Wednesday, January 18, 2017

NIxon's the One! In 1960!

It wouldn't take much change for Nixon to have won in 1960. A gaffe on the part of Kennedy, perhaps, or rumors of his promiscuous sexual behavior (which we now know to be true), gaining traction. But I like the idea of Rockefeller agreeing to become his VP, which he turned down in our timeline. That might give Nixon New York and one other, maybe New Jersey, and the presidency. So let's see where this takes us:

1960Rep. Richard Nixon/Nelson A. 
John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson

Vietnam never develops into a
large-scale conflict. Nixon turns
the Bay of pigs into a success and Cuba is liberated.

1964Rep. Richard Nixon/Nelson A. Rockefeller
Dem Lyndon Johnson/Pat Brown

Passage of civil rights bill, much
more moderate than in our time

Nixon vetoes immigration bill,
which then fails, because Ted
Kennedy is not in Senate.

1968Rep. Nelson Rockefeller/George
Dem. Harold Hughes/John Connally

An economic slump and the
unpopularity of the Sarawak war
leads to a primary challenge
from Pete McCloskey which weakens his candidacy.
Senator Howard Baker becomes well-known
nationwide because of the Sarawak hearings.

1972Rep. Nelson Rockefeller/George
Dem. John Connally / John Lindsay

1976Rep./George Romney/Charles
Dem. John Connally / John Lindsay

1980Dem. Jerry Brown/Jimmy Carter
Rep. Howard Baker/Otis Bowen

1984Dem. Gary Hart/Alan Cranston
Rep. Howard Baker/Otis Bowen

1988Dem. Richard Gephardt/Albert Gore
Rep. Donald Rumsfeld/Jack

1992Dem. Richard Gephardt/Albert Gore
Rep. Julie Eisenhower/PIerre duPont

1996Dem. Paul Tsongas/Tom Harkin
Rep. Julie Eisenhower/PIerre duPont

2000Dem. Howard Dean/Bob Graham
Rep. PIerre duPont/Paul Findley

2004Dem. Bob Casey, Jr./Bill Richardson
Rep. PIerre duPont/Paul Findley

2008Dem. Bob Casey, Jr./Bill Richardson
Rep. Tommy Thompson/MIke


Dem. Mark Udall/Joe Manchin
Rep. Fred Thompson/MIchelle

Thompson dies in office. Bachman 
becomes President. She selects 
James Mattis for VP

2016Dem. Andrew Cuomo/Barbar Boxer
Rep. Michele Bachmann/James Mattis

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

President Sessions?

This is an oddity from Breitbart [link] that intrigues me. Before Trump got into the race for the nomination, my first choice for President was indeed Jeff Sessions, largely because he's a hawk on immigration, and also because of his generally conservative orientation, with a populist bias. Actually, that sounds a lot like Trump, doesn't it? That explains his choice of Sessions for Attorney General. But I think it less likely that Sessions would have beaten Hillary, had he been nominated. After all, we've just witnessed some downright political genius on the part of Trump, using liberal tactics against liberals, hitting back harder when he's hit, and using technology to make an end run around the hostile press.

But if somehow he had been elected, Sessions would indeed make a great President. Read on:

A Look Back at the Remarkable Presidency of Jeff Sessions


In the just-completed 2024 presidential election, the Republican Party has won the White House for a third consecutive time—only the third instance in a century that the GOP has managed this feat.
So it’s worth pausing over the origins and causes of this political achievement—this Republican “triple play.” In particular, we might ask: What additional political force has given the GOP this newfound political muscle? After all, from 1992 to 2012, the GOP had lost four of six presidential elections—and five of six in the popular vote. And yet the Republican presidential victories of 2016, 2020, and 2024 cannot be denied: Even the Main Stream Media are now willing to concede that GOP strength is more than just “a blip.”
In fact, if we examine these Republican win streaks, we can identify some commonalities. In each instance, we can see that one political figure stands as decisive in building the Republican Party’s national strength. Way back in the 1920s, the key force for the GOP was President Calvin Coolidge, who inherited the wreckage of Warren G. Harding’s presidency in 1923 and won big in his own right in the 1924 election. In office, Coolidge was so popular that he bequeathed a strong Republican majority to his successor in 1928.
In the next GOP win streak, in the 1980s, the Republican main man was President Ronald Reagan. In the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections, the Gipper was the big winner, and his popularity helped George H.W. Bush win another thumping victory in 1988.
And most recently, in the Teens and Twenties, the undeniable architect of sustained Republican success was the 45th President, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III of Alabama. His victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 was relatively close, and yet his re-election in 2020 was a landslide. And as we have just seen, President Sessions’ continued popularity made it easy for his anointed successor to hold the White House in 2024.
So yes, over the last eight years, President Sessions has indeed consolidated a new Republican majority. In particular, we can identify three pillars of strength:
First, by virtue of his long service to the Republican Party, he held the Republican base.
Second, by virtue of his strong stance on key issues of principle, he solidified the support of Tea Partiers and Constitutionalists. Crucially, he recaptured the allegiance of the United States Independence Partythe group of disaffected Republicans that had split from the GOP over the immigration issue.
Third, by virtue of his populist appeal, Sessions brought over a great many centrist Democrats, who were dissatisfied with former President Barack Obama but nevertheless fearful of most Republicans. Wits of the time said that Sessions was a “gateway drug” for wandering Democrats.
During the Obama years, Sessions, then in the US Senate, stood out. He was a solid conservative vote on virtually all issues, from taxes to guns to Life, yet nevertheless he took bold positions on immigration and globalization that jolted the open-borders libertarian hegemony that then prevailed within the GOP. As he said repeatedly, a truck driver is just as important as a billionaire. That is, protecting the jobs of ordinary Americans were just as much a priority as protecting the profits for venture capitalists. Indeed, Sessions showed his Southern spunk: He wasn’t afraid to mix it up with liberal Democratic billionaires. Ideological purists were horrified; ordinary Americans were delighted: Finally, someone in Washington was willing to fight for them.
Sessions thus pointed the way to a new and powerful kind of politics with broad national appeal: It was sometimes called “populism,” although others preferred to call it “Middle Class Conservatism.” For his part, Sessions eschewed labels; to him it was just common sense.
Yet by whatever name, Sessions’ brand of politics proved wildly popular in his home state of Alabama; in 2014, he was the only US Senator, in either party, who was unopposed for re-election. Moreover, Sessions’ message resonated to a larger audience than just the Yellowhammer State. His staunch opposition to Obama’s amnesties of 2014, 2015, and 2016 made him a national hero. Indeed, he was admired by many Democrats who could see that the rising tide of illegals flooding into the country was jeopardizing not only their wages at work but also their safety at home.
Thus Sessions emerged as an important national figure. And yet as we remember, during the Obama years, he was not only not generally seen as a future president, but he himself actively swatted down rumors that he might throw his hat in the ring.
Still, the presidential speculation about Sessions continued. In those years, GOP strategists were hungry for victory; after all, the Party had lost the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections by wide margins. Notably, Republican politicos knew all too well that their candidates in ’08 and ’12 had virtually no appeal to swing voters. And so many Republican thinkers came to believe that that a more populist message could bring disaffected Democrats—of the type who had once voted for Ronald Reagan—back into the Republican fold.
Read the rest here:

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

SJW's Everywhere! Even in Alternate History!

This is a reprint from

You never know where you're going to find delicate SJW snowflakes. I'm still surprised when they pop up in unexpected places, though by now I shouldn't be. Half the team that does this blog has an oddball interest in alternate history science fiction, the sort of thing Harry Turtledove writes, and a classical example of which is The Man in the High Castle [link].  This has led him to have another blog, Ifnicity [link], all about alternate history.

There's an alternate history discussion forum on the net at "Alternate History Dot Com" [link]. And he finally got around to registering there to participate in some of the discussions. After registering, one of the first threads he came across was the question, "Are there any right wingers anywhere!?." (meaning on the forum) Some people had answered already, saying they were conservatives, talking about right-wingers as a different classification than conservatives, stuff like that, mostly very mild. So he answered the question this way:

Neither "right-winger" nor "conservative" has widely agreed-upon definitions. Both terms should be defined whenever they're used, especially in forums like this, that include people of many different places and with very different experiences. Me, you can call Alt-Right (I was Alt-Right before Hillary popularized the phrase) or "libertarian nationalist" (google it) in that I believe in libertarian principles about the way the Founding Fathers did, and that I think the nation-state is the best guardian of these principles and its inhabitants. Another way to look at it is that I'm the sort of Goldwater "conservative" that was the default conservative before the Trotskyites left the Democratic party, joined the Republican party, and began calling themselves "neoconservatives."

