|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 19, 2021 11:44:33 GMT
I'll post a few hypotheticals FDR vs Churchill Hitler vs Stalin Nixon (post-watergate) vs. Jimmy Carter (post-presidency) And last but not least, Captain America vs. Iron Man
Well baring anything dramatic a) FDR wins as he has a much larger support base. b) Would depend on the circumstances but post 1941 I would expect Stalin to win. Its clear to most Russians and other Slavs especially that Hitler is not someone they want ruling them, even less than Stalin so again the majority would win. c) Might depend on the date and the constituency. Nixon is the more skilled leader and Carter the more honest.
d) This prompted the LOL. I prefer Cap as a person but who would win is difficult to say.
a) True, but Churchill would have to become an American for this so he might have a larger base on not being a foreigner. b) Stalin likely would win and I'd definetly flee to mexicp or die trying c) If the time is modern day, I think it would be right but Carter would prevail. d) I'd take Cap as well, |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856 
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 19, 2021 12:21:13 GMT
Well baring anything dramatic a) FDR wins as he has a much larger support base. b) Would depend on the circumstances but post 1941 I would expect Stalin to win. Its clear to most Russians and other Slavs especially that Hitler is not someone they want ruling them, even less than Stalin so again the majority would win. c) Might depend on the date and the constituency. Nixon is the more skilled leader and Carter the more honest.
d) This prompted the LOL. I prefer Cap as a person but who would win is difficult to say.
a) True, but Churchill would have to become an American for this so he might have a larger base on not being a foreigner. b) Stalin likely would win and I'd definetly flee to mexicp or die trying c) If the time is modern day, I think it would be right but Carter would prevail. d) I'd take Cap as well,
Ah I was thinking you meant of the combined areas they governed, i.e. UK and UK in case a) USSR and Germany in b) etc. If you mean only the US then wouldn't Churchill, Stalin and Hitler all be invalid as candidates as their not native born, which I think you need to be to stand as President?
If either Stalin or Hitler because US President then assuming a coup against them/assassination was impossible then any rational or half way intelligent person would seek to escape the US! 
With c) if its the present day then it could be close. Given the deep and bitter divide a lot would vote on 'party' regardless and while the Democrat support is somewhat broader that doesn't mean they win, as 2016 showed. Also in more cynical times I wonder if some would lack faith in Carter for his perceived incompetence and niavity. As such I suspect it could be tight.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 19, 2021 15:11:05 GMT
a) True, but Churchill would have to become an American for this so he might have a larger base on not being a foreigner. b) Stalin likely would win and I'd definetly flee to mexicp or die trying c) If the time is modern day, I think it would be right but Carter would prevail. d) I'd take Cap as well,
Ah I was thinking you meant of the combined areas they governed, i.e. UK and UK in case a) USSR and Germany in b) etc. If you mean only the US then wouldn't Churchill, Stalin and Hitler all be invalid as candidates as their not native born, which I think you need to be to stand as President?
If either Stalin or Hitler because US President then assuming a coup against them/assassination was impossible then any rational or half way intelligent person would seek to escape the US!
With c) if its the present day then it could be close. Given the deep and bitter divide a lot would vote on 'party' regardless and while the Democrat support is somewhat broader that doesn't mean they win, as 2016 showed. Also in more cynical times I wonder if some would lack faith in Carter for his perceived incompetence and niavity. As such I suspect it could be tight.
Well yes they would be ineligible but this is the ASB section of the board. Otherwise I agree on all your points, and if Stalin becomes President then I think Texas (and others states) may pull out,legally or otherwise. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Aug 20, 2021 9:51:57 GMT
Ah I was thinking you meant of the combined areas they governed, i.e. UK and UK in case a) USSR and Germany in b) etc. If you mean only the US then wouldn't Churchill, Stalin and Hitler all be invalid as candidates as their not native born, which I think you need to be to stand as President?
If either Stalin or Hitler because US President then assuming a coup against them/assassination was impossible then any rational or half way intelligent person would seek to escape the US!
With c) if its the present day then it could be close. Given the deep and bitter divide a lot would vote on 'party' regardless and while the Democrat support is somewhat broader that doesn't mean they win, as 2016 showed. Also in more cynical times I wonder if some would lack faith in Carter for his perceived incompetence and niavity. As such I suspect it could be tight.
Well yes they would be ineligible but this is the ASB section of the board. Otherwise I agree on all your points, and if Stalin becomes President then I think Texas (and others states) may pull out,legally or otherwise.
If Stalin or Hitler became President any responsible person in any state would either seek to leave or fully support succession by anywhere and everywhere that wants to.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Aug 26, 2021 16:01:49 GMT
How about ‘Harry Truman (1948) Vs. George Bush Sr. (1988)’? In that case, a hodgepodge of Red States from 1987—primarily the highly conservative South and Mountain States, but also electoral prizes like Texas and California—are sent forty years back in time, with President Reagan and his cabinet coming along for the ride to represent the uptimers and their interests.
