-, and Barbicane’s role in the 1878 Kilimanjaro Crisis which revealed the true scope of his plan, Barbicane left office in 1877 as a divisive, but not unpopular president.

Still, it was no surprise that Samuel J. Tilden was able to easily secure the Presidency in the elections of 1876, on a ticket of promising “Peace and Normalcy” to an American Public tired of adventurism and grand visions. Tilden’s job was nevertheless not an easy one, and even his role in ending the policies of Reconstruction in the American South would be reduced to historical irrelevancy compared to the part he was forced to play in solving the Kilimanjaro Crisis of 1878, when, despite his best intentions of keeping America focused on its own problems, he was forced to lead the charge along with the British and the French to occupy Zanzibar and the lands of what today is Tanganika, to stop former President Barbicane’s plan to build a second Columbiad on the flanks of Mount Kilimanjaro, and remove the tilt of the Earth’s axis thanks to its recoil. The potential ramifications of such a project have often been neglected in favor of focusing on the role the crisis played in the 1878-1881 Scramble for Africa and the Berlin Conference of 1879. But still, one wonders: could Barbicane’s cannon had truly “fixed” the planet’s axis, making it “like Jupiter’s”? Could the benefits of freeing the Northern and Southern poles from their mantles of ice, freeing their waters and resources, have ever made up for the potential damage to the Earth and the whole of mankind? Even the most fervent of Barbicane apologists often have troubles defending the former president when it comes to the Kilimanjaro Affair.

In contrast to the turbulent 1860s and 1870s, the 1880s marked a true “Return to Normalcy:” first under President Robert W. Winthrop Sr., elected in 1880 and untimely assassinated by famed actor Edwin Booth on July of 1882, whose motives have always remained a mystery to historians. Some believe the beloved thespian acted in emulation of his more infamous brother John Wilkes, who had assassinated Abraham Lincoln less than two decades prior, while others believed he had been driven by his opposition to the President’s harsh, authoritarian streak, and was perhaps moved by a sense of patriotism. More esoteric theories, involving many sleepless nights, abuse of absinthe and other substances and the meticulous preparations undertaken for the representation of a French play known as Le Roi en jaune have also been proposed, to the indifference of much of the community. In contrast, the Sherman (1882-1885) and Hancock (1885-1889) Administrations came and went with relative calm.

The 23rd President of the United States, Funny Richard Valentine, was an end to many old trends in American Politics and the beginning of many new ones, and was, in many ways, a second Impey Barbicanne. Elected in 1888 following Winfield Scott Hancock’s lackluster response to the Panic of 1887, Funny Valentine’s vision of America and the World could be some up thusly: “America First, America Above All.” The Valentine Administration saw a drastic rearmament program, the Cuban intervention, the Valentine corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the Pan-American Exhibition of 1891, the Straits Crisis of 1891 –in which the President famously sent the American Expeditionary Force to occupy the Ottoman Levant in concert with 7 other nations, and allegedly looted many priceless artifacts still exhibited today at the Smithsonian-, and the Great Trans-American Race of 1891, in which he was assassinated by one of the jockeys in a bizarre incident. The rest of his term was served by former Colorado Governor and Senator Ranse Stoddard, who refused to seek reelection in 1892 and gave the presidency to Winfield Scott Hancock, narrowly returned to office as the only American President to win two non-consecutive terms.

Ohio’s Joseph Foraker, elected in 1896 and reelected in 1900 on the strength of the economy and his handling of the Samoan Scare of 1901, tragically followed the fates of Lincoln, Winthrop and Valentine on 1903, being succeeded by vice-president and former Minister to London, Hiram B. Otis, a man of old New England stock known for his practicality and sound, if somewhat eccentric mind.

In direct contrast to the unassuming, austere, unremarkable figures that Otis, Foraker and Stoddard had made, Charles Foster Kane had always been a bombastic, controversial figure. Considered by some as the "Father of Yellow Journalism” and one of the main instigators of the War in Cuba, Kane’s campaign to “buy the presidency” resonated well with voters, in no small part thanks to his vast fortune, personal popularity and far-reaching media empire. Much like his personal life, Kane’s presidency was no stranger to scandal: graft, bribery, sale of public lands to business associates, the bloody aftermath of the Coal Strike of 1910 and his immoral liaisons with failed actress and opera singer Susan Alexander contributed to eroding Kane’s popularity and name, and as such he lost in his bid for reelection against republican Nicholas Murray Butler, the great American philosopher, educator and diplomat.

