Lists of Heads of Government and Heads of State

[Catalunya]

She is against a progressive primary challenge by Pervez Agwan against Lizzie Fletcher (who is notoriously pro-oil and moderate) on the grounds of abortion, when... Agwan is hugely pro-choice, and even says so on his campaign website. (Also Fletcher is a AIPAC endorsee).

Liberals try not to have tunnel vision challenge [IMPOSSIBLE]

 

[Blackentheborg]

She is against a progressive primary challenge by Pervez Agwan against Lizzie Fletcher (who is notoriously pro-oil and moderate) on the grounds of abortion, when... Agwan is hugely pro-choice, and even says so on his campaign website. (Also Fletcher is a AIPAC endorsee).

She's like very supportive of the Democratic establishment (and honestly a lot of her support for Fletcher was probably her trying to gain support, she's a wannabe careerist).

Exactly. She's a careerist who'll ask how high when the DNC tells her to jump. It reads as disingenuous.

 

[Comrade Izaac]

Exactly. She's a careerist who'll ask how high when the DNC tells her to jump. It reads as disingenuous.

View attachment 72574

i love how she couldn't even resist going on Twitter and loudly, clearly broadcasting her obvious ambition to become a career politician to the entire world. didn't even remotely try to do a bit like, "i have been moved to public service by X and Y events", just straight up announced "yeah ive been planning to run for a political office for years now and im going to make all the moves nessecary to achieve this goal regardless of if it would actually benefit my community or not".

 

[theflyingmgoose]

Exactly. She's a careerist who'll ask how high when the DNC tells her to jump. It reads as disingenuous.

1) Not every Democrat or young Democrat is very left wing, particularly in the south. This reads as ideological puritanism against people you disagree with. We can't staff the Texas legislature with Bernie Bros, no matter how much we want to. This isn't just
2) Olivia Julianna has done some legitimately great work.

 

[Comrade Izaac]

This reads as ideological puritanism against people you disagree with

yes that's called having a political project

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

Lads, this seems like a very fun argument to have about whoever this person is, but I think this is the wrong thread for it. Maybe take this to a test thread, or the main US politics thread?

 

[Luke_Starkiller]

Exactly. She's a careerist who'll ask how high when the DNC tells her to jump. It reads as disingenuous.

View attachment 72574

Oh for god's sake, I don't like Olivia either, but Fletcher's a suburban representative for Houston. Of course she's gonna be somewhat in favor of the main industry of her district. Being a party-line Democrat already puts her to the left of 80% of the last 40 years worth of TX congressional delegations.

As for Olivia herself, I don't think I'd like seeing Rep. Boombalatty on CNN (doesn't seem like someone I'd get along with on a personal level), but there's one place in this country where someone with a nice smile, firm handshake, and little-to-no personal wealth (though it definitely helps!) can move millions of dollars towards healthcare, water treatment plants, whatever public improvement for hundreds of thousands of their fellow Americans, and that's Congress. If you're one of those people who aspires to do the most good for the most people as quickly as possible, running for office is a legitimately noble and effective way to do that. What would you rather do, wait for some mythical figure who's been toiling away at nonprofits in the district every second of their life to descend from the clouds and run the perfect campaign? Sometimes you have to do this shit yourself. Besides, she's been organizing in her community for years.

 

[Luke_Starkiller]

The problem with people like Olivia Julianna is that they're naked, tactless, and not even remotely self-deprecating/aware of how their ambition looks, NOT that they support establishment candidates.

 

[Catalunya]

The problem with people like Olivia Julianna is that they're naked, tactless, and not even remotely self-deprecating/aware of how their ambition looks, NOT that they support establishment candidates.

Both can be problems though. Nobody forces her to support the pro-oil lobby candidate. She just does it to further her own interests.

 

[Luke_Starkiller]

Both can be problems though. Nobody forces her to support the pro-oil lobby candidate. She just does it to further her own interests.

I don’t see what’s bad about supoorting a liberal Democrat when the previous holder of that seat was some Tea Party nutsack.

 

[AnActualFam]

Everyone, we have a politics thread for a reason, right?