No doubt there’d be legal debates and general value dissonance in all things, which may make the race quite polarized. However, I suspect that Bush Sr. would have greater success catering to downtimer voters than his boss, due to his more centrist brand of (fiscal) conservatism and crusade against social liberalism that downtimers would balk at (i.e. widespread abortion). I’m also curious as to what a televised debate(s) between Bush and Truman might look like, if more for uptimers’ benefit than many downtimers’.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Sept 1, 2021 18:16:23 GMT
Since it's novel and takes place between small-government presidents for a change, let's discuss 'Calvin Coolidge (1924) Vs. Grover Cleveland (1888)'. Both run on the same party nominations as they did IRL, though I fear that the conservative, free-market, pro-gold standard Cleveland would have substantially more trouble rallying Democrats to his candidacy than Coolidge would with Republicans.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 4, 2021 3:41:47 GMT
Here's a thought: the 2018 Texas Senate race on a national scale. Or a senate primary between 1960s Nixon and Reagan.
Here's a more interesting and complex one with a religious element: Jospeh Smith Jr vs Charles Taze Russell, two minor religious group founders.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Sept 5, 2021 19:45:02 GMT
Here's a thought: the 2018 Texas Senate race on a national scale. When you say it takes place on a national scale, how does that work in practice? Even if ASB hand-waves the legality of this, it's not clear to me what office Ted Cruz and Beto O'Rourke are actually competing for.
Are we giving the rest of the country the right to vote in Texas's senate election, voting for either of them in a presidential race, or what? I doubt native Texans would take kindly to the former, but the latter seems like it'd be less patently outrageous to a certain geographic swath of the country (though policy positions they adopt in a national race will galvanize and/or alienate different groups of people, as usual).
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 5, 2021 20:04:49 GMT
Here's a thought: the 2018 Texas Senate race on a national scale. When you say it takes place on a national scale, how does that work in practice? Even if ASB hand-waves the legality of this, it's not clear to me what office Ted Cruz and Beto O'Rourke are actually competing for.
Are we giving the rest of the country the right to vote in Texas's senate election, voting for either of them in a presidential race, or what? I doubt native Texans would take kindly to the former, but the latter seems like it'd be less patently outrageous to a certain geographic swath of the country (though policy positions they adopt in a national race will galvanize and/or alienate different groups of people, as usual).
What I meant is the 2018 Senate race but as a Presidential election that is Cruz (a '16 POTUS candidate) and O'Rourke (a '20 POTUS candidate) |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Sept 5, 2021 20:16:05 GMT
When you say it takes place on a national scale, how does that work in practice? Even if ASB hand-waves the legality of this, it's not clear to me what office Ted Cruz and Beto O'Rourke are actually competing for.
Are we giving the rest of the country the right to vote in Texas's senate election, voting for either of them in a presidential race, or what? I doubt native Texans would take kindly to the former, but the latter seems like it'd be less patently outrageous to a certain geographic swath of the country (though policy positions they adopt in a national race will galvanize and/or alienate different groups of people, as usual).
What I meant is the 2018 Senate race but as a Presidential election that is Cruz (a '16 POTUS candidate) and O'Rourke (a '20 POTUS candidate) That makes the most sense, thank you.
Since you mention the OTL elections they ran in, are Cruz and O'Rourke whisked from 2016 and 2020 respectively, or are there present-day versions pitted against each other in either 2024 or a special election that happens this November?
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Sept 6, 2021 0:18:32 GMT
What I meant is the 2018 Senate race but as a Presidential election that is Cruz (a '16 POTUS candidate) and O'Rourke (a '20 POTUS candidate) That makes the most sense, thank you.
Since you mention the OTL elections they ran in, are Cruz and O'Rourke whisked from 2016 and 2020 respectively, or are there present-day versions pitted against each other in either 2024 or a special election that happens this November?
For the hypothetical (And to abide by this subforums rules) let's say 2024. |
|
razor007
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 87
Likes: 38
|
Post by razor007 on May 13, 2022 14:56:46 GMT
Theodore Roosevelt is elected President in 1912, 1916 AND 1920!
Much better world than ours
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 14, 2022 14:13:34 GMT
Theodore Roosevelt is elected President in 1912, 1916 AND 1920! Much better world than ours
Quite possibly in the short/medium term although we can't tell where the wider butterflies would take us. For all we know this could end up with a nasty nuclear war in the 1950's or 60's.
However given the general arguments, that Teddy would take the US into the war early, probably in 1915 if the Lusitania attack occurs, then he's unlikely to win in 1920 and could well lose in 1916. Both because even the 1916 election would breach the two terms tradition, which he might however get support for due to the US being in a major war, but also by late 1916 the butcher's bill is probably starting to come home and could make him deeply unpopular. I suspect it definitely would by the time the war ended and doubt he would get much support in a 1920 run.
While the US would suffer a lot more than OTL in terms of casualties as its involved earlier and hence longer and facing markedly more powerful German forces it would however probably be very good for the rest of the world, but especially Europe. You would probably see the war ending in 1917 and perhaps the survival of a non-communist, possibly even still a Czarist Russia. . Also you might see the bulk of the Austrian empire surviving, probably with many of the Slavic territories removed. This if seeing serious reform under Carl might well become reasonably successful and an anchor of stability in central/eastern Europe.
