Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Fictional Historical Elections

WVProgressive

By WVProgressive
in Political Forum

 Share

Fictional Historical Elections  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Assume it is the 2008 Election, and these are the tickets. Who do you vote for?

    • Republican Ticket: Ron Paul/Fred Thompson
      4
    • Democrat Ticket: Barack Obama/Joe Biden
      10
    • Libertarian Ticket: Steve Kubby/Wayne Allen Root
      0
    • Green Ticket: Ralph Nader/Mike Gravel
      3
    • Candidate Not Listed Here/Would Not Vote/Other
      1

  2. 2. Now assume it is the 1968 election. Which ticket would you vote for?

    • Republican Ticket: Ronald Reagan/Nelson Rockefeller
      8
    • Democratic Ticket: Eugene McCarthy/Fred Harris
      10
    • American Independent Ticket: George Wallace/Happy Chandler
      0
    • Candidate Not Listed Here/Would Not Vote/Other
      0

  3. 3. Pretend it's the 1896 Election, and these are the tickets. Which one would you vote for?

    • Republican Ticket: William B. Allison/Thomas B. Reed
      6
    • Democratic Ticket: William Russell/Joseph Blackburn
      0
    • Populist Ticket: William Jennings Bryan/Henry Teller
      9
    • Candidate Not Listed Here/Would Not Vote/Other
      3

  4. 4. In a fictionalized 1864 election, which of the following tickets would you vote for?

    • National Union Ticket: Abraham Lincoln/Andrew Johnson
      6
    • Democratic Ticket: George B. McClellan/Horatio Seymour
      0
    • Peace Ticket: Clement Vallandingham/Thomas H. Seymour
      0
    • Radical Ticket: Ulysses S. Grant/Thaddeus Stevens
      10
    • Candidate Not Listed Here/Would Not Vote/Other
      2

Recommended Posts

WVProgressive

WVProgressive

Posted
Posted

Hello there. I had a few ideas for interesting alternate historical elections, and I thought some of the posters on here would be interested in them, so I made this poll. Assume the wider context of each election is the same as the historical counterpart when making your choice, and disregard how outlandish some of the hypotheticals are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cenzonico

Cenzonico

Posted
Posted (edited)

The 2008 election would have been a tough choice between Paul and Nader (100% due to Gravel's presence on the ticket) but the idea of a President Ron Paul is 😍😍😍 so I went with him.

Edited by Cenzonico
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vcczar

vcczar

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Cenzonico said:

The 2008 election would have been a tough choice between Paul and Nader (100% due to Gravel's presence on the ticket) but the idea of a President Ron Paul is 😍😍😍 so I went with him.

I don't see his appeal. I saw Ron Paul in person in 2013 in San Marcos, TX. Small, indoor campaign. I ended up leaving about 70% through the event. 

I find his anti-war stances and anti-corruption great, but just about everything else is just awful. I would have stayed for the entire event, but he kept calling Pelosi a "progressive," which she isn't. She's a liberal, which is somewhere between moderate and progressive. A liberal keeps the status quo and throws money at problems. A progressive tries to reform things to improve things. Ron Paul came off as just a propagandist, in my opinion. 

I also saw Bernie Sanders in Philadelphia in either 2018 or 2019. Al Sharpton and Gordon Brown in NYC in 2011. Al Sharpton again in like 2008. Barack Obama in 2008. Ted Kennedy and Joseph P Kennedy II in 2008. The first politician I ever saw was Jerry Brown in 1992 when I was a kid. He was randomly at SMU's campus in Dallas, TX and I was at the student center having just played some arcade games. I was close enough to shakes hands with Obama, Ted Kennedy, and Sanders out of all of these. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vcczar

vcczar

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Patine said:

I think he emphasized his anti-war, anti-"alphabet soup," agency, anti-Constitutional-rights-infringement, and anti-corruption stances over all the others because of the Bush legacy and hoping to get Republican and moderate Democratic voters who were literally afraid (or, at least, uncomfortable or not confident) to publicly disagree with it in the, "War of Terror," social zeitgeist. That, of course, wouldn't have meant his other policies would have STAYED de-emphasized had he somehow won the election.

He’d be a disaster of a president. He’d attempt to veto everything and get overriden 75% of the time or more. Definitely a one termer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pringles

Pringles

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, vcczar said:

He’d be a disaster of a president. He’d attempt to veto everything and get overriden 75% of the time or more. Definitely a one termer.  

I'd agree for the most part. He would not get congress on his side and would essentially be a lame duck. I'd have to stick with Obama for 08. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timur

Timur

Posted
Posted

Ron Paul's connection with white supremacists and his newsletters are a reason I would not vote for him.

However, I don't like the other options either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timur

Timur

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Patine said:

That, and many REAL elections, are why the U.S. NEEDS a functional, viable, politically-healthy, multi-party system with truly free-and-fair elections. It's an utter betrayal to their own voters that almost every General Election, the statistical majority have to hold their nose and vote for a candidate they don't really support or believe in.

Well, I would not hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul. I wish that all states had a write-in system like Alabama (where votes for Mickey Mouse, Santa Claus, Harambe, etc. count) or a "None of These Candidates" option like Nevada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WVProgressive

WVProgressive

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Rezi said:

Love the idea of a Grant/Stevens ticket. Thaddeus is one of my all time favorite senators

Same! Grant gets a bad rap, but he was one of the most pro Civil-Rights presidents in our history. In fact, I'd argue he was the most pro Civil Rights president post Civil War until LBJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pilight

pilight

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WVProgressive said:

Same! Grant gets a bad rap, but he was one of the most pro Civil-Rights presidents in our history. In fact, I'd argue he was the most pro Civil Rights president post Civil War until LBJ.

That's a big part of why he gets a bad rap.  Well, that and his later presidency of the NRA.  His achievements are pretty much designed to piss off every modern American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pringles

Pringles

Posted
Posted

The Grant/Stevens ticket united those among the left, and the right of this forum. That's pretty based tbh. Grant is a very underrated President imo. Overshadowed by his not so clean cabinet lol, like that's super important anyways. 😛 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pringles

Pringles

Posted
Posted
Just now, Patine said:

When you say, "based," in this kind of context (as you have several times) you mean, "biased," (with an, "i" in there), don't you? Otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense, so I assume it's a chronic misspell.

I see you aren't well versed with the term... allow me to explain. 

If I say something is "based." That means it is awesome, admirable or cool. Here's a quote from the urban dictionary.

"A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang.

The opposite of cringe, some times the opposite of biased."

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WVProgressive

WVProgressive

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Patine said:

When you say, "based," in this kind of context (as you have several times) you mean, "biased," (with an, "i" in there), don't you? Otherwise it doesn't make a lot of sense, so I assume it's a chronic misspell.

Based is late 2010s/2020s slang for something that the speaker finds cool, awesome, or supportable. I believe it originated with Trump supporters in 2016 but has since migrated, and become accepted in the general vernacular, more or less. I love you, and your occasional fuddy-duddy-ness Pat, and I want to clarify that my laughing reaction is more so a smile at behavior I find endearing, rather than a laugh, and certainly not laughing at you for not knowing a word.

Edited by WVProgressive
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WVProgressive

WVProgressive

Posted
  • Author
Posted
30 minutes ago, Patine said:

You mean like, "whataboutism," was coined by Vladimir Putin, but now a lot of people who would want absolutely no association with him, or know he uttered it first, like to use the term?

Yes, exactly like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...