The Fifteenth HoS Challenge

[Bene Tleilax]

Nuit De Folie

1947-54: Vincent Auriol (SFIO)
1947: Auguste Champetier de Ribes (MRP), Jules Gasser (RAD), Michel Clemenceau (PRL)
1954-58: Rene Coty (CNIP)
1954: various candidates

1958: Jacques Massu (Military Government)
1958-59: Free Officers collective leadership (Military Government)

1959-69: Charles Pasqua (PC)
1959: Georges Marrane (PCF)
1966: Francois Mitterand (TF)
1969-76: Jacques Chaban-Delmas (DR)
1969: Gaston Deffere (C)
1976-88: Gaston Deffere (C)
1976: Jacques Chaban-Delmas (DR)
1983: Georges Marchais (PEF)
1988: Francois Mitterand (C) vs Jacques Chirac (RPR)

"I May Move to Paris if Both Jack's are Elected" by Pierre Salinger in Time magazine, May 1988

It is perhaps fate that both of the countries I call home should not just hold their presidential elections this year but do so at a crossroads in my life. I have been dissatisfied with the state of affairs in America, a nation failing its promise of peace and justice under President Anderson. My career has seemed to mirror it after a brief moment in the sun in the doomed campaign of John F. Kennedy. Getting assigned to cover the French election, one which coincides with the 30th anniversary of the Fifth Republic, proved a breath of fresh air...


Liberated from the forces of Fascism and steered to self-determination by the dual effort of De Gaulle and Giraud, a parliamentary republic was established as the latter died in 1949 and the former has since retired into anonymity. However the contradictions of this new world had yet to be resolved and the struggle for self-determination in France's colony of Algeria epitomised it. The indigenous Arab population had been suppressed for over a century by its overseas neighbour and its colonial-born Pied-Noir people with the military serving as the main instrument of their violence. It all came to a head in 1958 when it looked like the government might let the Algerians decide their own future, the military stubbornly refused and a group of officers decided to initiate a coup, a state of affairs not uncommon in French history. Corsica was captured in May with almost no effort and before long paratroopers were once again raining from the Parisian skies. They didn't have an easy time obviously as the people would resist but the final nail would come when a group of left sympathetic Free Officers (named for the Egyptian regime whose sovereignty violated on the Suez Canal) initiated a counter-coup and returned democracy to France.

Now 30 years, since the Day's of Folly, one of those Free Officers is running for the office of president. Jacques Chirac, also known as The Bulldozer, has called forth the old guard from his home constituency of Correzze with his new party, Rally for the Republic...Going off to fight in Algeria he was eventually made an officer despite his Communist sympathies. It placed him in a natural position to be a member of the counter-coup. He soon became a protégé of the new President Charles Pasqua as he organised the elements of this new resistance in the alliance known as the Common Programme. He would serve him loyally until 1969 hit the country like a bomb as his liaisons in the criminal underworld were exposed as his link between the army and parliament, even serving as his secret police. Chirac declined to serve in the government of former Prime Minister Chaban-Delmas and retired from politics. He still remained a critic of the political establishment and now, after the Eurocommunists has withdrawn support for the Democratic-Republicans, the official party mechanism of the Common Programme, he re-entered with his new party and, having re-obtained the support of the PEF, he seeks to revitalise the Republic.

But to every ying must come a yang. The candidate of the Centre party running to succeed the outgoing President Deffere; Francois Mitterrand. Just like Chirac, Mitterrand can trace his career back to the beginnings of the republic, even before. A former member of the ultraconservative Croix de Feu, he may never have joined its successor the French Social Party he still wrote for affiliated publications and served as a Nazi collaborator in the Vichy regime before joining the Resistance. This may well have stunted his career if not Henri Giraud, leader of the French Forces in Africa becoming co-President of the French Committee of National Liberation leading to a rehabilitation of the Vichy collaborator's. Mitterrand eventually joined CNIP, the more moderate successor of the French Social Party. After the Day's of Folly that party eventually joined the opposing coalition Third Force, a continuation of the alliance of the centrists and conservative parties from before the war. Mitterrand would eventually be selected as the token opponent for the Common Programme in 1965. Subsequently he stayed in parliament eventually becoming Prime Minister multiple times basically guaranteeing his coronation as the candidate of the centre-right...

