What If? Interesting ASB Elections

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Some are largely symbolic and respectful of the status quo regardless of outcome, others representing gravitic shifts in the paradigm. But none have explicitly defied the laws of nature by pitting candidates operating in much different times and circumstances against one another to see how they stack up. At least, not until now.

In that case, what are some of the most interesting ASB elections you can come up with, whether they invoke time travel or otherwise-ineligible candidates throwing their hats into the race? If we could see some electoral maps to go along with posters' suggestions, that'd be great. Perhaps even a summary of how the election itself might go, for those feeling ambitiously descriptive.

Myself, I've proposed more than a few cross-time US presidential elections, including but not limited to:
  • Adlai Stevenson (1952) Vs. Mitt Romney (2012)
  • Alf Landon (1936) Vs. Walter Mondale (1984)
  • Barack Obama (2012) Vs. Ronald Reagan (1984)
  • Barry Goldwater (1964) Vs. George McGovern (1972)
  • Bill Clinton (1996) Vs. Ronald Reagan (1984)
  • Dwight Eisenhower (1956) Vs. Franklin Roosevelt (1936)
  • George H.W. Bush (1988) Vs. Harry Truman (1948)
  • George W. Bush (2000) Vs. John F. Kennedy (1960)
  • Jeb Bush (2016) Vs. Michael Dukakis (1988)
  • Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) Vs. Richard Nixon (1972)
  • Theodore Roosevelt (1904) Vs. William James Bryan (1896)

We can certainly discuss scenarios other than the ones listed upstream, of course.

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Pitting him against Reagan 1984 is obvious, but I'm actually wondering how a '2004 George Bush Runs In 1944' scenario might play out?

Say a bunch of Red States are sent from ~2002 back to ~1942, with President Bush and his cabinet sent along for the ride to represent the uptimers. While there will no doubt be division and legal disputes that arise between the two Americas, it still gives them a couple of years to sort things out before the next presidential election. In which case, I actually wonder if Dubya would do better than most might think?

I'd have to think about it more and double-check some things, but off the top of my head, there are a few things Bush has going for him here. First, this is when Bush still has his ultra-high approval ratings at least heading into this, much less having completely worn out his welcome among uptimers by throwing his second term to the dogs. Second, he'll have "incumbency" on his side once election season approaches, an advantage that Willkie and Dewey distinctly lacked. Third, I think he might try to recycle "compassionate conservatism" from his 2000 campaign to win over New Dealer downtimers, so I wonder if he could promise to sign legislation analogous to Medicare Part D (and other such policies) into law? True, "Civil Rights come early" will be a problem no matter what set of Red States (i.e. the Deep South) is sent back, but as the least bigoted of the two presidents, he may capitalize on that by beating Roosevelt over the head for Japanese internment and win considerably more nonwhite votes than the typical GOP candidate (his OTL self included).

Of course, I think it's also an open question as to whether FDR still runs or retires, especially given how his poor health will quickly become public record in more than just the uptimer states. I also recall hearing—but not having had the chance to verify, admittedly—that Roosevelt mainly ran again to keep the US ready for war, as opposed to a GOP president maintaining American isolationism. With Bush, that'll be anything but the case, though how well (or poorly) an elected Dubya handles post-war geopolitics is a separate question altogether. If FDR retires, however, then all the better for Bush's odds of winning a second term, since the Democratic nominee won't have the same kind of "incumbency" on their side. (It's still worth discussing who the candidate will be if not Roosevelt, of course...)
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
What about James Garfield (1880) vs. Barack Obama (2008/2012)?

Depends on the compensation of the electorate, I'd think. For example, if it's overwhelmingly made up of downtimers, then Obama will almost assuredly lose on the basis of race, rather than policy or charisma.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Depends on the compensation of the electorate, I'd think. For example, if it's overwhelmingly made up of downtimers, then Obama will almost assuredly lose on the basis of race, rather than policy or charisma.

