In OTL Trump was persuaded to seek treatment in late September/
early October 2020 and doctors at Walter Reed set him on the path
to recovery,with well-known consequences.

Had he resisted entreaties enough to wind up dying,
what would have happened with the 2020 election and
how would he be remembered?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Saturday, December 30, 2023 at 5:04:21 AM UTC, Louis Epstein wrote:
> In OTL Trump was persuaded to seek treatment in late September/
> early October 2020 and doctors at Walter Reed set him on the path
> to recovery,with well-known consequences.
>
> Had he resisted entreaties enough to wind up dying,
> what would have happened with the 2020 election and
> how would he be remembered?
>
Presumably it would depend on exactly when he passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912_United_States_presidential_election#Death_of_Vice_President_Sherman
"On October 30, 1912, Vice President James S. Sherman died of nephritis, leaving Taft without a running mate less than a week before the election. Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University, was quickly chosen to replace Sherman on the Republican ticket.[41]" The result of the election was not of course then known. I doubt if the death of the Republican running-mate had much effect on how people voted. If Trump had died 108 years later, I suggest that the Republican National Committee would have met to choose a replacement. That close to the election, it might well have been VP Pence, especially as the events at the Capitol on 6 January 2021 had not happened yet. If so, they would have had to pick a new running-mate - more likely than not from outside Indiana.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1872_United_States_presidential_election
The losing candidate for President died between the election and the electoral count. There were no practical consequences to how the electors pledged to him cast their votes. As he died after the election, his death did not of course affect its result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Choice_(novel) about a situation where the winning candidate for President died between the election and the electoral count. As he died after the election, his death did not of course affect its result. He and his running-mate were not incumbents, while in OTL the tickets contained the serving President and Vice President and a former Vice President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election might be relevant.

On 12/29/23 11:04 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> In OTL Trump was persuaded to seek treatment in late September/
> early October 2020 and doctors at Walter Reed set him on the path
> to recovery,with well-known consequences.
>
> Had he resisted entreaties enough to wind up dying,
> what would have happened with the 2020 election and
> how would he be remembered?

One of the traditions of this newsgroup is
the Ban on Politics (BoP). It covers any
topic based on political events in the the
last 25 years. It was proposed and generally
agreed top because any discussion of such a
topic almost inevitably degenerated into a
bitter argument about contemporary politics.

I suggest that this topic is covered by the BoP.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 1/2/24 20:48, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 12/29/23 11:04 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> In OTL Trump was persuaded to seek treatment in late September/
>> early October 2020 and doctors at Walter Reed set him on the path
>> to recovery,with well-known consequences.
>>
>> Had he resisted entreaties enough to wind up dying,
>> what would have happened with the 2020 election and
>> how would he be remembered?
>
> One of the traditions of this newsgroup is
> the Ban on Politics (BoP). It covers any
> topic based on political events in the the
> last 25 years. It was proposed and generally
> agreed top because any discussion of such a
> topic almost inevitably degenerated into a
> bitter argument about contemporary politics.
>
> I suggest that this topic is covered by the BoP.

Is everything politics?

If so then a ban on politics is a ban on
everything.

Let us consult with the Face of Boe.

'Well, once upon a time it was one billion years,
now it is two billion.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Harkness

On 1/4/2024 1:10 PM, trolidan wrote:
> On 1/2/24 20:48, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> > On 12/29/23 11:04 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> >> In OTL Trump was persuaded to seek treatment in late September/
> >> early October 2020 and doctors at Walter Reed set him on the path
> >> to recovery,with well-known consequences.
> >>
> >> Had he resisted entreaties enough to wind up dying,
> >> what would have happened with the 2020 election and
> >> how would he be remembered?
> >
> > One of the traditions of this newsgroup is
> > the Ban on Politics (BoP). It covers any
> > topic based on political events in the the
> > last 25 years. It was proposed and generally
> > agreed top because any discussion of such a
> > topic almost inevitably degenerated into a
> > bitter argument about contemporary politics.
> >
> > I suggest that this topic is covered by the BoP.
>
> Is everything politics?
>
> If so then a ban on politics is a ban on
> everything.
>
Its a ban on CURRENT or RECENT politics.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