 

[Excelsior]

The Tenth Man

1913-1921: Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)

1912: Theodore Roosevelt/Hiram Johnson (Republican) def. Champ Clark/John Burke (Democratic), William Jennings Bryan/various (faithless electors), Eugene V. Debs/Emil Seidel (Socialist)​

1916: Theodore Roosevelt/Miles Poindexter (Republican) def. William Jennings Bryan/A. Mitchell Palmer (Democratic), Allan Benson/Kate Richards O'Hare (Socialist)​

1921-1927: Herbert Hoover (Democratic)

1920: Herbert Hoover/Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic) def. Leonard Wood/John M. Parker (Republican), Eugene V. Debs/James Maurer (Socialist)​

1924: Herbert Hoover/Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic) def. Robert La Follette/Burton K. Wheeler (Republican)​

1927-1929: Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democratic)
1929-1933: Frank O. Lowden (Republican)

1928: Frank O. Lowden/William E. Borah (Republican) def. Franklin D. Roosevelt/Joseph T. Robinson (Democratic), Norman Thomas/James Maurer (Socialist)​

1933-1937: Upton Sinclair (Socialist)

1932: Upton Sinclair/Fiorello La Guardia (Socialist) def. Bennett Champ Clark/Newton D. Baker (Democratic), Frank O. Lowden/William E. Borah (Republican)​

1937-1945: Burton K. Wheeler (Democratic)

1936: Burton K. Wheeler/George Dern (Democratic) def. Robert La Follette Jr./George Norris (Republican), Upton Sinclair/Fiorello La Guardia (Socialist)​

1940: Burton K. Wheeler/Wendell Willkie (Democratic) def. Robert La Follette Jr./Harold L. Ickes (Republican), Smedley Butler/Daniel Hoan (Socialist)​

1945-1953: Henry A. Wallace (Republican)

1944: Henry A. Wallace/A. Philip Randolph (Republican) def. James F. Byrnes/Happy Chandler (Democratic)​

1948: Henry A. Wallace/A. Philip Randolph (Republican) def. Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr./George S. Patton (Democratic)​

1953-1961: Lyndon B. Johnson (Democratic)

1952: Lyndon B. Johnson/Richard Nixon (Democratic) def. A. Philip Randolph/Quentin Roosevelt (Republican)​

1956: Lyndon B. Johnson/Richard Nixon (Democratic) def. George Romney/Hubert H. Humphrey (Republican)​

1961-????: Paul Douglas (Republican)

1960: Paul Douglas/Walter Reuther (Republican) def. Richard Nixon/Brien McMahon (Democratic)​

Jeopardy! broadcast, 2020 JENNY: I'll take "HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY" for 1200. TREBEK: This man stepped down as Commander in Chief of the U.S. European Force in a failed attempt to replace his boss. JENNY: Who is...Funston? TREBEK: No, that's not it. RYAN: Who is Hoover? TREBEK: No... TREBEK: Tyler? Tyler thought about it. [buzzer] His boss was the president, Theodore Roosevelt? And that man was General Leonard Wood. Jenny, go again. JENNY: "HUNDREDTH," 800. TREBEK: 2020 marks the 100th anniversary of baseball's National League adopting this rule, and also 100 years of the American League doing without it. TYLER: What is the "tenth man?" TREBEK: Correct.

The history of baseball has closely followed the history of American wars. It was the Civil War that helped the game explode in popularity and introduced it to men from all parts of the country. Similarly, baseball underwent major transformation due to the Great War, or the Last War, or the European Expedition, or whatever you might call that foolishness that took over the 1910s. Baseball, professional baseball to be exact, was heavily endangered by the war. A lot of American boys went over to Europe in Theodore Roosevelt's War. A lot of American boys didn't come back. In early 1920, as the war entered its final days and Americans troops began withdrawing from the frontlines, veterans returned home and sought work. Some went back to their old jobs, some found new jobs, some found no jobs. And some went to play baseball. During the war, many baseball players had been conscripted and the major leagues were terribly shorthanded and on the brink of collapse. Although local businesses would often hire baseball players to "critical" jobs to keep them stateside, there were still too many players gone. Seasons were shortened and games were mediocre in quality. As players and former prospects came home, the league owners excitedly expanded the schedules and restocked their rosters. However, they still had a problem that had begun before the war: games had become low scoring affairs and the owners were worried about fans losing interest as a result. Although games had good attendance as one of the few wartime entertainment options consistently available, it wasn't guaranteed that fans would come to see all the games that had been added to the schedule. This fear was compounded by a worsening economy. Many ideas were batted around to increase offensive opportunities. Most were shot down by baseball's fuddy-duddy ownership clique, which had resisted all forms of change for decades.