Whatever gains the famed internationalist Butler might have made in the name of World Peace during the four years of his administration, were to be quickly undone by his successor, Robert W. Winthrop Jr., son of the slain former president Robert Winthrop. In many ways a continuator of Funny Valentine’s legacy, President Winthrop’s was one of the most ambitious, transformative presidencies in half a century, and in many ways laid the foundations for some of the most important and traumatic events in America’s 20th Century. Winthrop had ascended to the presidency at a time of great economic and political stability, and he used his inheritance to remake America in many ways: following the war against Germany and the acquisition of Samoa, he proceeded with the formal annexations of Hawaii and Cuba, expanded the scope and size of his administration, the creation many new Departments (Fine Arts, Forestry and Game, Veterans’ Affairs) and security forces (The National Mounted Police, the Gendarmerie), expelled the Jews and the Chinese from American Soil, the settlement of the new independent negro state of Suanee, the checking of immigration, the new laws concerning naturalization, the government subsidizing of the arts, the massive expansion of the armed forces, the reconstruction of Chicago after the Second Great Fire and the gradual centralization of power in the executive, all contributed to national calm and prosperity.

John Piermont Morgan II, elected on a platform of “keeping the ship steady” and continuing with Winthrop’s reforms, was, in many ways a step-down from the glories of the previous administration. Never quite the businessman his great father had been, “Jack” Morgan had nevertheless proven to be an amiable enough fellow as Winthrop’s Minister of General Affairs, and later Minister of the Treasury, and his cabinet of business associates, fellow moguls and retired generals –nicknamed “The Iron Heel” by the press following the bloody suppression of the 1923 Red Scare and the 1924 General Strike-, proved adept at keeping steady during the sometimes turbulent but largely prosperous “Roaring Twenties.”

The quiet, boring dignity of the Morgan Administration nevertheless came at an abrupt end on March of 1929, when the boisterous, eccentric, some may say “flamboyant”, figure entered the scene: Donald H. Curtis. A former aviator known for his escapades in the Adriatic in the early 1920s, he had taken Hollywood by storm and often made himself the center of attention, particularly after he stroke that odd, everlasting friendship with Howard Hughes and Douglas Fairbanks. Still, Curtis had always been a handsome, charismatic man, and such qualities had made him a dashing aviation hero and a dashing leading man. They did not, however, made him a suitable president, nor the type of leader who could take charge after the Black Wednesday and the collapse of the world economy. Attempts to parlay his once great popularity into leniency and understanding from the public fell on deaf ears, and Curtis was soundly defeated by New York Governor Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, after which he retired to the Mediterranean, with his lovely Italian wife.

Roosevelt’s New Deal, though ambitious and well-intentioned, could do little against the worst of the Great Depression and an impatient citizenry that demanded quick, drastic measures. Against the appeal of a man such as Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, they could do even less. The Corporatists, a movement which had steadily growing under the Curtis and Roosevelt Administrations, were in many ways the heirs and product of the Winthrop and Valentine eras: deeply isolationist and militarist, xenophobic, authoritarian. Under Windrip, both Congress and Supreme Court were stripped of many of their powers, as were the States of the Union, suppressed and supplanted by new administrative sectors organized along “Corporatist” lines. The arrest of dissidents, suspicious foreigners, civil rights agitators, journalists and suffragists also became widespread, as did the bayonetting of protesters and the incarceration of political opponents of the regime in concentration camps. Heavy-handed oppression and censorship nevertheless did little to hide the fact that Windrip was unable to curb unemployment, and the Recession of 1938 effectively spelled the end of his regime. Forced into exile by a palace coup, Windrip was replaced first by his Secretary of State, Lee Saranson, and eventually by his Secretary of War, General Dewey Haik, who effectively turned the Corporatist Regime into a de facto Military Dictatorship.

While it is said that the wanton brutality of the Haik regime often made citizens “long for the liberal days of President Windrip”, the effectiveness of his oppressive policies left much to be desired, and in fact directly contributed to the defection of large swathes of the United States Armed Forces to the National Salvation Committee of General Emmnuel Coon, who ultimately managed to crush the fanatical resistance of the Minute Men paramilitary and the regime’s loyalists at the Battle of Washington during the winter of 1942.

Emmanuel Coon’s National Salvation Union, which had drawn from the former Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the New Underground resistance, the Armed Forces and even some former Corporatists who had managed to switch sides just in time, presided over the period known as the “American Reconstruction:” political parties were reinstated, Congress and Supreme Court returned to their former functions, the 51 States of the Union restored to their former shape and authority. In truth, while history might often judge the Coon years in terms of what could have been and what should have been, -and perhaps he could have let more European and Jewish refugees in, and he could have been less lenient with the former Windrip men at the St. Louis Trials-, it cannot be denied that without his heroic part in restoring America’s institutions, and just as heroic renunciation of power as he refused to run for the highest office of the land in 1944, the first free elections in nearly a decade, the America we know today would have never been, nor would the election of the man who succeeded him, Chicago’s own Alphonse G. Capone, America’s first Italian-American President, and perhaps, her best.
 
Okay, so I've updated the list so it goes back to 1980.