Makes sense. This would be even more so considering that his middle name is Hussein and that his dad is a Muslim. Even Northerners from 1880 are going to wonder why exactly a half-Kenyan half-breed should be leading the US when his father's home country is still being colonized by the British. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see Garfield win all fifty US states in a landslide in this scenario. The crucial questions, of course, would be where exactly and what exactly Obama's highest percentage of the vote is going to be.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Makes sense. This would be even more so considering that his middle name is Hussein and that his dad is a Muslim. Even Northerners from 1880 are going to wonder why exactly a half-Kenyan half-breed should be leading the US when his father's home country is still being colonized by the British. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see Garfield win all fifty US states in a landslide in this scenario. The crucial questions, of course, would be where exactly and what exactly Obama's highest percentage of the vote is going to be.
Oh, that's easy. He's not on the ballot. He's not a natural born US citizen because Hawaii hasn't been annexed yet.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Oh, that's easy. He's not on the ballot. He's not a natural born US citizen because Hawaii hasn't been annexed yet.

Unless the 14th Amendment is interpreted to nullify all US state laws that prohibit naturalized US citizens from running for the US Presidency--but that certainly won't happen even right now, let alone in 1880!
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Unless the 14th Amendment is interpreted to nullify all US state laws that prohibit naturalized US citizens from running for the US Presidency--but that certainly won't happen even right now, let alone in 1880!
State laws do not prevent naturalized citizens from running for the US presidency, the Constitution itself does. As the 14th amendment did not explicitly alter this constitutional requirement something it might imply can not supersede what is explicit elsewhere in the constitution.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
State laws do not prevent naturalized citizens from running for the US presidency, the Constitution itself does. As the 14th amendment did not explicitly alter this constitutional requirement something it might imply can not supersede what is explicit elsewhere in the constitution.

By that logic, the 14th Amendment would not have been enough to overrule a hypothetical US constitutional provision that would have explicitly allowed US states to have both segregated schools and anti-miscegenation laws?
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
By that logic, the 14th Amendment would not have been enough to overrule a hypothetical US constitutional provision that would have explicitly allowed US states to have both segregated schools and anti-miscegenation laws?
This is a straw man. Something of that nature would never have had a constitutional clause other than the one in the 10th amendment, which grants the states the powers not elsewhere in the constitution prohibited to it. It is too specific and narrow a grant of power to have made it out of the constitutional convention. There is not even anything outside the 10th amendment allowing states to have schools at all.

Where other constitutional clauses like the 3/5 clause needed to be overridden to fulfill the intent of the 14th amendment it was done explicitly. If it hadn't been it would still stand and "Indians not taxed" and possibly arguably people serving prison sentences would still only be counted as 3/5 of a person.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
This is a straw man. Something of that nature would never have had a constitutional clause other than the one in the 10th amendment, which grants the states the powers not elsewhere in the constitution prohibited to it. It is too specific and narrow a grant of power to have made it out of the constitutional convention. There is not even anything outside the 10th amendment allowing states to have schools at all.

Where other constitutional clauses like the 3/5 clause needed to be overridden to fulfill the intent of the 14th amendment it was done explicitly. If it hadn't been it would still stand and "Indians not taxed" and possibly arguably people serving prison sentences would still only be counted as 3/5 of a person.

Hypothetical scenarios are not meant to be realistic. They are meant as thought exercises. If only realistic hypothetical scenarios were allowed, then Judith Jarvis Thomson's Violinist and people-seeds scenarios would have automatically been dismissed and been deemed unworthy of ever actually being given any serious response to them.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
How about Calvin Coolidge (1924) Vs. Grover Cleveland (1888)? It's novel and takes place between two noted (if not terribly "flashy" or "gravitic") small-government presidents for a change, though who wins is contingent on voter demographics and the issues at play, as always.