However, even the stodgiest traditionalists could be loosened up by the lightening of their wallets. So it was that when National League secretary John Heydler proposed his "tenth man" idea, it wasn't rejected immediately. Even before the current era, baseball's offenses had been plagued by pitchers batting. Pitchers were chosen for their pitching ability, not their hitting ability, and in baseball's nine man lineup, pitchers were almost always the weakest and last of the hitters. Heydler's proposal was simple: instead of mandating the pitcher be in the lineup, allow for the existence of a tenth man who might hit in the pitcher's place without necessitating the withdrawal of the pitcher from the game. This substitute hitter would not be a position player and could only replace the pitcher. Similar ideas had been proposed in the past, but the need for such a thing had never been so urgent. Some owners derided the idea as the creation of another specialist in baseball, ruining the idea of nine vs nine, nine hitters and nine position player, the core of baseball in their eyes. Others saw it as just the change needed to revive the offense, and a way to get more players involved in the game. In particular, the owners in the National League wanted the change, and the ones in the American League did not. The American League, and in particular the New York Yankees, did not have the weak offense problem. The Yankees did not have poor-hitting pitchers. The Yankees had Babe Ruth. Babe Ruth could pitch. Babe Ruth could hit. He had just broken the single season home run record, and had been one of the best hitters in baseball even during the so-called "dead ball era". The Yankees did not need a tenth man.

The National League did not have a Babe Ruth. The owners of the National League saw a simple calculus, the tenth man meant more hits, and more hits meant more fans, and more fans, of course, meant more money. The vote came down in an exact tie, all National League owners voting for, and all American League owners voting against. The owners were at an impasse. Finally Pittsburgh Pirates owner and president William Chase Temple gave his solution, the two leagues could go their separate ways on this matter. There was no reason to restrict each other. Surely whoever saw less success would emulate whoever was proven right. It was agreed then, the National League would adopt the tenth man, and the American League would not. At the time, it was expected that the two leagues would reconciled in a matter of years. The decision should have been easy; Heydler was proven right: the offenses of the National League had more hits, and attracted more star players with the extra spot in their lineups. The American League should have followed suit. It never came to pass. A vote on accepting the tenth man failed in 1927 and 1930. That was the last vote on the matter until 1992. Even as upstart leagues, minor leagues, colleges, and all other forms of baseball picked up the rule, the American League remained firm. It soon became a fiercely defended tradition that they were the only ones to play the "purest" form of baseball, the only thing fans of rival teams within the American League could agree on. They were better than everyone else.

A hundred years have passed and there has been no sign of relenting. Both the American and National League have doubled in size in that time. Even when interleague regular season play began in the 70s, the American League refused to acquiesce. The American League is the only professional baseball league in the United States without the tenth man. President Bush came into power with the intention of standardizing the rules of all leagues under his purview. That was 25 years ago. His attempts were so futile, he decided to leave us for a less quixotic venture, politics. The 150th anniversary of professional baseball was celebrated in 2019. The game played in 1869 had many differences from the game played in 1919, let alone 2019. Pitchers threw underhand. It took nine balls to get a walk. Fielders were playing without gloves. But the American League insists that they are playing baseball as God and Abner Doubleday intended. The New York Yankees marked baseball's 150th anniversary by bumbling their way into signing the next great two-way player, who went on to demolish Babe Ruth's records as a pitcher and hitter. The Yankees do not need the tenth man.

Spoiler: what is baseball?