> > On 12/29/23 11:04 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> > In OTL Trump was persuaded to seek treatment in late September/
> > early October 2020 and doctors at Walter Reed set him on the
path
> > to recovery, with well-known consequences.
> >
> > Had he resisted entreaties enough to wind up dying,
> > what would have happened with the 2020 election and
> > how would he be remembered?
> >
> Rich Rostrom wrote:
>
>
> One of the traditions of this newsgroup is
> the Ban on Politics (BoP). It covers any
> topic based on political events in the the
> last 25 years. It was proposed and generally
> agreed top because any discussion of such a
> topic almost inevitably degenerated into a
> bitter argument about contemporary politics.
>
> I suggest that this topic is covered by the BoP.
>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

If everyone could be civil about it and not let things go crazy,
probably wouldn't be a problem. But when was USENET ever not a bit
crazy?? :D

This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=658095367#658095367

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 17:47:48 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 1/4/2024 1:10 PM, trolidan wrote:
>> On 1/2/24 20:48, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> > On 12/29/23 11:04 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> >> In OTL Trump was persuaded to seek treatment in late September/
>> >> early October 2020 and doctors at Walter Reed set him on the path
>> >> to recovery,with well-known consequences.
>> >>
>> >> Had he resisted entreaties enough to wind up dying,
>> >> what would have happened with the 2020 election and
>> >> how would he be remembered?
>> >
>> > One of the traditions of this newsgroup is
>> > the Ban on Politics (BoP). It covers any
>> > topic based on political events in the the
>> > last 25 years. It was proposed and generally
>> > agreed top because any discussion of such a
>> > topic almost inevitably degenerated into a
>> > bitter argument about contemporary politics.
>> >
>> > I suggest that this topic is covered by the BoP.
>>
>> Is everything politics?
>>
>> If so then a ban on politics is a ban on
>> everything.
>>
>Its a ban on CURRENT or RECENT politics.

I think it wouldn't violate the BOP to discuss who might be the
candidate in 2024 minus Biden or 2020 minus Trump - I'm not at all
convinced Harris or Pence would be automatically the candidate.
Obviously whether "minus Biden / Trump" means something different if
that's (1) death in office 3 months before the election or (2) Biden /
Trump decides his health is not up to running for a second term.

Though obviously the BOP is designed to avoid political flamewars so
perhaps not even that.

And obviously time is important - we could certainly discuss LBJ's
decision not to seek re-election in 1968 by now or even in the early
1990s when most of us old-timers joined soc.history.what-if or
alt.history.what-if

For instance I'm not convinced Nixon would have smashed LBJ in 1968 -
particularly if Wallace runs. Though 1972 was far more 'decisive' for
Nixon than 1968 (I personally think Nixon would have won more
decisively in 1968 with a two-way horse race - e.g. without Wallace's
candidacy since my opinion is that Nixon's "Southern Strategy" could
be more accurately described as "Pandering to Southern White Voters"
just the way the current wokesters in Washington are pandering to the
left.

[As a non-American I think Biden is doing a remarkable job of keeping
his left wing of the party on side - both the Sanders-ites and the
Squad's crew - than anybody would have expected two years ago - and in
the interests of the BOP will say no more]

On 1/4/24 20:51, MummyChunk wrote:
>
> > > On 12/29/23 11:04 PM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> > > In OTL Trump was persuaded to seek treatment in late September/
> > > early October 2020 and doctors at Walter Reed set him on the
> path
> > > to recovery, with well-known consequences.
> > >
> > > Had he resisted entreaties enough to wind up dying,
> > > what would have happened with the 2020 election and
> > > how would he be remembered?
> > >
> > Rich Rostrom wrote:
> >
> >
> > One of the traditions of this newsgroup is
> > the Ban on Politics (BoP). It covers any
> > topic based on political events in the the
> > last 25 years. It was proposed and generally
> > agreed top because any discussion of such a
> > topic almost inevitably degenerated into a
> > bitter argument about contemporary politics.
> >
> > I suggest that this topic is covered by the BoP.
> >
> > --
> > Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> > --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
>
> If everyone could be civil about it and not let things go crazy,
> probably wouldn't be a problem. But when was USENET ever not a bit
> crazy?? :D
>
> This is a response to the post seen at:
> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=658095367#658095367

Well, you know, everyone has their own beliefs
about what they consider to be crazy or not crazy,
or civil or not civil. I am thinking that true
ideas or good habits went out the window a long
time ago. People also shift what they consider
to be civil based upon what advantages them.

One thing I tend to like about usenet is that
I tend to get the idea that it is like 'internet'
or a method of transfer of information between
computers. It may not necessarily be owned by
any specific company.

I guess usenet tends to be interfaced all over
the place.

Some while ago there were some people that thought
of a figure of something like five years, but I
think it is reasonable that 'do nots' do tend to
gradually shift to 'do not everything'.

As for the topic, I would tend to get the idea
that would tend to make the ultimate candidate
less well known that close to the election.
One thing I remember about that some while ago
was the debates between Trump and Hillary maybe
nearly over 8 years ago. While the election was
going on I noticed the Nixon and Kennedy debates
on other internet channels and watched some of them.
For the first one I never knew of the 'no foreign
policy' restriction on it or whether some of those
restrictions were even edited out or lost when
people saw it. They both seemed respectful of
each other and I learned a little about sugar
beet subsidies. At the later more current time,
Hillary seemed in the more recent debate like a lot of high
brow insults and Trump a lot of low brow insults.
When the election happened I wondered, 'how useful
is it to me whether I know who the president of
the United States is or not?' I concluded,
it is very unlikely I will ever meet any
of them, so in reality it actually is not
very useful. I did not bother to find out
who won. I got to an article on Wikipedia
the next Sunday before finding out. It informed
me who won. I guess between election and inaugeration
it is difficult to keep from finding out who won
if you do not want to bother looking it up.
My guess would be probably not much change
from our time line for the what if. You
know there are millions or billions of
people out there. At times it seems to
me that a 'president' or 'king' or
'prime minister' or the like is way
too much reliance on one person when
there are so nearly infinitely many others.

On my version of usenet it looks like
someone with a posting handle called
Louis Epstein started it, but who knows.
A lot of different servers cache posts differently.

I should probably look up a few ancient
things before google dies.

On 1/5/24 2:31 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> For instance I'm not convinced Nixon would have smashed LBJ in 1968 -
> particularly if Wallace runs.

If LBJ somehow bashed his way to re-nomination in 1968,
there would be _rage_ on the Left. Almost certainly there
would be an independent "Peace Democrat" ticket, probably
McCarthy.

I did come up with a 1968 election hich ends with Wallace
being elected by the House of Representatives.

Shortish version:

LBJ steals the Democrat nomination (bribery, blackmail,
vote fraud). Humphrey bolts in disgust and LBJ then
persuades Ted Kennedy to run with him. McCarthy runs
independent. Wallace runs as OTL.

Nixon gets indicted for interfering with the Paris
peace talks; Agnew gets indicted for bribery; Johnson's
shenanigans are exposed and he is indicted.

The result:

Nixon 31% PV, 235 EV
Johnson 28% PV, 210 EV
McCarthy 22% PV, 23 EV
Wallace 19% PV, 70 EV

(Note: EV numbers are made up, I'm not going to work out
the state by state numbers.)

In mid-December, Kennedy does alt-Chappaquidick, but
worse, and not in Massachusetts, and gets caught trying
to bribe his way out.

Now, at this point, the House is to elect the President
from among the three leading candidates in EV (voting by
states): Nixon, Johnson, Wallace. The Senate is to elect
the Vice President from between the _two_ leading
candidates in EV: Agnew and Kennedy.

It seems very likely that even if one of these five
becomes President, the Vice Presidency will be vacant,
reqiring the President to appoint someone who might
soon succeed to the office.

