wormyguy
Banned
Blue is for Republicans and red is for Democrats because I made them on that US Election Atlas site.
I assumed that the states in which a candidate got the highest share of the vote but did not win were the most likely to swing their way, and that third party candidates always took votes equally from the other candidates.
I will only opine on political effects of such historical dissonance, not economic or social effects (that's a matter of opinion).
Anyways:
1964:
Goldwater wins:
Cause: Goldwater avoids being painted as a dangerous radical (perhaps if Diem succeeds in making peace in Vietnam . . .), and/or some huge scandal mars his opponent (JFK is better for this).
Effects: Saw off the East Coast! (Seriously, it's likely that the west, rather than the south, remains the bastion of American conservatism). The fifth party system is brought to a premature close. Both parties will likely now start nominating polarizing candidates.
1968:
Humphrey forces a house vote:
Cause: Mild swing to Humphrey.
Effect: Does the heavily-Democratic House ignore the clear will of the people and ordain Humphrey as the next president? It depends on the swing vote of the southern Democrats . . .
Humphrey comes in first, but still does not win a majority:
Cause: Bigger swing for Humphrey
Effect: Probably President Humphrey.
Humphrey wins outright:
Cause: Biggest swing to Humphrey
Effect: This is probably the last we'd hear of Richard Nixon.
Wallace forces a House vote:
Cause: Small swing to Wallace - Nixon's "Southern Strategy" fails.
Effect: See "Humphrey forces a House vote"
Wallace comes in second:
Cause: Nixon doesn't even attempt his "Southern Strategy," and instead takes a strong pro-Civil Rights stance.
Effect: Lots of talk about refighting the Civil War. The Southern Democrats have made their point - either the Democrats nominate a conservative Southerner next time around, or the Democratic Party splits in two. With others taking the social conservative plank, the Republicans either become more liberal or more libertarian than OTL. Richard Nixon becomes President.
Wallace comes in first:
I can't come up with even a semi-plausible explanation for this one.
Effect: Many House members will likely form an "anti-Wallace" bloc, and send a compromise ticket into the Oval Office. Even more soul-searching about racism in America later on.
Wallace wins:
Effect: In the immortal words of Eric Cartman: "RACE WAR! RACE WAR!"
1972:
George McGovern forces a House vote:
Cause: Eagleton's medical history isn't revealed, "amnesty, abortion, and acid" isn't coined.
Effect: The Conservative Coalition is once again the kingmaker here, and they might demand that McGovern step aside in favor of ConservaDem running mate Eagleton.
McGovern wins outright:
Cause: See above.
Effect: Amnesty, abortion and acid.
1976:
Ford wins:
Cause: Slight swing to Ford - no Nixon pardon?
Effect: Ford finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like Carter. The Democrats win convincingly in 1980.
1980:
Carter wins:
Cause: Iran hostage rescue succeeds, inflation somewhat more under control.
Effect: Will the economic crisis still resolve itself without the Reagan reforms? It'll matter to the next election. The question is whether conservative activists return in force to the GOP next nominating cycle . . .
Anderson wins Massachusetts:
Cause: He runs a better campaign in Massachusetts.
Effect: An interesting historical tidbit, being the last time a third-party candidate won a state.
Anderson in second place:
Cause: Anderson runs a more competent campaign all around.
Effect: Carter's humiliation is abject, losing to an independent candidate. Effects on New England politics could be interesting.
Anderson forces a house vote:
Cause: Anderson maintains his early poll numbers and improves on them.
Effect: Utter chaos in the House.
Anderson wins:
Cause: See above.
Effect: This possibly marks the end of the Democratic Party as one of the two major parties. The effects on the Republican party will be . . . odd. The question is whether incumbent president Anderson will seek the GOP nomination in 1984.
1984:
Mondale wins:
Cause: Economic collapse
Effect: Something, probably.
1988:
Dukakis wins:
Cause: Black Monday precipitates a recession.
Effect: Lots of public transportation. Perot possibly doesn't run in '92.
1992:
Bush wins
Cause: Perot doesn't run, and/or economy better.
Effect: Republican presidents might start becoming a tradition.
Perot wins Maine:
Cause: Perot runs a better campaign in Maine.
Effect: Perot might be stronger in '96.
Perot comes in second:
Cause: Perot maintains his early poll numbers. Does not do weird thing involving dropping out then reentering.
Effect: Republican party likely taken over by Perot activists. The effects will be interesting.
Perot forces a house vote:
Cause: Maintains early lead.
Effect: President Clinton. Republican Party almost certainly taken over by Perot activists.