In OTL the American League was the first to adopt the "tenth man", known as the designated hitter, in 1973. The National League did not adopt the rule until the last few years, first being forced to do so due to the pandemic, and then permanently adopting it in the recent contract negotiations. This is a reversal of that. The National League of OTL used the arguments mentioned here to resist the change for decades and, as the older league (by several decades), argued that they were playing the more traditional and pure form of baseball. This was actually my first idea for this challenge but it took a while to figure out how to make the switch. And for fun, I'll say it takes place in the same timeline as the "main" timeline of my China list, ie the universe the poster of that list lives in.

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

Iraq And A Hard Place
​

2005-2012: Ken Clarke (Conservative)
def 2005: (Majority) Tony Blair (Labour), Charles Kennedy (Liberal Democrats), Alex Salmond (SNP), George Galloway (Respect), Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru)
def 2010: (Minority with de facto Respect support) Gordon Brown (Labour), Norman Baker (Liberal Democrats), Lindsey German (Respect), Alex Salmond (SNP), Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru), Nigel Farage (UKIP), Caroline Lucas (Green)
2011-2019: Jack Straw (Labour)
def 2011: (Majority) Ken Clarke (Conservative), Alex Salmond (SNP), Lindsey German, Norman Baker, and Natalie Bennett (People Power Coalition--Liberal Democrats, Green, Respect), Paul Nuttall (UKIP), Simon Thomas (Plaid Cymru)
def 2016: (Majority) David Davis (Conservative), Alex Salmond (SNP), collective leadership [de facto Lindsey German] (People Power), Patrick O'Flynn (UKIP), Rhun ap Iorweth (Cymru)
2019-2021: Tom Watson (Labour working under "Rose Garden Agreement" with UKIP and SNP)
2020 Scottish Independence Referendum: cancelled due to pandemic; estimated 53% YES, 47% NO
2021-xxxx: Richard Bacon (Conservative)
def 2021: (Coalition with People Power) Tom Watson (Labour), Alex Salmond (SNP), collective leadership [de facto contested between Layla Moran, Daz Nez, and Anas Altikriti] (People Power), Patrick O'Flynn (UKIP), Rhun ap Iorweth (Cymru), Douglas Carswell (Democracy Coalition)

Five Phrases To: Understand British Politics With!

1. Clarkemania
As youth icons go, a 81-year-old former director of British American Tobacco seems an unlikely candidate. Yet former Prime Minister Ken Clarke has been unironically embraced by a vaste trache of young Netizens.

In fairness, it isn't the first time Clarke has garnered teenager support. His victory in 2005 is often attributed to a "youthquake" of younger voters not wanting to participate in the Iraq War, even if the actual polling numbers suggested a more uniform swing. The new era of Ken Clarke memes, however, comes from people who can barely remember his time in office, and whose support springs more from his vocal backbench activities supporting European integration. While "vapourwave" edits of his recent speeches, fanfic placing him in a torrid romance with Jack Straw, and legions of tweenage girls with profile pics of his face wearing a flower crown may appear like a sideshow to the real issues, many of these memers are effectively full-time canvassers online.

The digital realm is increasingly important for campaigning and activism, and with the blue-rinse exodus, the Conservative Party is in dire need of boots on the ground. There's a good chance that the skinny lads putting Night In Tunisia over a Metal Gear boss fight will be crucial to the Conservative's strategy next election--and might one day sit on the front bench.

2. NO2ID
When David Blunkett was preparing his agenda as Home Secretary, he jotted in the margin that he expected "some debate" over the ID cards policy. A decade later, we're still debating it--or are we?

While Ian Brown's by-election campaign under the NO2ID banner may have been a disappointment, his vocal opposition to the Identity Cards Act galvanised a wavering opposition to Straw after the end of the Iraq War--a legacy most visible in People Power's NO2ID Group, with its president, Ian Brown MP. "No to ID!" has become the ubiquitous campaign slogan of our times, visible at nearly every protest and a constant in graffiti. This is all despite--or perhaps because of--ID cards being a hideously unpopular political dead letter for several years, and one abolished promptly by the Conservatives once they took power.

NO2ID means much more, these days. Against the digital-economy titans, against heavy-handed anti-terrorist actions, against mandatory vaccination measures--in general, an opposition to all attempts to number and corral the British population by centralised powers, and a firm belief in the right to privacy and free speech. With mask mandates and social distancing to combat the Hubei Flu increasingly controversial among the public, the Met Police under scrutiny, and Linkedin's misuse of personal data, this movement can only grow.