In those conditions and with all powers suffering less due to a shorter war Europe should be a lot healthier and more stable and fascism could be just an occasional blip in some of the more backward states. Its likely that any German revanchment steps would be quickly stepped on by it assorted neighbours.
However as I say this might lead to different problems later on. With WWI less destructive and possibly no WWII your going to see a more conservative world and probably a longer lasting imperialism which is bloodier in its ending. Or as I say with a number of great powers struggling for position then multiple powers develop nukes in peacetime, possibly in secret and some mess triggers a nuclear exchange.
|
|
razor007
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 87
Likes: 38
|
Post by razor007 on May 14, 2022 20:09:16 GMT
Theodore Roosevelt is elected President in 1912, 1916 AND 1920! Much better world than ours
Quite possibly in the short/medium term although we can't tell where the wider butterflies would take us. For all we know this could end up with a nasty nuclear war in the 1950's or 60's.
However given the general arguments, that Teddy would take the US into the war early, probably in 1915 if the Lusitania attack occurs, then he's unlikely to win in 1920 and could well lose in 1916. Both because even the 1916 election would breach the two terms tradition, which he might however get support for due to the US being in a major war, but also by late 1916 the butcher's bill is probably starting to come home and could make him deeply unpopular. I suspect it definitely would by the time the war ended and doubt he would get much support in a 1920 run.
While the US would suffer a lot more than OTL in terms of casualties as its involved earlier and hence longer and facing markedly more powerful German forces it would however probably be very good for the rest of the world, but especially Europe. You would probably see the war ending in 1917 and perhaps the survival of a non-communist, possibly even still a Czarist Russia. . Also you might see the bulk of the Austrian empire surviving, probably with many of the Slavic territories removed. This if seeing serious reform under Carl might well become reasonably successful and an anchor of stability in central/eastern Europe.
In those conditions and with all powers suffering less due to a shorter war Europe should be a lot healthier and more stable and fascism could be just an occasional blip in some of the more backward states. Its likely that any German revanchment steps would be quickly stepped on by it assorted neighbours.
However as I say this might lead to different problems later on. With WWI less destructive and possibly no WWII your going to see a more conservative world and probably a longer lasting imperialism which is bloodier in its ending. Or as I say with a number of great powers struggling for position then multiple powers develop nukes in peacetime, possibly in secret and some mess triggers a nuclear exchange.
Woodrow Wilson rebirth the KKK, indirectly caused Vietnam, supported Banana 'republics' and segregated the Federal Government! TR would have prevented the Great Depression, issued Universal Healthcare and broken up the Corporations!!! |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on May 15, 2022 16:32:28 GMT
Quite possibly in the short/medium term although we can't tell where the wider butterflies would take us. For all we know this could end up with a nasty nuclear war in the 1950's or 60's.
However given the general arguments, that Teddy would take the US into the war early, probably in 1915 if the Lusitania attack occurs, then he's unlikely to win in 1920 and could well lose in 1916. Both because even the 1916 election would breach the two terms tradition, which he might however get support for due to the US being in a major war, but also by late 1916 the butcher's bill is probably starting to come home and could make him deeply unpopular. I suspect it definitely would by the time the war ended and doubt he would get much support in a 1920 run.
While the US would suffer a lot more than OTL in terms of casualties as its involved earlier and hence longer and facing markedly more powerful German forces it would however probably be very good for the rest of the world, but especially Europe. You would probably see the war ending in 1917 and perhaps the survival of a non-communist, possibly even still a Czarist Russia. . Also you might see the bulk of the Austrian empire surviving, probably with many of the Slavic territories removed. This if seeing serious reform under Carl might well become reasonably successful and an anchor of stability in central/eastern Europe.
In those conditions and with all powers suffering less due to a shorter war Europe should be a lot healthier and more stable and fascism could be just an occasional blip in some of the more backward states. Its likely that any German revanchment steps would be quickly stepped on by it assorted neighbours.
However as I say this might lead to different problems later on. With WWI less destructive and possibly no WWII your going to see a more conservative world and probably a longer lasting imperialism which is bloodier in its ending. Or as I say with a number of great powers struggling for position then multiple powers develop nukes in peacetime, possibly in secret and some mess triggers a nuclear exchange.
Woodrow Wilson rebirth the KKK, indirectly caused Vietnam, supported Banana 'republics' and segregated the Federal Government! TR would have prevented the Great Depression, issued Universal Healthcare and broken up the Corporations!!!
I agree that Wilson was a disaster in so many ways but I'm uncertain that Roosevelt could have done a fraction of what you suggest given the views at the time. He might prevent the great depression simply because with the war ending earlier the rest of the world will be in a much better condition economically so if something such as the 1929 slump in the US occurs its far less likely to drag the rest of the world down with it.
Roosevelt himself supported banana republics and American imperialism - his push for war with Spain, the colonization of Puerto Rico and the Philippines and then the latter Great White Fleet experdition which gave the USN some useful knowledge on what they would need to project power further away than Caribbean.
|
|