Reporters from some major media organization (NBC? TIME?)
interview all five candidates, to ask whom they would
nominate. Johnson, intensely angry and bitter, names his
old buddy, disgraced ex-Justice Fortas. Kennedy, heavily
sedated, mumbles his brother in law Shriver. Agnew names
Walt Disney, "so we can have a real Mickey Mouse government."
Nixon names... John Connally??? Shirley Temple Black???

Wallace shocks _everyone_ by naming USAF Lt. General
Benjamin O. Davis - who is black. My thinking is that
Wallace was first and foremost an opportunist, who took
to race-baiting after losing his first race as a moderate,
and not a true believer. If he saw a chance of becoming
President...

And it works. With all four of the others heading to jail,
and with the proposed nomination of Davis negating his
racism baggage, the House sucks it up and elects him.
(Once Davis is in place, Congress can always remove Wallace
if he goes too far.)

---
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 15:30:37 -0800, trolidan <trolidous@go.com> wrote:

> > If everyone could be civil about it and not let things go crazy,
> > probably wouldn't be a problem. But when was USENET ever not a bit
> > crazy?? :D

On consideration you're probably right particularly when Trump is part
of the discussion.

He's the sort of individual who people tend to go over the top about
whether you love him or hate him.

(Please understand I am couching my wording to avoid causing a flame
war.)

I have said before it would be a good thing for America for both him
and Biden to be politically off the scene since one thing that should
be obvious is that America is currently more polarized than ever while
I would argue that what your country and mine need is more open minded
individuals of good will. Now no question I am a stalwart of my chosen
party but with the exception of certain idividuals of the other party,
I can fair-mindedly weigh the pros and cons of what they're saying.

(I'm pretty sure Rhino would instantly identify one or two people I'm
definitely thinking of)

On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 20:42:41 -0600, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 1/5/24 2:31 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> For instance I'm not convinced Nixon would have smashed LBJ in 1968 -
>> particularly if Wallace runs.
>
>If LBJ somehow bashed his way to re-nomination in 1968,
>there would be _rage_ on the Left. Almost certainly there
>would be an independent "Peace Democrat" ticket, probably
>McCarthy.
>
>I did come up with a 1968 election hich ends with Wallace
>being elected by the House of Representatives.
>
>Shortish version:
>
>LBJ steals the Democrat nomination (bribery, blackmail,
>vote fraud). Humphrey bolts in disgust and LBJ then
>persuades Ted Kennedy to run with him. McCarthy runs
>independent. Wallace runs as OTL.
>
>Nixon gets indicted for interfering with the Paris
>peace talks; Agnew gets indicted for bribery; Johnson's
>shenanigans are exposed and he is indicted.
>
>The result:
>
>Nixon 31% PV, 235 EV
>Johnson 28% PV, 210 EV
>McCarthy 22% PV, 23 EV
>Wallace 19% PV, 70 EV
>
>(Note: EV numbers are made up, I'm not going to work out
>the state by state numbers.)
>
>In mid-December, Kennedy does alt-Chappaquidick, but
>worse, and not in Massachusetts, and gets caught trying
>to bribe his way out.
>
>Now, at this point, the House is to elect the President
>from among the three leading candidates in EV (voting by
>states): Nixon, Johnson, Wallace. The Senate is to elect
>the Vice President from between the _two_ leading
>candidates in EV: Agnew and Kennedy.
>
>It seems very likely that even if one of these five
>becomes President, the Vice Presidency will be vacant,
>reqiring the President to appoint someone who might
>soon succeed to the office.
>
>Reporters from some major media organization (NBC? TIME?)
>interview all five candidates, to ask whom they would
>nominate. Johnson, intensely angry and bitter, names his
>old buddy, disgraced ex-Justice Fortas. Kennedy, heavily
>sedated, mumbles his brother in law Shriver. Agnew names
>Walt Disney, "so we can have a real Mickey Mouse government."
>Nixon names... John Connally??? Shirley Temple Black???
>
>Wallace shocks _everyone_ by naming USAF Lt. General
>Benjamin O. Davis - who is black. My thinking is that
>Wallace was first and foremost an opportunist, who took
>to race-baiting after losing his first race as a moderate,
>and not a true believer. If he saw a chance of becoming
>President...
>
>And it works. With all four of the others heading to jail,
>and with the proposed nomination of Davis negating his
>racism baggage, the House sucks it up and elects him.
>(Once Davis is in place, Congress can always remove Wallace
>if he goes too far.)

