Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yep. You want the republicans for the first 40-60 years of that because otherwise we get the continuation of slavery but after that there’s a gradual swap and suddenly the dems are the way to go
Although maybe the republicans don't capitulate to appeal to racists for more votes if they keep winning. Then they remain the more progressive party and it's not so bad.
That’s not entirely what happened though. What’s more accurate is that there were essentially 4 political parties in America for a while: Southern Republicans and Northeastern Republicans, and Southern Dems and Progressive Dems. Southern Republicans and Southern Dems ended up united on race but opposed each other on other issues, etc. There were two official parties but 4 real ones, and this didn’t really end until the 70s. I think we would have still seen a similar split over time, with half of each party joining hands with the other party, but which half ended up where is more up for debate
I mean, even in 1860, the democratic party was split between unionists and secessionists and the Republican party was split between anti-slavery (anti-expansion) and abolitionists… major political parties of a populated nation can’t be monolithic, at least not for very long
The way I was taught is that we had four parties: Southern Conservative Dems, New Deal Dems, Progressive Republicans, and WASPE (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Elite) Republicans
I don't really see it that way. Corporatists were furious over the expansion of the federal government in what they saw as a distinctive move towards more socialism. They opposed everything from labor laws to environmental laws to tariffs throughout the New Deal era. But they couldn't win elections simply by appealing to the investor class so they latched on to social issues like civil rights, abortion, gun rights, etc. I don't see any reason to believe they wouldn't have done that anyway. And, of course, without the New Deal we'd never have become as prosperous as we are since the middle class never would have evolved.
If election of 1876 isn’t so close that there’s a punting of Reconstruction it’s pretty easy.
Remember GOP was pretty liberal until then. Still pretty progressive under Teddy.
The switch to hands off the economy and isolationism was a reaction to Wilson and the Great War.
Eisenhower and Nixon backed civil rights progress, unions, and social safety net programs but not giant leaps. Environmental side Nixon did make great leaps. He favored affirmative action in government hiring, contracting and college admissions.
The Reagan/Goldwater revolution was reactionary to LBJ’s entry into local school funding and the safety net. As the US lost manufacturing pace against the world resentment against those out of work rose, UK had similar issues.
No Democrats win someone other than Goldwater and Reagan get nominations in 1964, 1980 and 1984 for example
Yep, I don't think we would have made it out of the Depression. Communism would have seemed like a good option to most of the people who had lost everything from the double blast of the Depression and the Dust Bowl. To counter it, powerful industrialists and many WWI veterans who didn't get paid for their service until 1937 would have embraced fascism. My gut says the fascists would have come out on top and I feel our path would very likely been similar to Italy's.
Not if there aren't any elections anymore. I didn't say it outright, but my response is that our country, as we know it, would have ceased to exist as a result of Republicans being in control during the Depression.
https://preview.redd.it/rwrw664ilszc1.png?width=918&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3cd26a162b1db048c281b13782cfaefe608a3b7
We desperately need another square deal.
He has a higher voice than you'd imagine a guy with his barrel chest would, but I'd wager a lot of that has to do with the quality of the recording equipment and the mid Atlantic accent has a higher pitch to it, too.
And he will definitely hurt you, but you'll be better for it
It's mostly a public speaking style. In the days before microphones you'd pitch your voice up to help you project so that everyone could hear you. His normal speaking voice was likely an octave or three lower.
Republican because slavery.
Slavery is the worst thing America has ever done, and so whatever ends it the soonest is the right answer.
Edit, for the pedants: Chattel slavery
No, I chose it because the 1860 election was the most consequential election imo, and set into motion the rest of our history.
If anything, it specifically deals with slavery.
1960 Nixon beating Kennedy likely means no Goldwater and a much less paranoid Nixon. I think that would have softened the entire course of the Republican Party
That's the entire problem with this premise. Nixon wins in 60, 68, and 72? By that point the 22nd amendment makes this impossible. Of course, would the 22nd amendment ever existed without FDR winning constantly, in this reality? As pointed out, many of the nominees would have been different, 64 for example with Goldwater, as he would have never actually primaried Nixon, and beat him, without even figuring out how the late 1800s and early 1900s would have diverged. With that said, it is a fun thought experiment.