And guess what happened next? One of the SJW's on the forum wrote:

Oh look it's a brand new member starting off by announcing he's a racist.


And I naturally expected this just to be the reaction of one of the more childish members, but no, I received an email right away, reading:

[Y]ou have been permanently banned in response to your message Are there any right wingers anywhere!?.

Whoa! Amazing that they, or anybody else, can find "racism" in that paragraph I wrote. Maybe you can enlighten me. Is it the Alt-Right part? Reference to "libertarian nationalist" or maybe even the "Founding Fathers"? The identification as a "Goldwater conservative"? Or the Trotsky part?

Well, if any of you are interested in alternate history, and join that forum, for God's sake don't mention to them that you ever voted for or supported anybody but the most orthodox of leftist Democrats. Better yet, go to Ifnicity [link] and do your alternate-history discussing there. is a cybernetic "safe place," I suppose.
Quibcag: Since this is about thinking, I used Yuki Nagato of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu)  to illustrate it, because she looks very brainy and very cute at the same time.

Sunday, December 25, 2016

My Answer to the Challenge

Okay, here's my answer to this challenge [link]. Anybody see any flaws in it?
1960Pat Brown (Cal.) - George Smathers (Fla.)Nelson A. Rockefeller (NY.) – Everett Dirksen (Ill.)

1964Eugene McCarthy (Minn.) – J. William Fulbright (Ark.)Nelson A. Rockefeller (NY.) – Everett Dirksen (Ill.)
1968John Connally (Tex.) – James Roosevelt  (Cal.)
Charles H. Percy (Ill.) – William Scranton (Penn.)
1972John Connally (Tex.) – James Roosevelt  (Cal.)William Scranton (Penn.) - Gordon A. Allott (Col.)
1976James Roosevelt  (Cal.) – John Glenn (Oh.)Phil Crane (Ill.) – Mark Hatfield (Ore.)

1980John Glenn (Oh.) – Jerry Brown (Cal.)
Phil Crane (Ill.) – Mark Hatfield (Ore.)
1984John Glenn (Oh.) – Jerry Brown (Cal.)John Tower (Tex.) – Alexander Haig (Penn.)
1988Jerry Brown (Cal.)  Richard Gephardt (Misso.)
Alexander Haig (Penn.) - Donald Rumsfeld (Ill.)
1992Jerry Brown (Cal. Richard Gephardt (Misso.)
Pat Buchanan (Virg.) – William L. Armstrong (Colo.)

1996Bob Kerrey (Nebr.) - Bob Casey (Penn.)Pat Buchanan (Virg.) – William L. Armstrong (Colo.)
2000Bob Kerrey (Nebr.)   - Bill Bradley (NJer.) 
Orrin Hatch (Ut.) - Haley Barbour (Missi.)
2004Bob Kerrey (Nebr.)   - Bill Bradley (NJer.) Tommy Thompson (Wisc.) - George Perdue (Geor.)
2008Bill Bradley (NJer.) - Evan Bayh (Ind.)
Sam Brownback (Kans.) - Mel Martinez (Fla.)
2012Bill Bradley (NJer.) - Evan Bayh (Ind.)Fred Thompson (Tenn.) (died in office 2015) - Duncan Hunter (Cal.)

2016Evan Bayh (Ind.) - John HIckenlooper (Colo.)Duncan Hunter (Cal.) - Jeff Sessions (Alab.)

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Russian Amerika (Russian Amerika Series Book 1) by Stoney Compton

Russian Amerika is an alternate history with the premise that the American Civil War was lost by the Northern army, and the United States was divided into ten different countries. The story takes place in 1987, where the Russians under the Czar run a police state in Alaska.

The main character is a disgraced Russian officer Grigorievich forced to resign his commission due disobeying an order that saved his men. He leads the revolt with Native peoples in attempt throw of the yoke of the Russian Empire.

The book written with a nice easy to read style, or was it that I was just trying to get through the book at the quick step?. I find the premise of this alternate history  problematic. The characters are a bit one dimensional, and very predictable. The story is filled with a lot of action for fans of military based alternate histories. However, like the characters the action is predictable with predictable outcomes.

It isn't exactly clear with the point of divergence happened in the historical outline. The story hints at a Civil War won by the Confederacy at some point prior to 1860 causing the United States to lose vast areas of land west of the Mississippi. It hints at possible pod before the Civil War. Technology appears to stand still in the book from 1930's-1980's.

I wanted to like this book, but struggled to finish it with all the story line holes. There is a liberal leaning to the book with Mario Cuomo hinted to be the President of the United States, Jimmy Carter as a senior officer in the Confederacy with the First Nations (nation) being on good terms with the United States, but not with British Columbia. What happened to manifest destiny? Or go west young man? Ignoring the fact that native tribes weren't on good terms among themselves.

The book has some entertainment value. I would give it 2.5 stars on the five star scale.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

1960 Challenge

1964 Election: Symington/Smathers 288 Dirksen/Bennett 250
Here's a challenge for everybody. Create a timeline, starting with the 1960 election, in which the people who were nominated for President or VP in OTL were not nominated for either office by the Democrats or the Republicans up to the present. Naturally, that will mean that every President and VP since Eisenhower are different people from the ones who were in OTL.  That means Nixon was never nominated, either in 1960 or 1968 or any other year.  Ford can't be on your list because, though he didn't run for VP, but was appointed to the job by Nixon, he did run for President. On the other hand, Rockefeller, though he was VP, can be included because he was never nominated for President or for VP.

Just to be clear, you can't have people who were nominated for President being nominated for VP in your timeline, or vice versa. You can have people who tried to get nominated, like Gary Hart, Mike Huckabee, Fred Harris, etc.

And, do make your list either plausible or entertaining or both. And include graphics like the example above, if you like.

So, none of these can be on your list:
1960John F. Kennedy (Mass.) – Lyndon B. Johnson (Tex.)Richard Nixon (Calif.) – Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (Mass.)
1964Lyndon B. Johnson (Tex.) – Hubert Humphrey (Minn.)Barry Goldwater (Ariz.) – William E. Miller (N.Y.)
1968Hubert Humphrey (Minn.) – Edmund Muskie (Maine)Richard Nixon (Calif.) – Spiro Agnew (Md.)
1972George McGovern (S.D.) – Sargent Shriver (Md.)Richard Nixon (Calif.) – Spiro Agnew (Md.)
1976Jimmy Carter (Ga.) – Walter Mondale (Minn.)Gerald Ford (Mich.) – Bob Dole(Kan.)
1980Jimmy Carter (Ga.) – Walter Mondale (Minn.)Ronald Reagan (Calif.) – George H. W. Bush (Tex.)
1984Walter Mondale (Minn.) – Geraldine Ferraro (N.Y.)Ronald Reagan (Calif.) – George H. W. Bush (Tex.)
1988Michael Dukakis (Mass.) – Lloyd Bentsen (Tex.)George H. W. Bush (Tex.) – Dan Quayle (Ind.)
1992Bill Clinton (Ark.) – Al Gore(Tenn.)George H. W. Bush (Tex.) – Dan Quayle (Ind.)
1996Bill Clinton (Ark.) – Al Gore(Tenn.)Bob Dole (Kan.) – Jack Kemp(N.Y.)
2000Al Gore (Tenn.) – Joe Lieberman (Conn.)George W. Bush (Tex.) – Dick Cheney (Wyo.)
2004John Kerry (Mass.) – John Edwards (N.C.)George W. Bush (Tex.) – Dick Cheney (Wyo.)
2008Barack Obama (Ill.) – Joe Biden (Del.)John McCain (Ariz.) – Sarah Palin (Alaska)
2012Barack Obama (Ill.) – Joe Biden (Del.)Mitt Romney (Mass.) – Paul Ryan (Wis.)
2016Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) – Tim Kaine (Va.)Donald Trump (N.Y.) – Mike Pence (Ind.)