You kind of had me up till you chose him a black running mate.

Because I'm firmly convinced Wallace was even more racist than Strom
Thurmond (who among other things had a black mistress)

Now admittedly you're loading the dice on several turning points in
your scenario but at least it's plausible until you get to the part
about Wallace. Who was both far more talented and more extreme than
David Duke. He just masked it better.

(I keep hoping in going through my boxes that I will find the 1968
Newsweek magazine election issue that I saved for at least 20-30 years
afterwards....)

On 1/6/24 19:48, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 15:30:37 -0800, trolidan <trolidous@go.com> wrote:
>
>>> If everyone could be civil about it and not let things go crazy,
>>> probably wouldn't be a problem. But when was USENET ever not a bit
>>> crazy?? :D
>
> On consideration you're probably right particularly when Trump is part
> of the discussion.
>
> He's the sort of individual who people tend to go over the top about
> whether you love him or hate him.
>
> (Please understand I am couching my wording to avoid causing a flame
> war.)
>
> I have said before it would be a good thing for America for both him
> and Biden to be politically off the scene since one thing that should
> be obvious is that America is currently more polarized than ever while
> I would argue that what your country and mine need is more open minded
> individuals of good will. Now no question I am a stalwart of my chosen
> party but with the exception of certain idividuals of the other party,
> I can fair-mindedly weigh the pros and cons of what they're saying.
>
> (I'm pretty sure Rhino would instantly identify one or two people I'm
> definitely thinking of)

One thing I notice about your post were the words
'my chosen party' and 'the other party'.

Maybe I am wrong, but double checking.

In the US, they tend to be 'Democrats' and
'Republicans'. This dates to around the US
Civil War. You can look it up. A little
before that it was something like 'Democratic-
Republicans' and 'Whigs', and then before the
War of 1812 there were the 'Federalists'.

In Canada, each Canadian Province has its own
individual set of parties and names for the
parties, right? They generally go by 'Labor',
'Liberal', and 'Conservative' with a little
bit of 'Tories' and 'Whigs' thrown in, but
each set of parties have their own different
sets of names in each of the Provinces, right?

They still all loosely parallel some of the
names in England? You do not have to name
what you consider your party to be. I am not
sure if a statement like this would cause a
severe flame, but I am thinking Trump used
to be something like a half-Democrat about
20 or 30 years ago. Once upon a time, I
am thinking there was or is a land called
Siam or Thailand. Maybe about 20 or 30
years ago a judge declared one of the two
major political parties there 'corrupt'
and banned it. However having some democracy
there, another political party formed that
tended to advocate the vacuum formed when
one of two major parties there was banned.
I am thinking that party still exists. I
am thinking that was Thailand. However maybe
I am confused and it was another place in
southeast Asia. I am thinking that Yul
Brinner said something like 'puzzlement'
when playing a part in 'The King and I'
a long time ago?

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:32:54 -0800, trolidan <trolidous@go.com> wrote:

>One thing I notice about your post were the words
>'my chosen party' and 'the other party'.
>
>Maybe I am wrong, but double checking.

I put it that way since I'm now pretty sure how I will vote in the
next election and was trying pretty hard to avoid offending anybody.
You understand of course that I'm not a big fan of political flame
wars particularly HERE. :)

>In the US, they tend to be 'Democrats' and
>'Republicans'. This dates to around the US
>Civil War. You can look it up. A little
>before that it was something like 'Democratic-
>Republicans' and 'Whigs', and then before the
>War of 1812 there were the 'Federalists'.

Yup - I fully understand that the dominance of the GOP and Dems in
American politics didn't really start until around the time of Lincoln
+ or - about 10 years.

>In Canada, each Canadian Province has its own
>individual set of parties and names for the
>parties, right? They generally go by 'Labor',
>'Liberal', and 'Conservative' with a little
>bit of 'Tories' and 'Whigs' thrown in, but
>each set of parties have their own different
>sets of names in each of the Provinces, right?