1981-1985: Jerry Brown (Alliance for American Liberty)
1980 (with Ron Dellums) def. Alexander Haig (National Union - Conservative)
1985-1989: Jerry Brown (Liberal)
1984 (with Lee Iacocca) def. John B. Anderson (Conservative), Ron Dellums (Socialist)
1989-1993: Lee Iacocca (Liberal)
1988 (with Paul Laxalt) def. Pat Robertson (National Front - Conservative)
1993-1997: Ron Paul (Liberal)
1992 (with Bill Weld) def. Ross Perot (Conservative [Modernist]), Pat Buchanan (Conservative [National])
1997-2005: Bill Weld (Liberal)
1996 (with Steve Forbes) def. Dick Lugar (Conservative), Pat Buchanan (National Front)
2000 (with Steve Forbes) def. Lindsey Graham (Democracy 2000: The Conservatives)

2005-2013: Joe Lieberman (Liberal)
2004 (with Gary Johnson) def. Lindsey Graham (Democracy 2000: The Conservatives)
2008 (with Gary Johnson) def. Mitt Romney (Conservative)

2013-2021: Gary Johnson (Liberal)
2012 (with Mike Gravel) def. Mitt Romney (Conservative)
2016 (with Mike Gravel) def. Donald Trump (Conservative [National]), Evan McMullin (Conservative [Constitutional]), Bernie Sanders (Socialist)


Essentially the Alliance for American Liberty is a big tent of those who oppose the authoritarian government of America, and is especially big on campuses. Brown breaks with the socialists in the movement in 1984 and reforms the Alliance into the Liberal Party which as time goes on shifts toward the libertarian right, especially after Ron Paul's primary challenge and victory over Iacocca.

The Conservatives meanwhile go through a long midnight of the soul, struggling to cast off their shadow of their time in government and in particular the bloody last days of the Hot Summer of 79. The party remains in the grip of corporatists and Christian evangelists until Perot's Modernist Movement manages to seize control, but that in itself has problems as the party splits. Graham tries to continue Perot's reforms and form a big tent similar to the Alliance that was, but it never really works and Democracy 2000 is abandoned after 2004.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so I've updated the list so it goes back to 1980.

1981-1985: Jerry Brown (Alliance for American Liberty)
1980 (with Ron Dellums) def. Alexander Haig (National Union - Conservative)
1985-1989: Jerry Brown (Liberal)
1984 (with Lee Iacocca) def. John B. Anderson (Conservative), Ron Dellums (Socialist)
1989-1993: Lee Iacocca (Liberal)
1988 (with Paul Laxalt) def. Pat Robertson (National Front - Conservative)
1993-1997: Ron Paul (Liberal)
1992 (with Bill Weld) def. Ross Perot (Conservative [Modernist]), Pat Buchanan (Conservative [National])
1997-2005: Bill Weld (Liberal)
1996 (with Steve Forbes) def. Dick Lugar (Conservative), Pat Buchanan (National Front)
2000 (with Steve Forbes) def. Lindsey Graham (Democracy 2000: The Conservatives)

2005-2013: Joe Lieberman (Liberal)
2004 (with Gary Johnson) def. Lindsey Graham (Democracy 2000: The Conservatives)
2008 (with Gary Johnson) def. Mitt Romney (Conservative)

2013-2021: Gary Johnson (Liberal)
2012 (with Mike Gravel) def. Mitt Romney (Conservative)
2016 (with Mike Gravel) def. Donald Trump (Conservative [National]), Evan McMullin (Conservative [Constitutional]), Bernie Sanders (Socialist)
This is such filth I love it
 
I'm probably going to do a third edition where I struggle about for a POD.

As you did before in the other place, there is solid Socialist/Progressive hegemony from 1900 to like 1948 before you hit the Dixiecratocracy. Defo get how it must be difficult to construct an overarching narrative.

Pm me
 
Three's a Crowd: The Story of America's Three Party System
PoD: The Populists hang on as the Dems generally reject their policies

Part One: The Fall and Second Rise of the Democratic Party

25: William McKinley (Republican) 1897-1901*
1896: def. Joseph C. S. Blackburn (Democratic) and Sylvester Pennoyer (Populist)
1900: def. Thomas E. Watson (Populist) and Calvin S. Brice (Democratic)
"The One Man Left Standing"
As the Populists grew and Democrats shrank, the party left standing won the 1896 election handily, taking advantage of Eastern fear of Populists and the growing unpopularity of Grover Cleveland to win a clear victory. McKinley's presidency was roughly OTL

Winning a second term in a landslide, the notable thing about this was that as the Democrats seemed to commit further to the gold standard many Southern voters switched to Watson's campaign which was aimed specifically at breaking their appeal, in turn weakening the Southern grasp on the party and increasing party tension between Northerners who wished for a new leadership and panicking Southern conservatives