3. Rose Garden Agreement
With a teetering government minority after mass defections, Tom Watson faced two options--call a fresh election and almost certainly lose, or tie his government to a grab-bag of minor parties that mostly hated each other. He tried for a third, which somehow worked out worse.

Intervention in Syria was the final straw for the SCG, and Straw's ham-handed tactics with them ended up forcing both he and them out of the party--one to the opposition, the other to the backbenches. Watson needed to fill seats or lose his, but a full coalition was clearly untenable. The informal agreement--hashed out, despite the name, indoors, and merely announced in the Rose Garden--was like a confidence-and-supply agreement, but not quite. Both parties were obligated to support the Budget, the SNP bills on the environment and Europe, and UKIP bills on defense and home affairs. In exchange, further European integration was officially halted, as was plain cigarette packaging, Holyrood would gain greater economic power, the planned enlargement of Trident was halted, and two referendums were scheduled for the next year.

The plan was without precedent, and quickly divided all the parties involved. More liberal elements in Labour chafed at the idea of working with UKIP, and Scottish Labour felt betrayed by collaboration with the SNP. On the opposition side, most of the UKIP right went into open revolt over the idea of supporting more government spending, and the SNP's left, feeling they'd been ripped off with tokens, grumbled relentlessly. The electoral fallout left all parties involved scarred, and unlikely to repeat the process--yet with the traditional left-right spectrum breaking down, and hung parliaments more and more common, it wouldn't be wise to rule out another ad-hoc deal.

4. "Leadership By Argument"
With defections on votes for climate bills, for medical bills, and for education bills, People Power seem like a party in disarray. The backbiting is so endless, you'd think their leadership contest never ended. You'd be right.

The collective leadership began, like most poorly-functioning things, as a compromise. While they shared a commitment to staying out of American wars on terror, the three parties had little other common ground, and there was a fear that one of the three would dominate--the Lib Dems with their greater number of parliamentary seats, Respect with their dedicated activist base, or the Greens with their large membership. The collective leadership was supposed to preserve the independence of all factions, by preventing centralisation. People Power spent seven years with no official leader. The leader they did not oficially have was Lindsey German.

A veteran of the anti-war movement, German's relatively light-touch approach to party disclipine allowed the party to digest mass Labour defections, but her retirement has left behind her a party in disarray. As it stands, People Power is split three ways between the environmentalist and socially liberal Word Transformed Campaign, the libertarian and anti-surveillance NO2ID Group, and the anti-interventionist and Muslim-dominated rump of Respect, with each faction rallying behind a preferred spokesman. The notion of People Power as a unified party is very shaky indeed.

5. The Intervention Struggle
Across the world, it seems like "left" and "right" are breaking down as definitions. What is it that divides politics? David Goodhart claims he's got the key--but first, let go of the economy.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the triumph of capitalism (so his argument goes), the class struggle also gave out, ended by the victory of the upper class. With common prosperity making "proletariat" and "capitalist" a meaningless division, the primary struggle in politics is now between the "interferers" and the "leave-aloners", those who accept orders from above and those who chafe at them. In this framework, parties are differentiated by how much they want to intervene--in the economy, in foreign countries, in the lives of their citizens--rather than what they want to do with that intervention.

Academics still debate the truth of these claims, highlighting other nations which haven't gone through this. Considering how the Conservatives have pivoted from being the party of the Falklands War, Section 28, and Orgreave to being the party of peace in Iraq, same-sex partnerships, and the Davis Enquiry, and Labour have gone from championing disarmament, the free press, and Windrush to championing Trident, the Media Standards Act, and border controls, it's possible Goodhart's onto something.

--Menshn: The Rundown, 9th October 2022​

 

[CountZingo]

The Seventh Party System​

In the summer of 2016, the unthinkable would happen - an assassin's bullet would rob the Republicans of their... unconventional nominee. Donald Trump had died, but to those who supported him, he had become more than a martyr - he had become an icon. But they would have to wait - the "Trump supporter" would quickly disappear from the media limelight, as the race suddenly got much more conventional. As Trump's running mate was able to capture the open nomination in a rare show of oratory bravado and would nominate Rubio, he would be able to balance sympathy for Trump and a more moderate campaign just enough to barely defeat Clinton, both in the electoral and popular vote. Many Americans were indeed quietly relieved, and were content to go about their lives, knowing that they wouldn't have to worry about radical politics again.