Sadly, I suspect neither will be too popular with a twenty-first century electorate, though Coolidge at least has his (relative) lack of racial prejudice going for him. Not to mention how female suffrage has already been instated by 1924, whereas Cleveland would balk at the "libertine indecency" of the modern world and be endlessly harangued over his post-presidency comments on women's suffrage (and anachronistic views on pretty much everything, really). He did, however, possess integrity and honesty to a degree that most politicians—both then and now—simply do not, though this may be balanced out by Coolidge's relatively clean record and (rather) progressive social stances.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
How about Calvin Coolidge (1924) Vs. Grover Cleveland (1888)? It's novel and takes place between two noted (if not terribly "flashy" or "gravitic") small-government presidents for a change, though who wins is contingent on voter demographics and the issues at play, as always.

Sadly, I suspect neither will be too popular with a twenty-first century electorate, though Coolidge at least has his (relative) lack of racial prejudice going for him. Not to mention how female suffrage has already been instated by 1924, whereas Cleveland would balk at the "libertine indecency" of the modern world and be endlessly harangued over his post-presidency comments on women's suffrage (and anachronistic views on pretty much everything, really). He did, however, possess integrity and honesty to a degree that most politicians—both then and now—simply do not, though this may be balanced out by Coolidge's relatively clean record and (rather) progressive social stances.

I think that Coolidge wins easily since the immigration restrictionists are going to love him even nowadays whereas Cleveland was both pro-white immigration (which alienates the immigration restrictionists) and in bed with extreme Southern racists (which alienates the left).
 
Last edited:

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
I think that Coolidge wins easily since the immigration restrictions are going to love him even nowadays whereas Cleveland was both pro-immigration (which alienates the immigration restrictionists) and in bed with extreme Southern racists (which alienates the left).

I suppose you’re right about Cleveland getting cancelled hard by his base, and I suspect whatever he’d say about all the nonwhite immigration the US has had since the 1965 Act would only land him in greater trouble.

That’s all without considering how diametrically opposed Cleveland’s conservatism is to the Democratic Party nowadays, with the closest thing to Bourbons being Blue Dogs (who are still left-winger lites). Coolidge, on the other hand, is way more in line with the Republican platform nowadays, especially with its greater predilection for tariffs and non-interventionism.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
I suppose you’re right about Cleveland getting cancelled hard by his base, and I suspect whatever he’d say about all the nonwhite immigration the US has had since the 1965 Act would only land him in greater trouble.

That’s all without considering how diametrically opposed Cleveland’s conservatism is to the Democratic Party nowadays, with the closest thing to Bourbons being Blue Dogs (who are still left-winger lites). Coolidge, on the other hand, is way more in line with the Republican platform nowadays, especially with its greater predilection for tariffs and non-interventionism.

Yeah, Coolidge's main disconnect with the present-day GOP is that the Trumpist GOP is nominally less hostile towards social safety nets than Coolidge's GOP was, but then again, Coolidge can triangulate in regards to this. ;) Meanwhile, Cleveland might only get the support of racist libertarians and perhaps some racist Blue Dog Democrats. He'd get totally crushed!

And I should have clarified: Cleveland was pro-WHITE immigration. Not non-white immigration, as you said.
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
He'd get totally crushed!

Leaning towards agreement with you there, especially given the Democrats' massive internal discord problem heading into this. Besides, even making allowances for ASB hand-waving, the fact Cleveland of all people wins the nomination here will come as a deeply unwelcome surprise to the joint-majority of neoliberals and democratic socialists.

What would the electoral map look like, do you think? With anti-Cleveland blowback on the left and Silent Cal triangulating on the right, we may very well have another 400+ electoral-vote sweep in the cards here...
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Leaning towards agreement with you there, especially given the Democrats' massive internal discord problem heading into this. Besides, even making allowances for ASB hand-waving, the fact Cleveland of all people wins the nomination here will come as a deeply unwelcome surprise to the joint-majority of neoliberals and democratic socialists.

What would the electoral map look like, do you think? With anti-Cleveland blowback on the left and Silent Cal triangulating on the right, we may very well have another 400+ electoral-vote sweep in the cards here...

I suspect that Cleveland could end up losing all 50 states, actually.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top