There has never been parties in Canada called "Tory", "Whig" or
"Labor" but certainly parties in each of those sections of the
political spectrum. Yes there are separate national and political
parties, some provincial parties mirror the names of their federal
counterparts, some don't but yes you generally see the same people at
provincial or federal voting time. (There is also some overlap between
federal / provincial and municipal - for instance the current Mayor of
Toronto was formerly a federal Member of Parliament in Ottawa though
one thing that regularly confuses Americans is that the Canadian House
of Commons is generally considered the "lower house" but has all the
power in stark contrast to the US where the Senate rules the roost
(well MOST of the time)

>They still all loosely parallel some of the
>names in England? You do not have to name
>what you consider your party to be. I am not

As I said above, I phrased things as I did to avoid giving offence. A
flame war is the last thing all of us need.

[In previous postings I mentioned my late father was an American and
it was expected I would opt for US citizenship at age 21 and insisted
I gained the knowledge of how things worked politically in the US -
but weird things happened which I don't need to repeat. On the other
hand my maternal grandfather ran twice - 1965 + 1968 - for the
Canadian federal parliament so I did appear in some of his campaign
literature with my mother in a family shot for him. Thus a strong
interest in politics generally including at the municipal level where
I'm on a first name basis with all members of our local Council]

trolidan <trolidous@go.com> wrote:
> On 1/6/24 19:48, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 15:30:37 -0800, trolidan <trolidous@go.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> If everyone could be civil about it and not let things go crazy,
>>>> probably wouldn't be a problem. But when was USENET ever not a bit
>>>> crazy?? :D
>>
>> On consideration you're probably right particularly when Trump is part
>> of the discussion.
>>
>> He's the sort of individual who people tend to go over the top about
>> whether you love him or hate him.
>>
>> (Please understand I am couching my wording to avoid causing a flame
>> war.)
>>
>> I have said before it would be a good thing for America for both him
>> and Biden to be politically off the scene since one thing that should
>> be obvious is that America is currently more polarized than ever while
>> I would argue that what your country and mine need is more open minded
>> individuals of good will. Now no question I am a stalwart of my chosen
>> party but with the exception of certain idividuals of the other party,
>> I can fair-mindedly weigh the pros and cons of what they're saying.
>>
>> (I'm pretty sure Rhino would instantly identify one or two people I'm
>> definitely thinking of)
>
> One thing I notice about your post were the words
> 'my chosen party' and 'the other party'.
>
> Maybe I am wrong, but double checking.
>
> In the US, they tend to be 'Democrats' and
> 'Republicans'. This dates to around the US
> Civil War. You can look it up. A little
> before that it was something like 'Democratic-
> Republicans' and 'Whigs', and then before the
> War of 1812 there were the 'Federalists'.

Your chronology is a bit off here.

The Federalists of John Adams sputtered out
(though he had judicial appointees holding
life posts until the 1840s) and were unable to
run a candidate for President in 1820,when the
Democratic-Republican incumbent Monroe was
essentially unopposed,but the party splintered
into factions in 1824 when Monroe stepped down.

The faction around Andrew Jackson,who won both
the most popular votes (then just becoming a thing)
and the most (but not a majority) electoral votes,
but lost the Presidency in the House when Speaker
Henry Clay (third in popular,fourth in electoral
votes) made what is remembered as "The Corrupt
Bargain" and delivered his states to John Quincy
Adams (second in both popular and electoral votes)
in return for appointment as Secretary of State,
regrouped in 1828 as the Democrats and won,
while the Whigs evolved as their new opposition
in the 1830s,folding after the Republicans (formed
in 1854) shouldered their fading remnants aside in
1856.
But there was never a D-R vs. W period because
the D-Rs had splintered and given rise to the Ds
before the Ws started.

> In Canada, each Canadian Province has its own
> individual set of parties and names for the
> parties, right? They generally go by 'Labor',
> 'Liberal', and 'Conservative' with a little
> bit of 'Tories' and 'Whigs' thrown in, but
> each set of parties have their own different
> sets of names in each of the Provinces, right?