President Pence would go on to be a disappointment to any who thought that he might have governed anywhere near Trump - he was a milquetoast Republican in every way, and his greatest achievement would be a series of tax cuts for the rich. As he governed, however, it was clear that the base that had elected Trump was dissatisfied with Pence, and as Pence's term wore on this only became more and more apparent. By the time Donald Trump, Jr. unveiled his own election bid for 2020, it was clear that Pence would face a clear threat.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party would soon come into its own troubles. Hillary Clinton's loss had led to a more prominent Left, and in 2020 Bernie would make another run at the nomination. However, in even more blatant rigging Michael Bloomberg would be able to emerge as the "establishment" candidate, and Bernie would be brought to his breaking point. Sanders, along with his wing of the party, would walk out of the convention and declare the "Progressive Party". International attention was suddenly drawn to American politics, which seemed to be breaking down, as some were overjoyed at the seeming end of the two-party system that had dominated the United States for so long.

The campaign was a hard-fought one - however, the most influential trend would be Sanders' successful appeals to Trump supporters. While Junior had his father's name, he didn't have his father's x-factor, and Sanders' progressive parties first intrigued them and then began to draw them in. This split in the Trumpist vote would ultimately give Pence some support, but it would still be enough for the Democrats to triumph in traditionally Republican areas. The split would lead to some interesting results, the most notable of which would be Bloomberg managing to receive an electoral landslide despite winning around 40% of the popular vote.

With a fracturing Congress, Bloomberg would able to do little, but what he did do got charges launched at him from deep within his party that he was effectively a Republican - his laissez-faire nature towards "big tech" especially would allow the early 2020's to become a playground for those types of companies, with the great media conglomerates truly forming. As election season approached, the decrepit Bloomberg would be able to fend off a primary challenge, but much more momentous events were occurring in the Republican party. J.D. Vance would package Sanders' reforms in a Trumpist package, and it would be enough to give him the nomination, with a Bush nomination as VP shoring up Vance's support among "the establishment". His supporters would hail him as a cross between Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, and his victory against a split left amidst a financial recession would seem to prove it.

Vance would tighten anti-monopoly laws, pass Medicare-for-All and a free college bill, and pass an amendment that would make elections consist of a two-round popular vote. These reforms, and continuing popularity for the Republicans, would ultimately be able to push the Republicans into another new direction, as Vance won in the first round in '28 - he was hailed by many of Trump's supporters as his "true successor". With Vance co-opting many of their policies, the Progressive Party would enter into a steep decline - the partisan duopoly would ultimately be maintained.

As for Vance's successor, Vice President Bush was able to win the crowded Republican primary, while the Democrats turned to a Kennedy to revamp their electoral fortunes. Americans would groan at having to choose between two dynasts, but Bush promised a continuation of Vance's promises and carried Vance's endorsement, and so he would ultimately triumph in the first two-round election in American history. Two months after Bush's collapse, however, the economy would collapse. Bush would ultimately show off his roots by making some cuts to Vance's programs, which incensed the Republican congress. However, his final mistake would be a "peacekeeping operation" in Mexico, a state whose shaky foundations had ultimately been demolished by the Depression of 2033. The Republicans, outraged by such an outreach of power unseen in three decades, would impeach and remove Bush from office - while he would avoid prison time, a lesson had been learned.

His successor, Vice President Gonzalez, was stuck in between a Congressional rock and a economic hard place. She would be able to quickly negotiate a peace with Mexico, with the states of northern Mexico falling under "joint Mexican-American control", and she would help to avert the worst of the Depression. However, with her polling looking grim and challengers looking to unseat her, Gonzalez would decide not to become another Bloomberg, and would announce that she would not run for re-election. She would also be able to negotiate a formal merger between the Republicans and whatever was left of the Progressives after their caucus splintered in the aftermath of the