26: Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) 1901-1909
1904: def. Thomas E. Watson (Populist), William Randolph Hearst (Democratic) and Alton B. Parker (Independent Democrat)
"The Rough Rider in Rough Rivers"
In 1904, the Populists comfortably renominated their 1900 candidate, eager to do away with the Democrats and become clearly one of the big two, just like how the Republicans replaced the Whigs. No party has lasted much longer once it became unable to win an election, after all! However, there was one man who stood in the Populists' way, and he would be reckoned to eclipse Andrew Jackson in the founding of the Democratic Party. This was the greatest of the yellow journalists and the biggest ego in New York City, William Randolph Hearst. Hearst funded his campaign himself, leveraging his national reputation to unite Northern (and what was left of the Western) Democrats behind him after several balloting and led to both the Democrats walking away from the Bourbons for good and the Bourbons splitting off in anger, nominating Alton Parker

Clearly this was the dying spasms of an irrelevant party, the Populists thought to themselves. Roosevelt didn't even pay Hearst much mind, instead focusing his bombastic rhetoric on Watson and the Populists. Not for the last time, they would learn not to underestimate Hearst. Hearst knew that he wouldn't win any of the South, so he didn't even bother. What he did bother with, was using his newspaper empire to publish unflattering news about Watson and the Populists and about Roosevelt and the Republicans, while touting himself as the best choice Americans could make. And that made all the difference. As Roosevelt won Northern states, Hearst's results were surprisingly good, and once he was projected to win Illinois and New Jersey, states heavily influenced by Hearst's empire yet states the Democrats last won in 1892, the Populists saw that they miscalculated

Roosevelt's strongly progressive first term would continue in his second term, and it would have a long-lasting impact as Southern conservative Democrats, agitated by Roosevelt's radicalism yet aware that Hearst was cementing his control over the party, decided to join the Populists instead. One of those was a certain Oscar Wilder Underwood, who was once the Democratic House Whip

27: William Howard Taft (Republican) 1909-1913
1908: def. William Jennings Bryan (Populist) and William Randolph Hearst (Democratic)
"Bill Taft, Bill Bryan or Bill Hearst?"
The "Battle of the Bills" as 1908 was dubbed, was between Roosevelt's chosen "heir" William Howard Taft, the Democrat-turned-Populist "Boy Orator of the Platte" William Jennings Bryan and of course, Great Yellow Journalist William Randolph Hearst. While Taft chose a front-porch campaign like the days of the past, Bryan went on a storming campaign trail, meeting many voters and condemning Taft as "unwilling to pass the reforms the people of America needed" and Hearst as a "wealthy mudslinger who leads a vanity party". While Taft did not fire back, many of his surrogates gleefully did and labelled Bryan as a socialist, as a radical and as someone who would destroy the country. Hearst, already under fire from the Populists and Republicans [they were not repeating 1904], gladly fired back and the 1904 election was known as one of the major negative elections where newspapers breathlessly reported attacks on candidates by the other two

And despite all that, the election itself was anticlimatic. Despite Bryan's warnings of Taft "empowering business" and Hearst's newspaper assault, the people chose to re-elect the incumbent party and give Taft the White House

Taft overall had a very disappointing presidency right from the start, one that alienated progressives from the Republican Party overall

28: Oscar Underwood (Populist) 1913-1921
1912: def. William Randolph Hearst (Democratic), William Howard Taft (Republican) and Julius Wayland (Socialist)
1916: def. Charles Evans Hughes (Republican) and C. E. Russell (Democratic/Socialist)
"I Choose My Country"
The 1912 victor, and the first Populist to savour victory, was Oscar Wilder Underwood. Rallying many former Democrats and those heavily sceptical of radical fire-breather Eugene Debs of Indiana, he managed to win the nomination. Debs' announcement that he would not endorse Underwood got his campaign off to a bad start, but at least his party was overall united before him, unlike the Republicans...

Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft battled for the nomination and the balloting at the convention was heated as minor candidates gradually shifted to either Roosevelt or Taft. Then on the third day, Roosevelt was found dead in his hotel room, a smoking gun next to his body. "Who killed TR?" flew across the convention and many cast their eyes on the Taft delegates. Taft himself gave a speech lamenting the death of his predecessor and promising his full co-operation with the investigation, but many Roosevelt delegates overall was bitter with President Taft. However, enough of them cast their vote for Taft to hand him the nomination, leading some of the more die-hard Roosevelt delegates to condemn him. Receiving news of the convention from a paid off delegate, William Randolph Hearst grinned and sent off letters to every Hearst-backed politicians not already Democrats that the party would welcome any defections from the GOP or Populists and that he would focus on alloting his backing and money exclusively for Democrats, a clear signal to any Hearst-backed Republicans and Populists that the man was calling in his dues

And many would obey their paymaster, leaving their former party to join Hearst's lot. And much to his delight, many former progressive Republicans would defect to the Democrats after the deeply bitter 1912 convention left a nasty taste in their mouths. The Democratic Party was now once again a major party, albeit a patchwork lot built off an egoistic newspaper magnate's immense fortune and bitterness with the other parties. Hearst has done the impossible, resurrected a dying party by the twin forces of media and money. This would lead the party to have peculiar inclinations in the future regarding people from the media, like movie stars, filmmakers, musicians and the like

The 1912 election was one where Hearst was going all out, sure that it was his year. His party was the biggest it was for two decades, united behind him and his progressive message, and both the Populists and Republicans were torn apart! However, just like those who underestimated him in 1904, he underestimated Oscar Underwood in 1912. Underwood would, like many Populists after him, sell himself as a moderate - inbetween Hearst's "wild" progressivism and Taft's perceived conservatism, he claimed that he would assemble a cabinet "of many talents" and put workable policies above pure ideology. In contrast to past Populists who campaigned... well, as Populists, Underwood offered a very different attitude and proved the perfect candidate to oppose Hearst, putting the much unloved and hated Taft into third place where he wouldn't recover

However, the Populists did have party tensions that Underwood just couldn't put away. Gene Debs ended up endorsing the Socialist Party and their nominee Julius Wayland, passionately condemning Underwood for "betraying the party of James Weaver" [Weaver was dead by then, so he couldn't have said anything], which led to Wayland and the Socialists getting some Populist support from disgruntled Debs supporters

In the end, Oscar Underwood won and became the first President from the South since Andrew Johnson [and first from the Deep South since Zachary Taylor]. Underwood's first term was one which was called "progressive"-inclined, with reforms that he touted as "common sense" and "pragmatic" being passed with support from Democrats [Hearst was starting to lose control of a party that was getting quite big and his idea of shooting everything down was ignored, much to his frustration] and whatever progressive Republicans there were left

By 1916, Europe was in a war and Underwood walked a thin line. Conscious of the war's general unpopularity and people's wish to maintain peace even though they sympathised with the Allies, he maintained that he would keep America out of the war, while Hughes condemned Underwood for not making necessary preparations and Russell maintained that he would remain "truly" neutral, keenly aware of German-American support for the Socialist Party [which Hearst, after a SPA split, got to accept an alliance with the Democrats]. Underwood's managed to win a clear victory for the Populists, but ironically he would lead America into the First Great War in 1917. Hearst maintained that the war was a mistake and that America should not be a participant, up to threatening Democrats that he would withdraw his support if they backed the war. However, as much as Hearst essentially made the party, there were other income by 1917, especially the trade unions which were keenly aware that the Dems, as patchwork as they were, were the most consistent in support of unions and so their success would be conductive for trade union success

Underwood was widely seen as having "won the war, lost the peace" and so Secretary of State Woodrow Wilson's ambitious League of Nations was put on the backburner despite other countries expressing interest in it

29: Leonard Wood (Republican) 1921-1927*
1920: def. William Randolph Hearst (Democratic/Socialist) and William H. Murray (Populist)
1924: def. Fiorello La Guardia (Democratic) and William Gibbs McAdoo (Populist)
"Seeing Red"
The Democrats and Republicans were eager to take advantage of Underwood's rising unpopularity, and both entered their conventions hoping to make the Twenties their decade. The Republicans exited it with General Leonard Wood successfully rallying what few Progressive Republicans were left and uniting the party under the guy who won the war [according to Republicans...]. Meanwhile, the Democrats... Let just say that quite a few people were regretting accepting Hearst's invitation by the end of it, as he cajoled, threatened and thumped his way to receiving the nomination a fourth time, defeating some hopeful rivals who settled themselves with "He'll lose a fourth time and that'll be the end of it. Surely?". Hearst's Socialist allies were similarly treated in turn, as he pointed out the rivals - a general with a burning hatred for socialism and endorsement of some states' "Red Scares", and a bumbling Oklahoman hick who hated blacks [the Socialists were, at this time, getting some support from minorities] and implemented Jim Crow in his state. In the end, after yet another split [smaller than the 1916 one] they endorsed him and sealed their fate

Wood, Hearst and Murray had a heated election [as is always with the pugnalicious Hearst running] but in the end, the people wanted Wood and not Hearst or Murray. The Republicans returned to power in fine fashion while Hearst reportedly muttered "So be it" and announced his effective retirement from politics [which nobody believed]. Much to his annoyance, his Democrats still held on, thanks to the power of union financing and progressive-minded businesspeople, showing that they didn't really need Hearst after all

Wood's time would be remembered as one of prosperity, but also one of the Red Scare as the Socialist Party was targeted as well as the Independent Socialist Party [the anti-Hearst splitter]. In the end, the Socialists, pressured by the Red Scare jailing several of their top leaders and the pressure of the Democrats [especially one W. R. Hearst], folded and voted to merge fully into the Democrats by 1923 [leading to a third split]