Perot in first, without outright victory:
Cause: Maintains early lead.
Effects: Possibly President Perot, after utter chaos in the House. Republican Party almost certainly taken over by Perot activists.
Perot wins:
Cause: Maintains and expands early lead.
Effects: Many more third-party candidates in the future, end of the Republican party as we know it.
1996:
Dole wins:
Cause: Probably that the GOP nominates someone other than Dole, no government shutdown, Perot doesn't run, etc.
Effect: Republican Revolution complete. Hopefully we don't invade Iraq.
Perot wins Maine:
Cause: A better show in '92, repeated in Maine.
Effects: A curiousity - last time a third-party candidate won a state.
Perot in second place:
Cause: A much better showing in '92, repeated. Possibly (even) more controversy over NAFTA.
Effect: Hard to say.
Perot forces a house vote:
Cause: A much better showing in '92, repeated.
Effect: Chaos in the House. Probably President Dole.
Perot in first place, without outright victory:
Cause: Lots of luck.
Effect: Chaos in the House. Who knows what president will emerge?
Perot wins:
Cause: Lots and lots of luck.
Effect: A viable third party has been created.
2000:
Gore wins:
Cause: A butterfly flaps its wings in Florida.
Effect: No war in Iraq, for one. Probably still are tax cuts, but structured differently.
Nader wins Alaska (forces House vote):
Cause: A plurality of Alaskans become hippies.
Effect: Republican-controlled House chooses Bush, Election 2000 even more controversial.
Nader in second, Nader in first, Nader wins:
Cause: Not happening. If Lyndon LaRouche or someone somehow manages to win the Democratic nomination, and the DNC endorses Nader, then maybe. Possibly if the Democratic ticket dies in a plane crash and the DNC endorses Nader.
Effect: Crazy shit man. Crazy shit.
2004:
Kerry wins:
Cause: No Swift Vote ads, no "flip-flop" accusations, someone other than Kerry is nominated, etc.
Effect: We're out of Iraq, the Republicans still control Congress.
2008:
McCain Wins
Cause: Picks someone competent to be his running mate while still getting the initial bounce he got from Palin - possibly Fiorina or Whitman. And/or economic collapse delayed 2 months.
Effect: No (major) Tea Party movement, Dems might even make gains in Senate 2010, many things probably similar except health care bill. Compare map to 2000.
I assumed that the states in which a candidate got the highest share of the vote but did not win were the most likely to swing their way, and that third party candidates always took votes equally from the other candidates.
I will only opine on political effects of such historical dissonance, not economic or social effects (that's a matter of opinion).
Anyways:
1964:
Goldwater wins:
Cause: Goldwater avoids being painted as a dangerous radical (perhaps if Diem succeeds in making peace in Vietnam . . .), and/or some huge scandal mars his opponent (JFK is better for this).
Effects: Saw off the East Coast! (Seriously, it's likely that the west, rather than the south, remains the bastion of American conservatism). The fifth party system is brought to a premature close. Both parties will likely now start nominating polarizing candidates.
1968:
Humphrey forces a house vote:
Cause: Mild swing to Humphrey.
Effect: Does the heavily-Democratic House ignore the clear will of the people and ordain Humphrey as the next president? It depends on the swing vote of the southern Democrats . . .
Humphrey comes in first, but still does not win a majority:
Cause: Bigger swing for Humphrey
Effect: Probably President Humphrey.
Humphrey wins outright:
Cause: Biggest swing to Humphrey
Effect: This is probably the last we'd hear of Richard Nixon.
Wallace forces a House vote:
Cause: Small swing to Wallace - Nixon's "Southern Strategy" fails.
Effect: See "Humphrey forces a House vote"
Wallace comes in second:
Cause: Nixon doesn't even attempt his "Southern Strategy," and instead takes a strong pro-Civil Rights stance.
Effect: Lots of talk about refighting the Civil War. The Southern Democrats have made their point - either the Democrats nominate a conservative Southerner next time around, or the Democratic Party splits in two. With others taking the social conservative plank, the Republicans either become more liberal or more libertarian than OTL. Richard Nixon becomes President.
Wallace comes in first:
I can't come up with even a semi-plausible explanation for this one.
Effect: Many House members will likely form an "anti-Wallace" bloc, and send a compromise ticket into the Oval Office. Even more soul-searching about racism in America later on.
Wallace wins:
Effect: In the immortal words of Eric Cartman: "RACE WAR! RACE WAR!"
1972:
George McGovern forces a House vote:
Cause: Eagleton's medical history isn't revealed, "amnesty, abortion, and acid" isn't coined.