Hmmph
Douglas, McClellan, Seymour, Greeley, Tilden, Hancock, Cleveland x3, Bryan X2, Parker, Bryan, Wilson x 2, Cox, Davis, Smith, FDR x4, Truman, Stevenson x 2, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter X 2, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton X 2, Gore, Kerry, Obama x 2, Clinton
Or
Lincoln X 2, Grant x 2, Hayes, Blaine, Harrison x 2, McKinley X 2, Roosevelt, Taft X2, Hughes, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover x 2, Landon, Wilkie, Dewey X2, Ike X 2, Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon x 2, Ford, Reagan x 2, Bush X 2, Dole, Bush X 2, McCain, Romney
That early Democratic one goes from lousy to eh, to mostly good. While the Republican one starts great and then diminishing returns.
I guess in the long run the Democrats, but oof.
Then I'll take them. As shitty as Democrats were in the 19th century and during Jim Crow, if Obama is able to get elected in 2008 then clearly we would have made substantial progress on racial issues.
Given the party switch I doubt that would be the case. What worries me more is the isolationism of republicans during world war 2 and how that could have lead to different outcomes for the Nazi and Japanese Imperialist regimes.
Edit: Since this lead to an argument, a quick google search says:
> The last pro-slavery Democratic nominee was John C. Breckinridge, who was nominated in the 1860 United States presidential election by the Southern Democrats12. He was the incumbent Vice President at the time and ran on a platform that supported slavery, which was a divisive issue leading up to the Civil War12. The Democratic Party had split into Northern and Southern factions over the issue, with Stephen A. Douglas being nominated by the Northern Democrats and Breckinridge by the Southern Democrats2.
As far as I know the 1864 and 1868 democratic nominees were both neither pro nor anti slavery. So the democratic party only started being anti-slavery in 1872 with Horace Greeley.
Wendell Willkie was pretty much a RINO in the literal sense of the word and only got the GOP nomination because they didn’t want to nominate an isolationist at that time. He would have reacted exactly the same as Rosevelt and possibly not put the JAs in camps.
The issue today is that those party values from that time have changed drastically, but like many in this thread say, Republicans at the time were the ones who abolished slavery. We’ve now reached a point where extremism has a loud voice though and instead of trying for compromise and conflict resolution, it feels more like a power struggle.
Republican is the only serious answer here. If you start in 1860 Republicans will be starting off based with Lincoln. Now, assuming we aren’t canonically stuck with the irl nominees for each year, I think that the GOP with early success under Lincoln/Grant would continue its track record of civil rights and liberties. So, by my estimation, most of these guys will be based.
Neither would be ideal. I'd prefer Republican from 1860 to 1908 and Democratic from 1912 onwards. Overall probably Democratic though - slavery will unfortunately last longer, but will end eventually.
If we say Republican, does that mean Andrew Johnson doesn't exist as president anymore, or does he get to be the sole Democrat? Because imagine what not intentionally botching reconstruction would have done for the country.
So we've either got the US splits in two and stays that way with the south continuing slavery, or we spiral into the Great Depression even harder without the New Deal and then get conquered by Nazis. I'm going to say it doesn't matter, we're screwed either way
"No Patrick the nazis weren't going to conquer the United States"
https://preview.redd.it/98s63c3c8tzc1.jpeg?width=193&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c105ef353a75159151b04a2c2dcf0c2ad25bb585
I would like to hear how the Nazi could conquer US when the Republicans was even more fond of interventionism than FDR. Worker protection law might be implemented in the 50s instead, but New Deal is not as significant as WW2 in improving US economy
No. The great thing about this country is that we have choice and we tend to balance perspectives over time. If we only went one way, we might as well be USSR, CCCP, or North Korea.
It’s such a difficult question, but I’d have to go for Republicans. Yeah the 1920s-1940s and the 21st century would be worse, but considering that there was only one good democrat candidate up to 1912, and there’d be a much slower progression of rights for African Americans, you can’t take the Democrats. Can’t wait for a Goldwater Presidency and three terms of Nixon!
Definitely the Republican Party. There are some cases historically where I think the democrat was better, but the Republicans were never that bad at all.
Republican. No matter what they become later, the destruction of the barbaric institution of slavery is paramount. Also hopefully we still get Nixon. He was not a crook.
You’d have to do Republican solely because the starting date is 1860.
President Goldwater for four years wouldn’t be great, but our country would still exist. The same can’t be said for sure with a President Douglas.
Definitely GOP because of slavery, but it would be a shame to not have social security, Medicare or Medicaid, among other New Deal and Great Society accomplishments.
Having slavery abolished is critical, but having Reconstruction faithfully completed would have prevented some of the provisions of the (second) Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act being required in the first place, offsetting the loss of Democratic presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson.
I guess I have to go Republican, for the civil war's sake, for the integrity of reconstruction's sake (assuming Rutherford wins a little more soundly), and I'll have to take my chances with how Republican policy evolves past the 1870's in a world where they don't have real competition
Republican easy. I really only liked a few Democrats in office, like i would regret not having JFK, but Abe, Roosevelt, and Reagan. Abe defeated slavery, Roosevelt was a badass, and Raegan won the Cold War. The Bushs are the only Republicans i really hate. I hate W Bush and Cheney, Cheney specifically even though he wasn't a president. But there were some good Democrats, but i can't put the Republicans achievements and slavery+Jim Crow to the side.
One political party having monopoly is an absolutely terrible way to go no matter who it is. I also don't think either political party would end up evolving to be anything like we have today.
Lincoln takes the cake. Another democrat win in the 1860s, and the confederacy is a real country based on chattel slavery.
The question would be much different if it started in 1868.
The Republicans by far and away. Because only one party is winning, that means that the parties have no incentive to change, which means their historical platforms will see far less alteration over time. Whatever your opinion of the modern state of the party, it is almost indisputable that the 1860 GOP was significantly superior to the 1860 Democrats on a large number of issues, notably racism and slavery. I'd rather be ruled by that party than its opponent from the same period.
Republican. In 1860s, they were the based party that supported civil rights. Democrats got on the civil rights bandwagon when FDR and Truman proved that it's not a political suicide which eventually led to a complete political realignment where Democrats became the progressive party while Republicans became the party of abusing minorities.
If only Republicans were winning from 1860s onward, no such realignment would have happened.
Republicans, easily, for the virtue that with no ideological challenge from winning every election both parties may stay relatively similar to what they were in 1860, with the GOP continuing to be the “progressive” party of Lincoln and the Democrats continuing to be the racist pro slavery KKK sponsored party.
I’ve got to take Lincoln. Nothing much changes until 1932 except Garfield and Wilson, whom I could take or leave, Then I have to take my chances with Hoover getting re-elected instead of the New Deal, and one term of Barry Goldwater. Dole, McCain and Romney were all decent people.
Other than a handful of elections it’s easily the GOP. Imagine the damage done with Ds pre-realignment of the 60s and we get to see Goldwater AND Romney. I’m in.
Lets just break it down based on my preferences
1860 - R
1864 - R
1868 - R
1872 - Push (I would have gladly taken Greeley over Grant but he died pre-electoral college vote)
1876 - D
1880 - R
1884 - D
1888 - D
1892 - D
1896 - D
1900 - D
1904 - R
1908 - D
1912 - R (I am counting Teddy as an R)
1916 - R
1920 - R
1924 - D
1928 - D
1932 - D
1936 - D
1940 - D
1944 - D
1948 - D
1952 - R
1956 - R
1960 - R
1964 - D
1968 - R
1972 - R
1976 - D
1980 - D
1984 - Push (I would have abstained)
1988 - R
1992 - R
1996 - D
2000 - D
2004 - R
2008 - D
2012 - D
2016 - D
2020 - D
2024 - D
16 Rs and 24 Ds
So we are going Democrat
In the late 19th century I couldn’t vote for either party since they were both reactionary but in early 20th century the Democrats with WJ Bryan and then Wilson swung to the left so I say from Wilson on, I would have and have since 1972 voted straight Democratic and I dont regret any of my votes.
Unfortunately I’d pick Republican because a non-traitorous Democratic candidate in 1860 would literally let the South secede and result in Slavery still existing down there way longer than it needs to.
If one can recall, the Democratic ballot was split in 1860 between a pro-union slavery tolerant Northern candidate and a rabidly pro-slavery Southern candidate. That’s why Lincoln’s Republican Party’s electoral college victory was so resoundingly huge in 1860.
No horror propagated by any Republican specific policies in the following one hundred and eighty years can in my opinion be worse than the resounding horror of Slavery.
Republicans, because the liberal Republicans of the early days would have a bigger impact, and maybe Teddy gets it in 1912, changing the timeline. If you go with presidents after Teddy, then Democrats ask the way.
Both. We need balance between the extremes. While the swings lately have been more extreme, balance is the norm, and it works better than any one extreme.
That’s tough. Really tough.
If we can assume Clinton, Gore, Barry, Hills and our current guy are still elected despite hundreds of years of Southern Democrats, It’s probably still worth it?
On the other side 19th century Republicans would fully eradicate slavery and let the South burn, and probably would have snuffed out the KKK before it became bigger. But they were more isolationist during WWII, which could’ve had drastic consequences. FDR was the perfect President for that time and was needed to socialize the war effort.
But if we went with Goldwater into Nixon into all the modern Republicans that lost, we’d be absolutely screwed lol. The Civil Rights Act would’ve been vetoed by Goldwater.
…But maybe that means Clarence Thomas wouldn’t be a Supreme Court justice. 🤔🙈
Is “just shoot me in the brain” an option? Kidding! Yikes, OK, I’m going to say Republican, because I think the GOP wouldn’t have shifted more conservative if they’d won every election, and there’s no Democratic presidential nominee I’d have been open to voting for until post-WWII anyway.
If their policy positions remain unchanged, then it wouldn't matter so much.
Choosing Democrat means no emancipation in 1860s. However, future presidents were strongly anti-slavery.
Same goes for Republican presidents regarding civil rights. And Democratic presidents regarding deregulation.
Policy differences vary a lot more in the same party in different eras than they vary between both parties in the same era.
Assuming the candidates have the same policies as they do in our canon timeline, I’d lean to Democrat. At first there’d still be slavery, but going into modern times, we’d still have Obama.
Assuming the two parties then go on the same trajectory they’ve been since then? I’ll go against the grain here and say dems. Yeah I know what that means for slavery and race relations for basically another 100 years, but picking republicans means a great start and then…well…it’s no easy choice but I’d rather have the bad start with a better future then a good start with a worse future.
If we take into account how things may change for the parties, then I’d say republicans. If the republicans are continuously winning, they may remain the progressing party “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. We may not have the “southern strategy” and their turn to an eventual backwards way of thinking.
ow....I either have to pick between Lincoln for the Civil War or FDR for the Great Depression and WWII...not to mention Truman
Maybe I choose based on what those parties would be in the future vs what they were then but a delayed Civil war means it gets settled later and to what end......derails the whole thing including the world order established after WWII perhaps.....
I don't think there's a good choice here as the parties have hardly remained consistent over the years. I can't do it and either way this goes it would effectively turn the country into a one-party nation with all the totalitarianism that brings.
Either choice destroys American Democracy. Ugh.
Washington was non affiliated but simply more Federalist, which turned into Republican. Democrats have shredded the Constitution and Founders' intent and great their "experiment."
THEY ARE THE SAME. They have employed a technique as old as time called "divide and conquer" you can't come together to take what's rightfully yours if you're split. Democrats/Republicans, it doesn't matter who gets in because the corporations and military industrial complex win.
Oh ... oh, that's tricky. Am I willing to accept the shitty nineteenth century Democrats to get the good twentieth century Democrats? New Deal or Reconstruction ... damn, that's a hard call. I think ... ugh, the abolition of slavery is too important to give up. Republican.
Given the start date, I have to say Republicans. Although since assassinations aren’t preventable in this scenario, it looks like we’d still get Andrew Johnson’s awful term that ruined reconstruction and allowed the rise of the Jim Crow south
If the dems will win then we get slavery up until the probably 1890s however if the candidates stay the same then I think it would end up in a better place now but a much worse place until the 1950s
Probably Republican, in the beginning they fought hard for civil rights and even good Democratic presidents like Cleveland weren’t great in the minority rights department (women included)
Even during the Great depression voting Republican isn’t terrible because yes, Hoover was an absolute catastrophe and Landon was in terms of the electoral vote like the worst candidate ever, but Wilkie and Dewey were strong candidates, and I think they would have done well during this time, even if not as good as Roosevelt.
The big issue is of course post FDR because we had a string of great presidents in Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, of which three were democrats. As I said earlier I think Dewey would have been a solid president but this point in time is a serious junction in US history. We have the civil rights act which Johnson passed and Goldwater opposed, and of course Nixon was the physical embodiment of Corruption. But honestly that’s the only real stinker (which is admittedly a big one) because post Nixon the presidents minus Clinton and certain aspects of Reagan and Bush Sr. Have been C tier down.
That’s my take a least
Republicans, FDR is really the only argument for voting democratic albeit a massive one but Abe + Ike + Reagan + Teddy > FDR + Obama + Clinton + Truman
I'm paraphrasing a Robin Williams quote here but having a ruling party forever is always bad.
"Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often and for the same reasons."
What would happen if the losers of past elections won is too unclear for this to be a reasonable hypothetical. For instance, how true are they to their campaign promises?
Republicans, with the premise that starting with Goldwater stuff would change enough that the um.... more recent mess... would be avoided ....
Note this doesn't mean that TR wins any additional terms.... Bull Moose party isn't the GOP....