By 1924, Wood was aiming at re-election and was confident in it. The Democrats were seen as untrustworthy socialists by many [turns out the merger kind of backfired in the short term] and the Populists still distrusted for "losing the peace". And win he did, by a margin higher than 1920. People wanted to let the good times roll on, and re-electing Wood was the answer for that. Mayor of New York City Fiorello La Guardia, an ex-Republican who defected to the Democrats due to being a Hearst ally back in 1912, was the nominee for the fully united Democratic Party [well, technically Democratic-Socialist-Farmer-Labor-Nonpartisan League Party, but who could remember all of that?] while the Populists nominated the son in law of the late but still unpopular Secretary of State during Underwood's presidency, which proved an unwise move

But in 1927, he suddenly died, handing power to his vice-president...

30: Herbert Hoover (Republican) 1927-1933
1928: def. Cordell Hull (Populist) and Seymour Stedman (Democratic)
"The Great Humanitarian Disaster"
Herbert Hoover, known as the "Great Humanitarian" for his work in leading food relief efforts in Europe. But his presidency would be mainly remembered for the Great Depression that struck in 1929, dooming any positive legacy he could have had. But let us focus on the start. Wood died in late 1927, just after the Mississippi Flood subsided. Hoover's presidency was mostly continuing on Wood's policies while implementing old-school Progressive ideas such as efficiency and budget balancing. It, along with his reputation, was enough to give him a strong victory

Notably in that strong victory, was the Populists eclipsing the Democrats. Finally recovering from the Underwood presidency's unpopular end, they took advantage of the Democrats nominating an ex-Socialist by the name of Seymour Stedman and hammered home just how radical Stedman was and how he would destroy everything American, such as the flag, apple pie and capitalism, sweet capitalism. Even though Stedman gained in the West due to the NPL influence working better for a man who grew up in Kansas on a farm than it did for New York City slickers, he lost elsewhere, and Hull managed to break the party out of the South by winning Indiana thanks to his running mate Governor D. C. Stephenson

Hoover was inaugurated for a second term to much pomp, and after that continued his first term's policies with little fuss. Then the floor dropped out from under the American economy. To go in the Great Depression would be to cover already well-trod ground, but sufficient to say, Hoover did not do well, and in 1930 the Republicans humiliatingly fell to third behind the Populists and Democrats in the House

But in 1932, Hoover somehow believed that he could win a third term, and the Republicans somehow let him, and well, the person who came next certainly did make his name much more impactful than Hoover's sad strange second term did for him

Coming Next
Part Two: The Political Merry-Go-Round
 
Last edited:
I finally came up with a POD.

1933-1941: Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic)
1932 (with John N. Garner) def. Herbert Hoover (Republican)
1936 (with John N. Garner) def. Alf Landon (Republican)

1941-1949: James Farley (Democratic)
1940 (with William B. Bankhead) def. Wendell Willkie (Republican)
1944 (with John L. Lewis) def. John W. Bricker (Republican)

1949-1953: John L. Lewis (Democratic)
1948 (with Claude Pepper) def. Robert A. Taft (Republican), Douglas MacArthur (Independent)
1953-1954: Douglas MacArthur (Republican)
1952 (with Earl Warren) def. John L. Lewis (Democratic [Labor]), Strom Thurmond (Democratic [Southern])
1954-1957: Earl Warren (Republican)
1957-1958: Joe McCarthy (Republican [Conservative])
1956 (with Happy Chandler) def. John S. Battle (Democratic [Southern]), John L. Lewis (Democratic [Labor]), Harold Stassen (Republican [Progressive])
1958-1965: Joe McCarthy (National Union - Conservative)
1960 (with Happy Chandler) def. Tony Boyle (Democratic), Harold Stassen (Progressive)
1965-1975: Ted Walker (National Union - Conservative)
1964 (with Sam Yorty) def. Walter Reuther (Democratic-Labor), Harold Stassen (Progressive)
1968 (with Sam Yorty) def. Harold Stassen (Progressive), Pat Brown (Democratic), Malik al-Shabazz (Socialist)
1972 (with George L. Rockwell) def. Harold Stassen (Alliance for American Liberty)