 

[Luke_Starkiller]

Y’all would’ve gotten real Clean for Gene I can tell that much

 

[Comrade Izaac]

I don’t see what’s bad about supoorting a liberal Democrat when the previous holder of that seat was some Tea Party nutsack.

the baseline for "liberal Democrat" in a time period where climate change is becoming an existential threat to the lives and livelihoods of literally billions of people, including all of a Representative's constituents, should at the very least include an opposition to the mass moneyed power of the literal Fossil Fuel Industry. i don't care if it's Suburban Houston, Rural Colorado, or Urban New York, if you are an ardent supporter of the Natural Gas Industry and takes hundreds of thousands in campaign funding from said industry, you absolutely deserve a primary challenge.

and if you, as a local "activist" (although again, noone has been able to show me anything that Julianna has actually *done* through her "organizing") support that incumbent in what is clearly a way to gain influence, you shouldn't be surprised when people dont support that campaign.

Y’all would’ve gotten real Clean for Gene I can tell that much

Luke, you are literally employed by a Republican United States Senator through your own self admittance man, with all due respect you are not the person who should be passing judgement on this subject and certainly not this condescendingly.

any further responses here we can do on the U.S Politics Thread.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

The Whig Supremacy

1916-1922: David Lloyd‐George (Lloyd-Georgeite Whig)
1922-1923: Bonar Law (Unionist Whig)
1923-1924: Stanley Baldwin (Unionist Whig)
1924: Ramsay MacDonald (Labour Whig)
1924-1929: Stanley Baldwin (Unionist Whig)
1929-1931: Ramsay MacDonald (Labour Whig)
1931-1935: Ramsay MacDonald (National Whig)
1935-1937: Stanley Baldwin (National Whig)
1937-1940: Neville Chamberlain ('Know-Nothing' Whig)
1940-1945: Winston Churchill (Patriot Whig)
1945-1951: Clement Attlee (Labour Whig)
1951-1955: Winston Churchill (Unionist Whig)
1955-1957: Anthony Eden (Unionist Whig)
1957-1963: Harold Macmillan (Democratic Whig)
1963-1964: Alec Douglas-Home (Unionist Whig)
1964-1970: Harold Wilson (Bevanite Whig)
1974-1974: Edward Heath (Selsdonite Whig)
1974-1976: Harold Wilson (Bevanite Whig)
1976-1979: James Callaghan ('Cap' Whig)
1979-1990: Margaret Thatcher (Thatcherite Whig)
1990-1997: John Major ('Minority' Whig)
1996-2007: Tony Blair (New Whig)
2007-2010: Gordon Brown (Brownite Whig)
2010-2016: David Cameron ('Big' Whig)
2016-2019: Theresa May (Red White and Blue Whig)
2019-2022: Boris Johnson ('Obvious' Whig)
2022: Liz Truss (True Whig)
2022-: Rishi Sunak (Chatham House Whig)

 

[Luke_Starkiller]

"The Work Goes On: A Medicore Ted Kennedy Presidency"

The POD is Ford winning in 1976. Despite Chappaquiddick, Teddy sleepwalks to the nomination and beats Reagan by a decisive but narrower than expected margin.

Of course, this means that the great liberal hope, the Lion of Camelot is taking office during one of the darkest periods of his life, when his marriage was in shreds, he was red-faced, bloated, and drunk, and he's building a steady rap sheet of sexual harassment.

They say that the best indicator of a president's time in office is how they run their campaign; if Teddy runs his ship half as poorly as he did in OTL's 1980 (and let's be frank, he'd be operating under the presumption of "I'm Teddy and They're Not Gonna Not Vote for Me") then that White House will be disorganized. This will be exacerbated by the fact that the president is self-medicating his marital problems, which will have been welded back together for convenience in a very public show of "reconciliation".

In his first days in office, he probably muscles through some healthcare plan and economic relief bill (eww price controls ewwwwww) on the back of his large majorities and pushes for detente. But what then?

In the best case scenario, the frustrated and boozed-up president will end up delegating governance to Congress. O'Neill's closer to the middle than Kennedy is, so your great liberal hope's work product is far more muted.