While the Republicans would nominate another fiery populist, and indeed a celebrity, in the end nothing could overcome twelve years of rule and economic misfortune. The Democratic candidate who would ultimately be charged with invigorating the Democratic Party would be Tulsi Gabbard. While she had once been a firm progressive, standing with Sanders in 2020, in the past sixteen years she had transitioned to what could only be described as neoconservatism. Under her administration, some of Vance's programs would be rolled back, taxes and regulations would be cut, and with a Democratic Congress the support was there for Gabbard to authorize interventions throughout the world, in order to make sure that the United States still had influence in a multipolar world. As this happened, the economy would begin to recover, and Gabbard's corporate-friendly policies would see the stock market climb past their pre-Depression levels within the President's first hundred days. She would win a somewhat comfortable re-election in 2040, and her second term would largely be a continuation of her first.

As the President leaves office, the election of 2044 has entered its second round, with Barron Trump competing to bring his father's unmade legacy fully into the White House. He finds himself facing against Vice President Scott, whose connections among the elite have allowed her campaign to be bankrolled heavily. This election promises to be a close call, and some fringe elements of corporate media warn that these Trumpers may not have the best reaction to Barron's loss...

January 20, 2017 - January 20, 2021: Mike Pence (Republican | Indiana) [45]
2016 - Mike Pence (R-IN) / Marco Rubio (R-FL) {replacing Donald Trump (R-NY) / Mike Pence (R-IN)} (270 EV's) def. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) / Tim Kaine (D-VA) (268 EV's)
January 20, 2021 - January 20, 2025: Michael Bloomberg (Democratic | New York) [46]
2020 - Michael Bloomberg (D-NY) / Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) (355 EV's) def. Mike Pence (R-IN) / Marco Rubio (R-FL) (138 EV's), Donald Trump, Jr. (I-PA) / Michael Flynn (I-RI) (23 EV's), Bernie Sanders (P-VT) / Tulsi Gabbard (P-HI) (22 EV's)
January 20, 2025 - January 20, 2033: J.D. Vance (Republican | Ohio) [47]
2024 - J.D. Vance (R-OH) / George P. Bush (R-TX) (455 EV's) def. Michael Bloomberg (D-NY) / Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) (52 EV's), Elizabeth Warren (P-MA) / Richard Ojeda (P-WV) (28 EV's)
2028 - J.D. Vance (R-OH) / George P. Bush (R-TX) (59.2%) def. Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) / Susan Rice (D-DC) (37.9%), Jon Stewart (P-NY) / Andrew Yang (P-CA) (2.3%), other tickets (0.6%)
January 20, 2033 - August 18, 2034: George P. Bush (Republican | Texas) [48] (impeached and removed)
2032 - George P. Bush (R-TX) / Jenniffer Gonzalez (R-PR) (47.7% | 55.6%) def. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) / Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) (46.1% | 44.4%), Andrew Yang (P-NY) / Kanye West (P-CA) (5.1%), other tickets (1.1%)
August 18, 2034 - January 20, 2037: Jeniffer Gonzalez (Republican | Puerto Rico) [49]
January 20, 2037 - January 20, 2045: Tulsi Gabbard (Democratic | Hawaii) [50]
2036 - Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) / MacKenzie Scott (D-CA) (51.6%) def. Kanye West (R-CA) / Chris Sununu (R-NH) (45.1%), other tickets (3.3%)
2040 - Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) / MacKenzie Scott (D-CA) (52.2%) def. Nikki Haley (R-SC) / Ivanka Trump (R-NY) (45.4%), other tickets (2.4%)

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

One more week to get your entry in!

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

One more day to get your entry in!

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

After a bumper crop, entries are now closed! The poll is now up, vote early and vote often!

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

I want it on record that I warned you all


With all votes counted, victory goes to @SenatorChickpea with his list The Senate and the People! Congratulations to the winners, and comiserations to the losers!

The next challenge will be up tommorrow.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Thanks everyone for the votes, but having watched that video, perhaps I should curse your judgement.

 

[Walpurgisnacht]

Thanks everyone for the votes, but having watched that video, perhaps I should curse your judgement.

I was quite tempted to just go for either Wolfram's suggestion or Blyth Power's The Barman (which has a verse that namechecks Cataline), but I felt that having alluded to that video's existence, I couldn't not then show it.

 

[Steve Brinson]

I wish I had remembered this in time