The party mix varies by province but there are
national organizations...there's no point to a
Parti Quebecois in Saskatchewan obviously but
Jean Charest was a Conservative as Deputy PM
of Canada AND as Premier of Quebec.

> They still all loosely parallel some of the
> names in England? You do not have to name
> what you consider your party to be. I am not
> sure if a statement like this would cause a
> severe flame, but I am thinking Trump used
> to be something like a half-Democrat about
> 20 or 30 years ago.

He was,although his primary allegiance has
always been to his own ego.

> Once upon a time, I am thinking there was or
> is a land called Siam or Thailand.

There is a country that has been called Siam
in some contexts but officially renamed the
country Thailand in the 20th century.

Maybe about 20 or 30
> years ago a judge declared one of the two
> major political parties there 'corrupt'
> and banned it. However having some democracy
> there, another political party formed that
> tended to advocate the vacuum formed when
> one of two major parties there was banned.

That sort of thing happens various places,
Turkey and the Netherlands and the Basque
provinces for example have seen parties banned
and clones formed.

> I am thinking that party still exists. I
> am thinking that was Thailand. However maybe
> I am confused and it was another place in
> southeast Asia. I am thinking that Yul
> Brinner said something like 'puzzlement'
> when playing a part in 'The King and I'
> a long time ago?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 1/6/24 9:59 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:

> You kind of had me up till you chose him a black running mate.

Vice President, not running mate. In picking Davis, Wallace also
kicks Curtis LeMay to the curb.

> Because I'm firmly convinced Wallace was even more racist than Strom
> Thurmond (who among other things had a black mistress)

Thurmond had a black lover when he was young.

> Now admittedly you're loading the dice on several turning points in
> your scenario but at least it's plausible until you get to the part
> about Wallace. Who was both far more talented and more extreme than
> David Duke. He just masked it better.

Wallace managed to distance himself from his
earlier positions. Many (including some close
acquaintances) thought it was a consequence
of being shot, nearly killed, and left paralyzed.

But they also thought it was sincere (if politically
convenient).

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 18:40:16 -0600, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Because I'm firmly convinced Wallace was even more racist than Strom
>> Thurmond (who among other things had a black mistress)
>
>Thurmond had a black lover when he was young.

We're probably talking about the same woman and if we are he had a
daughter with her.

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 12:40:19 AM UTC, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 1/6/24 9:59 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
> > You kind of had me up till you chose him a black running mate.
> Vice President, not running mate. In picking Davis, Wallace also
> kicks Curtis LeMay to the curb.
>
The House chooses from the top 3 vote-getters, the Senate chooses from the top 2. So it was certain in OTL 1968, that, even if Wallace did prevent either of the two main-party candidates from winning in the Electoral College, LeMay was not going to be chosen as VP in the Senate. I realise that, in this TL, LeMay might have expected to be picked as Wallace's VP under the 25th Amendment.

(For the same reason, if Breckinridge had somehow taken 29 EV from Lincoln in 1860, and thus thrown the election into the House and Senate, the House could have picked John Bell, who had the 3rd highest EV, but the Senate could not have picked Bell's running-mate Edward Everett).

And if ASBs switch those 29 EV from Lincoln to Douglas, then
1. Lincoln has 151 EV, Breckinridge has 72, Douglas has 41 and Bell has 39
2. The House can choose from Lincoln, Breckinridge and Douglas
3. The Senate can choose from Lincoln's running-mate Hamlin and Breckinridge's running-mate Lane, but cannot choose Douglas' running-mate Herschel V. Johnson.
4. Douglas died on 3 June 1861 in OTL.
5. If he does so in this TL, then somebody else's running-mate becomes President.

Does anyone know why they decided in passing the 12th Amendment that the House picks from the top 3 and the Senate from the top 2?

On 1/27/24 4:40 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> (For the same reason, if Breckinridge had somehow taken 29 EV from
> Lincoln in 1860, and thus thrown the election into the House and Senate,
> the House could have picked John Bell, who had the 3rd highest EV, but
> the Senate could not have picked Bell's running-mate Edward Everett).

There were Republicans who thought Seward might be unelectable, due to
his prominence as a possibly radical anti-slavery leader. Lincoln's
managers took advantage of that to get Lincoln the nomination.

But it was quite possible that Seward got it. And if so, and if those
Republicans were right about Seward's problem, the following pinball
combination might have happened.

Seward runs worse than Lincoln, due to nervous ex-Whigs voting for
John Bell. Three states flip to Douglas: Indiana, Illinois, and
California (28 electoral votes). Oregon flips to Breckinridge (3 EV).
4 EV in New Jersey flip to Bell.

Meanwhile... Seward is seen as running worse than Lincoln, giving
hope to Douglas men in the South. Douglas splits off enough Democrat
votes to flip Maryland, North Carolina, and Louisiana to Bell (28 EV).

Net EV results:

Seward 180 - 35 = 145 (7 short of a majority).
Breckinridge 72 - 24 + 3 = 51
Bell 39 + 27 = 66

Douglas 12 + 28 = 40

The House is too divided to elect a President. The Senate chooses
the Vice President - either the Republican nominee (probably some
westerner, not Hamlin) or Bell's running mate Edward Everett.
Between Southerners and Doughfaces, there is a solid majority
against the Republican. That leaves Everett, who succeeds to the
vacant Presidency.

NOTE: during the 1860 campaign, Republicans asserted that if
Lincoln did not win, and the election went to Congress, the House
would deadlock and the Senate would elect Breckinridge's running
mate, Senator Joe Lane of Oregon. "Lincoln or Lane", they told
the voters.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:46:03 PM UTC, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 1/27/24 4:40 PM, Graham Truesdale wrote:
> > (For the same reason, if Breckinridge had somehow taken 29 EV from
> > Lincoln in 1860, and thus thrown the election into the House and Senate,
> > the House could have picked John Bell, who had the 3rd highest EV, but
> > the Senate could not have picked Bell's running-mate Edward Everett).
> There were Republicans who thought Seward might be unelectable, due to
> his prominence as a possibly radical anti-slavery leader. Lincoln's
> managers took advantage of that to get Lincoln the nomination.
>
> But it was quite possible that Seward got it. And if so, and if those
> Republicans were right about Seward's problem, the following pinball
> combination might have happened.
>
> Seward runs worse than Lincoln, due to nervous ex-Whigs voting for
> John Bell. Three states flip to Douglas: Indiana, Illinois, and
> California (28 electoral votes). Oregon flips to Breckinridge (3 EV).
> 4 EV in New Jersey flip to Bell.
>
> Meanwhile... Seward is seen as running worse than Lincoln, giving
> hope to Douglas men in the South. Douglas splits off enough Democrat
> votes to flip Maryland, North Carolina, and Louisiana to Bell (28 EV).
>
> Net EV results:
>
> Seward 180 - 35 = 145 (7 short of a majority).
> Breckinridge 72 - 24 + 3 = 51
> Bell 39 + 27 = 66
>
> Douglas 12 + 28 = 40
>
> The House is too divided to elect a President. The Senate chooses
> the Vice President - either the Republican nominee (probably some
> westerner, not Hamlin) or Bell's running mate Edward Everett.
> Between Southerners and Doughfaces, there is a solid majority
> against the Republican. That leaves Everett, who succeeds to the
> vacant Presidency.
>
> NOTE: during the 1860 campaign, Republicans asserted that if
> Lincoln did not win, and the election went to Congress, the House
> would deadlock and the Senate would elect Breckinridge's running
> mate, Senator Joe Lane of Oregon. "Lincoln or Lane", they told
> the voters.
>
Would it have been the lame-duck House and Senate which voted (as in 1801 and 1825)? If so, and the lame-duck House deadlocked, leaving the Senate to elect a VP who would serve as Acting President, would the newly-elected House have been entitled to have another go at electing the President? I realise that the newly-elected House would not have to meet until December 1861, and that there might be an incentive for an Acting President not to call it into session earlier.