In the worst case scenario, post-midterm Republican majorities are foaming at the mouth while Teddy stays barricaded in the throne room, angrily calling for liberalism from the bully pulpit to no effect.

In any case, price controls won't solve the economic crisis, and even if the economy's technically recovered by 1983, the pain won't go away by 1984. You remember being a kid in the pool, forcing a ball underwater, and then it naturally shoots back up and decks you in the nose? Well, the resulting inflationary surge will leave America with a nosebleed.

And anyways, he still killed that lady.
____________________________________________________________

1974-1977: Gerald Ford / Nelson Rockefeller (Republican)
1977-1981: Gerald Ford / Bob Dole (Republican)
def. 1976: Jimmy Carter / Walter Mondale (Democratic)
1981-1985: Ted Kennedy / Reubin Askew (Democratic)
def. 1980: Ronald Reagan / Richard Lugar (Republican); John B. Anderson / Patrick Lucey (Independent)
1985-1993: Bob Dole / Dick Thornburgh (Republican)
def. 1984: Ted Kennedy / Reubin Askew (Democratic)
def. 1988: John Glenn / Martha Layne Collins (Democratic)

 

[Ares96]

I like that, it feels like a much more nuanced take on no Reagan than the usual “and then America did social democracy” thing. I will say I probably would’ve invoked the Curse of Tippecanoe in some form in a list like this, but I can see how that would conflict with your goals in this particular case.

 

[Time Enough]

This was originally meant to be a British list of @Nanwe 4.1 Republic idea (which is great), but it kind of mutated into something else.

After The Lights Go Out:

1945 - 1953: Clement Attlee (Labour)
1945 (Majority) def. Winston Churchill (Conservative), Archibald Sinclair (Liberal), Ernest Brown (Liberal National)
1950 (Majority) def. Winston Churchill (Conservative), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1953 - 1959: Anthony Eden (Conservative)
1953 (Majority) def. Clement Attlee (Labour), Clement Davies (Liberal)
1957 (Majority) def. Hugh Gaitskell (Labour), Donald Wade (Liberal)
1959 - 1961: David Eccles (Conservative Majority)
1961 - 1962: Hugh Gaitskell (Labour)
1961 (Majority) def. David Eccles (Conservative), Donald Wade (Liberal)
1962 - 1966: Alfred Robens (Labour Majority)
1966 - : Peter Thorneycroft (Conservative)
1966 (Majority) def. Alfred Robens (Labour), Frank Byers (Liberal)

You are a speck. A minuscule element of the great machine of the decaying remains of the British Empire.

Oh you think your life is fine, Gaitskell and Robens in their brief tenure have ensured that much. Whilst certainly Eccles and Thorneycroft are part of a generation who want to bend the mechanics of the welfare state away from the grand clutches of Nationalised Industries and Labour, that focused paternalistic thinking is still there.

You listen to the Walker Brothers, go and work in the Steel Industry or something and buy the latest consumer product of choice.

But we can’t have that now can we.

Look at Japan, look at Korea, look at France, look at Italy, look at Czechoslovakia, beyond them as well. The people there are breaking off the shackles of those wannabes dictators, those wannabe elites, those figures of cold calculating power and those diseased minds of authoritarian bastards who think that they can rule unchecked and unchallenged.

Now of course, you say, Britain is not like that.

I am allowed to vote, my voice is heard, my words can carry weight.

But you know this is false.

You’ve seen the footage from Aden, from Borneo, from Malaysia, from Cyprus and closer to home from Northern Ireland, despite what Ivan Neill, Aled Douglas Home and Reggie Maudling say. You’re a smart person, we’ve just spread out our shackles, our jackboot, our Fascist instincts have been shipped abroad it seems.

But now it’s coming back home, you’ve heard of blacklists, you’ve heard of people being investigated for being political undesirable. You’re not foolish.

So what are you going to do?

I’ll let you answer that question yourself, but I’m sure you’ll have the right answer…

 

[MAC161]

Random musing, prompted by idly paging thru books from both series:

Has anyone thought about and/or put together a list of the likely HofS figures for the period between Turtledove's Worldwar and Colonization series (1944-1963)?