Effect: The Conservative Coalition is once again the kingmaker here, and they might demand that McGovern step aside in favor of ConservaDem running mate Eagleton.
McGovern wins outright:
Cause: See above.
Effect: Amnesty, abortion and acid.
1976:
Ford wins:
Cause: Slight swing to Ford - no Nixon pardon?
Effect: Ford finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, just like Carter. The Democrats win convincingly in 1980.
1980:
Carter wins:
Cause: Iran hostage rescue succeeds, inflation somewhat more under control.
Effect: Will the economic crisis still resolve itself without the Reagan reforms? It'll matter to the next election. The question is whether conservative activists return in force to the GOP next nominating cycle . . .
Anderson wins Massachusetts:
Cause: He runs a better campaign in Massachusetts.
Effect: An interesting historical tidbit, being the last time a third-party candidate won a state.
Anderson in second place:
Cause: Anderson runs a more competent campaign all around.
Effect: Carter's humiliation is abject, losing to an independent candidate. Effects on New England politics could be interesting.
Anderson forces a house vote:
Cause: Anderson maintains his early poll numbers and improves on them.
Effect: Utter chaos in the House.
Anderson wins:
Cause: See above.
Effect: This possibly marks the end of the Democratic Party as one of the two major parties. The effects on the Republican party will be . . . odd. The question is whether incumbent president Anderson will seek the GOP nomination in 1984.
1984:
Mondale wins:
Cause: Economic collapse
Effect: Something, probably.
1988:
Dukakis wins:
Cause: Black Monday precipitates a recession.
Effect: Lots of public transportation. Perot possibly doesn't run in '92.
1992:
Bush wins
Cause: Perot doesn't run, and/or economy better.
Effect: Republican presidents might start becoming a tradition.
Perot wins Maine:
Cause: Perot runs a better campaign in Maine.
Effect: Perot might be stronger in '96.
Perot comes in second:
Cause: Perot maintains his early poll numbers. Does not do weird thing involving dropping out then reentering.
Effect: Republican party likely taken over by Perot activists. The effects will be interesting.
Perot forces a house vote:
Cause: Maintains early lead.
Effect: President Clinton. Republican Party almost certainly taken over by Perot activists.
Perot in first, without outright victory:
Cause: Maintains early lead.
Effects: Possibly President Perot, after utter chaos in the House. Republican Party almost certainly taken over by Perot activists.
Perot wins:
Cause: Maintains and expands early lead.
Effects: Many more third-party candidates in the future, end of the Republican party as we know it.
1996:
Dole wins:
Cause: Probably that the GOP nominates someone other than Dole, no government shutdown, Perot doesn't run, etc.
Effect: Republican Revolution complete. Hopefully we don't invade Iraq.
Perot wins Maine:
Cause: A better show in '92, repeated in Maine.
Effects: A curiousity - last time a third-party candidate won a state.
Perot in second place:
Cause: A much better showing in '92, repeated. Possibly (even) more controversy over NAFTA.
Effect: Hard to say.
Perot forces a house vote:
Cause: A much better showing in '92, repeated.
Effect: Chaos in the House. Probably President Dole.
Perot in first place, without outright victory:
Cause: Lots of luck.
Effect: Chaos in the House. Who knows what president will emerge?
Perot wins:
Cause: Lots and lots of luck.
Effect: A viable third party has been created.
2000:
Gore wins:
Cause: A butterfly flaps its wings in Florida.
Effect: No war in Iraq, for one. Probably still are tax cuts, but structured differently.
Nader wins Alaska (forces House vote):
Cause: A plurality of Alaskans become hippies.
Effect: Republican-controlled House chooses Bush, Election 2000 even more controversial.
Nader in second, Nader in first, Nader wins:
Cause: Not happening. If Lyndon LaRouche or someone somehow manages to win the Democratic nomination, and the DNC endorses Nader, then maybe. Possibly if the Democratic ticket dies in a plane crash and the DNC endorses Nader.
Effect: Crazy shit man. Crazy shit.
2004:
Kerry wins:
Cause: No Swift Vote ads, no "flip-flop" accusations, someone other than Kerry is nominated, etc.
Effect: We're out of Iraq, the Republicans still control Congress.
2008:
McCain Wins
Cause: Picks someone competent to be his running mate while still getting the initial bounce he got from Palin - possibly Fiorina or Whitman. And/or economic collapse delayed 2 months.
Effect: No (major) Tea Party movement, Dems might even make gains in Senate 2010, many things probably similar except health care bill. Compare map to 2000.
Last edited:
