What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

bronconick said:
Nate Silver‏Verified account @NateSilver538 1h1 hour ago

The UK *literally initiated and completed an entire parliamentary election* in the time in between the GA-6 primary and runoff.

Man, sometimes I wish our founding fathers had borrowed some parliamentary ideas for our constitution.
Click to expand...

Brits don't do primaries. That saves a whole bunch of time.

We COULD do that, but that would entail returning to the smoke-filled room and the party bosses.
 
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

Smoke-filled rooms would have prevented Donald Trump from becoming president.
 
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

dxmnkd316 said:
Smoke-filled rooms would have prevented Donald Trump from becoming president.
Click to expand...

How many recent elections would have different candidates if the bosses picked the candidates?
 
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

Almost certainly.

I mentioned I was young and dumb in 2004, even more so in '92, but I'm wondering if Clinton wouldn't have won the nomination back then either. Wasn't he a relative unknown at the time?

Romney may have gotten yanked in 2012 in lieu of a sacrificial lamb. Romney I think would have had a good chance in 2016. Or at least a better chance.
 
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

Mitt was and is never going to be POTUS. He just looks better next to Orange Droolius.
 
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

So do you think Romney was the sacrificial lamb?
 
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

dxmnkd316 said:
Almost certainly.

I mentioned I was young and dumb in 2004, even more so in '92, but I'm wondering if Clinton wouldn't have won the nomination back then either. Wasn't he a relative unknown at the time?
Click to expand...

He was, but it was a strange year in that nobody of note really ran thinking that Bush was unbeatable coming off of the first Iraq war. So he ran against Tsongas, Gephardt, Harkin and Jerry Brown. Aside from Gephardt who was a stiff that made Dukakis look inspirational, there was really no establishment choice once Cuomo begged off for the 3rd straight time.
 
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

joecct said:
How many recent elections would have different candidates if the bosses picked the candidates?
Click to expand...

Great question. Ignoring the ripple effect of what an earlier change would do downstream (guessing who the nominees would have been if we reverted beginning with election x), here are my guesses since the big change post-1968. * - Asterisks is a change. Bold -- my predicted winner.

Code: 
[B]Yr Dem              GOP[/B]
72 Humphrey*        [B]Nixon[/B]
76 [B]Kennedy[/B]*         Ford
80 Carter          [B] GHW Bush[/B]*
84 Mondale          [B]Reagan[/B]
88 Bentsen*         [B]GHW Bush[/B]
92 Kerrey*          [B]GHW Bush[/B]
96 [B]B Clinton[/B]        Dole
00 Gore             [B]Danforth[/B]*
04 [B]Gephardt[/B]*        GW Bush
08 [B]H Clinton[/B]*       McCain
12 [B]Obama            [/B]Romney
16 [B]H Clinton[/B]        J Bush*
 
Last edited:
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

Kepler said:
Great question. Ignoring the ripple effect of what an earlier change would do downstream (guessing who the nominees would have been if we reverted beginning with election x), here are my guesses since the big change post-1968. * - Asterisks is a change. Bold -- my predicted winner.

Code: 
[B]Yr Dem              GOP[/B]
72 Humphrey*        [B]Nixon[/B]
76 [B]Kennedy[/B]*         Ford
80 Carter          [B] GHW Bush[/B]*
84 Mondale          [B]Reagan[/B]
88 Bentsen*         [B]GHW Bush[/B]
92 Kerrey*          [B]GHW Bush[/B]
96 [B]B Clinton[/B]        Dole
00 Gore             [B]Danforth[/B]*
04 [B]Gephardt[/B]*        GW Bush
08 [B]H Clinton[/B]*       McCain
12 [B]Obama            [/B]Romney
16 [B]H Clinton[/B]        J Bush*
Click to expand...

Is GHW Bush eligible for a 3rd term?? If so, I know who the Ds are running in 2020.
 
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

joecct said:
Is GHW Bush eligible for a 3rd term?? If so, I know who the Ds are running in 2020.
Click to expand...

It's not a third term. Remember, each election is considered the start of the return to smoke filled rooms, otherwise you'd have to make predictions about the administrations of alt-choices and that's too hard. Bush gets renominated in '92 because he's only had one term at that point. That he would have won in '80 is irrelevant in '92 (or '88) because the point of departure from the timeline for year x is x, not before x.

Likewise, Obama can't run in '20* for the reason that he can't in OTL -- he's had his 2 terms.

Bush wins the floor battle in '80 because the RNC knows trickle down is snake oil, so Reagan is shut down same as '76 by Ford in OTL. Reagan never gets the chance to muscle in on the Orange County money and put his own fix in because the primaries are still just beauty contests so nobody cares that he wins there.

I am assuming that every incumbent with remaining eligibility is always re-upped, because the CW was incumbency is such an enormous advantage (something that may not still be true).

* The really interesting question for this analysis is this: would Hillary be the smokefilled room nominee in '20? She might. Her people are the termites infesting the entire Democratic party structure at every level. Without the public oversight of the primary system she could easily have enough heft to put us all through it again.
 
Last edited:
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

Kepler said:
It's not a third term. Remember, each election is considered the start of the return to smoke filled rooms, otherwise you'd have to make predictions about the administrations of alt-choices and that's too hard. So Obama can't run in '20 for the reason that he can't in OTL -- he's had his 2 terms.

Bush wins the floor battle in '80 because the RNC knows trickle down is snake oil, so Reagan is shut down same as '76.

Reagan never gets the chance to muscle in on the Orange County money and put his own fix in because the primaries are still just beauty contests so nobody cares that he wins there. (Same goes for Clinton in 92).

I am assuming that every incumbent with remaining eligibility is always re-upped, because the CW was incumbency is such an enormous advantage (something that may not still be true).
Click to expand...

Color me confused - 80, 88, 92. Isn't that 3 terms??
 
joecct said:
Color me confused - 80, 88, 92. Isn't that 3 terms??
Click to expand...

Kepler's output had each election independent of all others. The 88 and 92 elections are based on what happened at the start of the actual cycle, not what would've happened based on earlier cycles. That's why Reagan is still in for 84, too.

In other words, don't look at what he predicts for 80 to affect his predictions for 84, 88, or any subsequent years. View them all as independent.
 
Re: The British Parliamentary election of June 8. Will she stay or go?

unofan said:
Kepler's output had each election independent of all others. The 88 and 92 elections are based on what happened at the start of the actual cycle, not what would've happened based on earlier cycles. That's why Reagan is still in for 84, too.

In other words, don't look at what he predicts for 80 to affect his predictions for 84, 88, or any subsequent years. View them all as independent.
Click to expand...

Correct. That's what I was trying to say.

That is not a map of a single alt timeline. It's a list of what would happen if each election was the departure point from OTL. You could do maps of each alt timeline, but especially for the early ones it would quickly evaporate into nested what ifs. e.g., if Kennedy wins in 76 does he f-ck up as bad as Carter, and if not then he's an incumbent with huge party power going up against a GOP still tainted by Watergate, so does he win again under circumstances 90% different from OTL 80? That's just too many what ifs for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top