1975-1981: George L. Rockwell (National Union - Conservative)
1976 (with Alexander Haig) def. George McGovern (Alliance for American Liberty)
1981-1985: Jerry Brown (Alliance for American Liberty)
1980 (with Ron Dellums) def. Alexander Haig (National Union - Conservative)
1985-1989: Jerry Brown (Liberal)
1984 (with Lee Iacocca) def. John B. Anderson (Conservative), Ron Dellums (Socialist)
1989-1993: Lee Iacocca (Liberal)
1988 (with Paul Laxalt) def. Pat Robertson (National Front - Conservative)
1993-1997: Ron Paul (Liberal)
1992 (with Bill Weld) def. Ross Perot (Conservative [Modernist]), Pat Buchanan (Conservative [National])
1997-2005: Bill Weld (Liberal)
1996 (with Steve Forbes) def. Dick Lugar (Conservative), Pat Buchanan (National Front)
2000 (with Steve Forbes) def. Lindsey Graham (Democracy 2000: The Conservatives)

2005-2013: Joe Lieberman (Liberal)
2004 (with Gary Johnson) def. Lindsey Graham (Democracy 2000: The Conservatives)
2008 (with Gary Johnson) def. Mitt Romney (Conservative)

2013-2021: Gary Johnson (Liberal)
2012 (with Mike Gravel) def. Mitt Romney (Conservative)
2016 (with Mike Gravel) def. Donald Trump (Conservative [National]), Evan McMullin (Conservative [Constitutional]), Bernie Sanders (Socialist)


Essentially the idea is that Hitler backs down over Munich, Oster and his lads establish a military dictatorship, and Germany ultimately goes to war with the Soviet Union with support from the old Entente. This war ends in a bloody stalemate, what with the anti-Bolshevists proving poor allies with one another.

The US remains neutral in this war, and they are after all distracted by their own war in Japan. However they soon plunge back to isolationism, and the Communists achieve victory in China. Paranoia over the rise of Communism sees MacArthur launch an independent candidacy against the varying kinds of isolationism that the Democrats and Republicans represented.

This gives him the base to take the Republican candidacy in 1952, helped along by the split in the Democrats. However, he is assassinated not long into his term, and Warren's 'liberal' government leads to a reaction amongst the grassroots. The 1956 election is epically hung, and an alliance of McCarthy and segregationist Democrats ultimately merges into the Conservative 'National Union'. The left to liberal opposition struggles to form a coherent alliance against the Conservatives, ultimately coalescing into the broad Alliance in 1972.
 
Last edited:
1933-1945: Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic)
1932 (with John N. Garner) def. Herbert Hoover (Republican)
1936 (with John N. Garner) def. Alf Landon (Republican)
1940 (with John L. Lewis) def. Wendell Willkie (Republican)
1944 (with John L. Lewis) def. Thomas Dewey (Republican)

1945-1961: John L. Lewis (Democratic)
1948 (with Oscar R. Ewing) def. Thomas Dewey (Republican), Strom Thurmond ('Opposition' Democratic)
1952 (with Oscar R. Ewing) def. Dwight D. Eisenhower (Independent, endorsed by Republicans and Democratic Opposition)
1956 (with Lyndon B. Johnson) def. Joel Broyhill (National Opposition)

1961-1965: Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)
1960 (with Jimmy Hoffa) def. George H. Bender (National)

I did this mostly for a laugh.

The conceit is that Roosevelt agrees to Lewis' proposal to put him on the ticket in 1940. Roosevelt dies on cue and Lewis pulls off a narrow victory in 1948, as he bring his authoritarian autocratic style to the White House. While the Constitution does get amended to limit Presidents to two terms, it don't effect Lewis and Lewis don't give a shit, bringing down the great clunking fist of Labor down upon the Democratic right and the Republicans alike. In 1952, he pulls off another narrow victory as his machine beds in to the industrial cities and a more successful campaign of unionising the South goes ahead, as well as the fact that Eisenhower's broad ticket argues with itself as much as it does with Lewis. Ultimately, the National Opposition is fatally undermined by Lewis' acolytes, ensuring that the only party standing between the Democrats and dominant party status is riddled with corruption and reliant upon the favour of the all-powerful labor unions.
 
A rather silly and yet kind of hopeful list

"Well Now what?"
"Pub?"


2017-2018: Theresa May (Conservative Minority)
2018-2019: Jeremy Corbyn (Labour Minority with Lib Dem and SNP S&C)

Def 2018: Theresa May (Conservative) Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) Vince Cable (Liberal Democrat) Adam Price (Plaid Cymru) Arlene Foster (DUP) Jon Bartley/Sian Berry (GPEW) Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein)
2019-2019: Emily Thornberry (Labour Minority with Lib Dem and SNP S&C)
2019-20__: Emily Thornberry (Labour Majority)

Def 2019: Michael Gove (Conservative) Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat) Adam Price (Plaid Cymru) Arlene Foster (DUP) Jon Bartley/Sian Berry (GPEW) Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein) Carl Benjamin (UKIP)

A Vote of no confidence over Theresa May's inability to get a good deal over leaving the EU lead to Labour coming out on top if falling short of a majority. Labour's primary goal was a referendum over the final deal. This lead to a 51%-49% victory for remaining in the EU with the other side being a no-deal Brexit. Thus ended the nearly three years of uncertainty with a return to the status quo and the country left

Following the referendum Corbyn stood down and his successor would call an election. Despite a resurgent UKIP Labour would secure a small majority. Leaving the country wondering what the last three years achieved.

(yay? nay? 3 way referendum?)
 
Last edited:
With A Whimper: The Creeping Second Glorious Revolution

1828-1832: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (Tory)
1830 (Minority) def. Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 3rd Marquess of Lansdowne (Whig), Sir Edward Knatchbull ('Ultra' Tory)
1832-1834: Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey (Whig)
1832 (Majority) def. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (Tory), Daniel O'Connell (Irish Repeal)
1834-1834: William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne (Whig majority)
1834-1838: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (Tory)
1834 (Minority, with de facto Whig support) def. William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne (Whig), Daniel O'Connell (Irish Repeal), Robert Owen (Consolidated Industrial Association)
1838-1841: John Russell ('Reform' Whig)
1838 (Minority, with Irish Repeal and WPA support) def. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (Tory), William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne (Whig), Daniel O'Connell (Irish Repeal), William Lovett (Workingmen's Political Association)
1841-1843: Anthony Ashley-Cooper (Tory)
1841 (Tory-Whig Alliance majority) def. John Russell (Reform), William Lovett (Workingmen's Political Association), Daniel O'Connell (Irish Repeal)
1843-1845: Anthony Ashley-Cooper (Constitution majority)
1845-1846: Robert Peel ('Reform' Tory)
1845 (Reform minority) def. Anthony Ashley-Cooper (Constitution), William Lovett (Workingmen's), Daniel O'Connell (Irish Repeal)
1846-1847: Anthony Ashley-Cooper (Constitution)
1846 (Minority) def. Robert Peel (Reform), William Lovett (Workingmen's), Daniel O'Connell (Irish Repeal), Thomas Francis Meagher (Irish Confederation)
1847-1848: Robert Peel (Reform)
1847 (Minority, with Oconnellite support) def. Anthony Ashley-Cooper (Constitution), Feargus O'Connor (Workingmen's-'Radical' Repeal), Thomas Francis Meagher (Irish Confederation), John O'Connell ('Oconnellite' Repeal)
1848-1848: William Gladstones (Constitution-Reform Emergency Government)
1848-1851: Richard Oastler (Independent leading Peoples' Government)
1851-1857: Isaac Ironside (Workers' Democracy)
1851 (Majority) def. Thomas Slingsby Duncombe (Independent / New Reform)
1854 (Majority) def. Walter Freer (Independent Workers' Democracy)


A little something on a similar theme to something @Japhy did a few months ago - have a socialist revolution occur but not totally topple the institutions of the existing state.

In this world, Wellington's government survives 1830 and as a result when it does fall apart in 1832, Earl Grey comes to power a more conservative man. Even this world's less radical Great Reform Act is watered down as his government struggles with issues in Ireland. With Irish Repeal gaining momentum and the arrival of Chartist/Socialist MPs onto the parliamentary scene, it becomes difficult to command a majority and the old Tory and Whig parties ultimately collapse, making way for the liberal Reform Party and the conservative Constitution Party. John Russell's Reform Government manages to pass a more generous Reform Act and other progressive legislation but its hard free market stance leads to terrible management of an earlier Potato Famine, and he lose the support of Irish MPs who themselves are becoming divided amongst themselves as dissatisfaction grows with collaboration with the aristocratic-bourgeois parties.

The Constitution Government manages to pass some pro-labour policies, but its all a veneer to diffuse tension. It works for a while, but the failures of the Corn Laws bring down this government and the final solidification of the two parties occurs as Peel defects to help Reform pass free trade laws. The alignment of the Chartists and elements of the Irish Repeal movements takes place after Daniel O'Connell's death, and while Reform is the largest party, no party of the opposition aside from the rump Oconnellites are willing to work with them.

Strikes spread across the country, and special constables are drawn up. Blood is spilt on the streets and the Reform minority government is wholly incapable of restraining it. An Emergency Government is formed with the Constitution Party led by the reactionary ex-High Tory William Gladstones. His brutally repressive government ultimately crumbles however as general disgust with the measures taken by his government leads to his majority dissolving and the King choosing to dismiss him in favour of a 'Peoples' Government' to treat with the workers.

Oastler's Peoples Government reconstructs Parliament and reshapes the British constitutional monarchy. MPs require the nomination of a trade union or friendly society to stand for election and universal manhood suffrage is implemented (women's suffrage would be implemented under the Ironside ministry). The United Kingdom is decentralised, giving much greater powers to municipalities and shires, and the 1801 Act of Union is repealed, albeit binding Ireland and Great Britain in a 'Dual Monarchy' that would become the model for granting responsible government to the colonies overseas.
 
Back
Top