Presidential Elections

oshron

Joined Jun 2009

3,692 Posts | 3+

western Terranova

Discussion Starter
• Sep 26, 2009

• #1

im working on an alternative history story. at the moment, im working on the presidential elections for the United States of North America. ive decided that the major point of divergence is in FDR's elections. WWII never occurred in this alternative history, so FDR does not serve a third term starting in 1941.

what do you guys think would be the best way for the presidential elections from that point on to go? what im mainly looking for is to basically replace the "bad" presidents up to the current incumbent, Barack Obama. also note that the Vietnam War never occurred either

 

Nick

Joined Jul 2006

6,111 Posts | 7+

UK

• Sep 26, 2009

• #2

Without FDR the US would be severely ....... I doubt it would recover and become a superpower.

 

Nick

Joined Jul 2006

6,111 Posts | 7+

UK

• Sep 26, 2009

• #3

In fact, another 4 years of Republican misrule could mean revolution and the US becoming a people's republic. If the leader of the revolution was another Lenin who wanted what was best for the people (rather than a power-hungry Stalin keeping the wealth for himself and his cronies) Communism would succeed as the US is fully industrialised, has a large working class and enough wealth to distrubute equally.

 

oshron

Joined Jun 2009

3,692 Posts | 3+

western Terranova

Discussion Starter
• Sep 26, 2009

• #4

silly me, i forgot to mention the bolshevik's lack of influence in the alternative history. sorry about that.

 

oshron

Joined Jun 2009

3,692 Posts | 3+

western Terranova

Discussion Starter
• Sep 28, 2009

• #5

bump

 

C

chrisCampodonico

Joined Sep 2009

7 Posts | 0+

• Sep 30, 2009

• #6

Nick said:

Without FDR the US would be severely ....... I doubt it would recover and become a superpower.

Click to expand...

I don't know that I completely agree with the US being severely "......". It is certain that Hoover would not have been able to accomplish what FDR was though.

 

Nick

Joined Jul 2006

6,111 Posts | 7+

UK

• Sep 30, 2009

• #7

Hoover was responsible for ruining America in the first place.

 

C

chrisCampodonico

Joined Sep 2009

7 Posts | 0+

• Sep 30, 2009

• #8

Nick said:

Hoover was responsible for ruining America in the first place.

Click to expand...

How so? I think the Depression itself was more responsible for that. Hoover's reaction to the Depression was more of the reason he's generally not thought of as a good President.

 

Lucius

Joined Jan 2007

16,359 Posts | 31+

Nebraska

• Sep 30, 2009

• #9

Hey, oshron,

John Nance Garner was FDR's VP for his first two terms. Let him take over in '41. He was the son of a Confederate cavalry trooper and was born in a one-room cabin in Texas's Red River Valley in 1868.

That would be the bomb.

 

oshron

Joined Jun 2009

3,692 Posts | 3+

western Terranova

Discussion Starter
• Oct 1, 2009

• #10

i'll consider that

 

Chookie

Joined Nov 2007

7,628 Posts | 9+

Alba

• Oct 1, 2009

• #11

Nick said:

Hoover was responsible for ruining America in the first place.

Click to expand...

Which one? J. Edgar or Herbert?

 

Nick

Joined Jul 2006

6,111 Posts | 7+

UK

• Oct 1, 2009

• #12

Both. J Edgar began a fascist-style persecution of socialists which went against the Second Amendment. Herbert's failure to directly intervene in America's economy and ineffective methods prolonged the Depression.