Some seemed obvioius (Molotov alone following Stalin, Himmler likewise being Hitler's sole heir), but I've wondered about the U.K. (how long would Churchill last beyond 1944, with Britain stripped of its colonies far earlier, and all the upheaval that implies?), and of course the U.S. (best I could guess would be Hull and the 1942 Congress governing under some "state of emergency" setup for a full term, with all Congressional elections restarted in '46, and the "emergency" period ending by the '48 elections, with Hull choosing not to run).

Thoughts?

 

[Yossarian]

Random musing, prompted by idly paging thru books from both series:

Has anyone thought about and/or put together a list of the likely HofS figures for the period between Turtledove's Worldwar and Colonization series (1944-1963)?

Some seemed obvioius (Molotov alone following Stalin, Himmler likewise being Hitler's sole heir), but I've wondered about the U.K. (how long would Churchill last beyond 1944, with Britain stripped of its colonies far earlier, and all the upheaval that implies?), and of course the U.S. (best I could guess would be Hull and the 1942 Congress governing under some "state of emergency" setup for a full term, with all Congressional elections restarted in '46, and the "emergency" period ending by the '48 elections, with Hull choosing not to run).

Thoughts?

I had a go at this once, at least for the US. Went with the “barely-contested election to restore a sense of normalcy after the Peace of Cairo” approach, which would follow precedent from 1864 while also being a boosterish way of insisting America hadn’t let the invasion beat it out of shape.

1933 - 1944: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democratic)†
1932 (with John Nance Garner) def. Herbert Hoover (Republican)
1936 (with John Nance Garner) def. Alf Landon (Republican)
1940 (with Henry Wallace) def. Wendell Willkie (Republican)
1944: Cordell Hull (Democratic)
1944 - 1949: Cordell Hull (National Union - Democratic)
1944 (with Thomas Dewey (National Union - Republican)) def. effectively unopposed
1949 - 1957: Omar Bradley (Republican)
1948 (with Dwight H. Green) def. W. Averell Harriman (Democratic), Richard B. Russell (Southern Democratic), Rexford Tugwell (Progressive Democratic)
1952 (with Dwight H. Green) def. Adlai Stevenson (Democratic)
1957 - 1961: Thomas C. Hennings (Democratic)
1956 (with Hubert Humphrey) def. Henry Cabot Lodge (Republican)
1961 - 1965: Earl Warren (Republican)†
1960 (with Harold Stassen) def. Estes Kefauver (Democratic), Harry Byrd ("Constitutional Principles" Democratic)
1964 (with Harold Stassen) def. Hubert Humphrey (Democratic), Strom Thurmond (Principles)
1965 - 1969: Harold Stassen (Republican)
1969 - 1973: Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (Democratic)
1968 (with George Wallace) def. Nelson Rockefeller (Republican), John Stennis (Principles), Elliott Roosevelt (People's), David Dellinger (Peace)

Britain is a bit of a puzzler. Turtledove makes a lot of hay out of Britain losing the Empire and lurching hard towards Germany, with Mosley a sitting MP by 1963. Beyond that, no detail given beyond what would come to be the author's trademark of "the Brits are only ever one defeat away from lapsing into fascism".

 

[MAC161]

I had a go at this once, at least for the US. Went with the “barely-contested election to restore a sense of normalcy after the Peace of Cairo” approach, which would follow precedent from 1864 while also being a boosterish way of insisting America hadn’t let the invasion beat it out of shape.


Britain is a bit of a puzzler. Turtledove makes a lot of hay out of Britain losing the Empire and lurching hard towards Germany, with Mosley a sitting MP by 1963. Beyond that, no detail given beyond what would come to be the author's trademark of "the Brits are only ever one defeat away from lapsing into fascism".

Interesting; how did you end up pairing Joe Kennedy Jr. with George Wallace? The former's comments on Hitler pre-WWII make this less of a stretch than I thought at first, but I'm still curious as to the plausibility.

As for Britain, the only mention I recall, apart from Mosley, is Anthony Eden being PM at the time of Aftershocks. I know some of the other big names in the period covered (Attlee, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson) as well as Aneurin Bevan, Ernest Bevin and maybe even Tony Benn as possible AH options, but I have no idea how or if they'd appear.