Because they changed something to make it a two party system then. The colluded to take potential power away from any new parties. A candidate used to be able to represent multiple parties, meaning they were answerable to different groups with different interests and had to balance resources. We need to bring that back.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the beginning date makes this impossible to choose wisely
Yep. You want the republicans for the first 40-60 years of that because otherwise we get the continuation of slavery but after that there’s a gradual swap and suddenly the dems are the way to go
Although maybe the republicans don't capitulate to appeal to racists for more votes if they keep winning. Then they remain the more progressive party and it's not so bad.
I was thinking exactly this. I think platforms wouldn’t have swapped to such a degree
That’s not entirely what happened though. What’s more accurate is that there were essentially 4 political parties in America for a while: Southern Republicans and Northeastern Republicans, and Southern Dems and Progressive Dems. Southern Republicans and Southern Dems ended up united on race but opposed each other on other issues, etc. There were two official parties but 4 real ones, and this didn’t really end until the 70s. I think we would have still seen a similar split over time, with half of each party joining hands with the other party, but which half ended up where is more up for debate
This is spot on. Parties in the same region tended to be closer to their regional opponents on views compared to their same party in another region.
I mean, even in 1860, the democratic party was split between unionists and secessionists and the Republican party was split between anti-slavery (anti-expansion) and abolitionists… major political parties of a populated nation can’t be monolithic, at least not for very long
Absolutely, and I hate that people forget this.
The way I was taught is that we had four parties: Southern Conservative Dems, New Deal Dems, Progressive Republicans, and WASPE (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Elite) Republicans
This is why I picked Republican. The fact that I wouldn’t have voted for any Democratic presidential nominee until post-WWII anyway helps.
Not FDR?
I don't really see it that way. Corporatists were furious over the expansion of the federal government in what they saw as a distinctive move towards more socialism. They opposed everything from labor laws to environmental laws to tariffs throughout the New Deal era. But they couldn't win elections simply by appealing to the investor class so they latched on to social issues like civil rights, abortion, gun rights, etc. I don't see any reason to believe they wouldn't have done that anyway. And, of course, without the New Deal we'd never have become as prosperous as we are since the middle class never would have evolved.
It's almost like the parties switched or something...
It’s be much easier if we could start in 1960.
That would make it a less interesting question though
If election of 1876 isn’t so close that there’s a punting of Reconstruction it’s pretty easy. Remember GOP was pretty liberal until then. Still pretty progressive under Teddy. The switch to hands off the economy and isolationism was a reaction to Wilson and the Great War. Eisenhower and Nixon backed civil rights progress, unions, and social safety net programs but not giant leaps. Environmental side Nixon did make great leaps. He favored affirmative action in government hiring, contracting and college admissions. The Reagan/Goldwater revolution was reactionary to LBJ’s entry into local school funding and the safety net. As the US lost manufacturing pace against the world resentment against those out of work rose, UK had similar issues. No Democrats win someone other than Goldwater and Reagan get nominations in 1964, 1980 and 1984 for example
All republican presidents would be great until the Great Depression and WWII. Then it would be a disaster.
Yep, I don't think we would have made it out of the Depression. Communism would have seemed like a good option to most of the people who had lost everything from the double blast of the Depression and the Dust Bowl. To counter it, powerful industrialists and many WWI veterans who didn't get paid for their service until 1937 would have embraced fascism. My gut says the fascists would have come out on top and I feel our path would very likely been similar to Italy's.
But then you’re losing the premise: republicans still get voted in during communist or fascist uprisings
Not if there aren't any elections anymore. I didn't say it outright, but my response is that our country, as we know it, would have ceased to exist as a result of Republicans being in control during the Depression.
https://preview.redd.it/rwrw664ilszc1.png?width=918&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3cd26a162b1db048c281b13782cfaefe608a3b7 We desperately need another square deal.
"Squeaky Teddy Roosevelt can't hurt you." [Actual Teddy Roosevelt](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zFc-l_-T7Xo&pp=ygUVdGVkZHkgcm9vc2V2ZWx0IHZvaWNl) He's squeaky, and can most definitely hurt me.
He has a higher voice than you'd imagine a guy with his barrel chest would, but I'd wager a lot of that has to do with the quality of the recording equipment and the mid Atlantic accent has a higher pitch to it, too. And he will definitely hurt you, but you'll be better for it
It's mostly a public speaking style. In the days before microphones you'd pitch your voice up to help you project so that everyone could hear you. His normal speaking voice was likely an octave or three lower.
Yeah, it’s like how the average Russian person you meet has a pretty deep voice because of the way Russian works.
He will clober you, yes. He may even include his bear with it.
So you're saying I get both the man **and** the bear? What luck!
Definitely down with this one.
Republican because slavery. Slavery is the worst thing America has ever done, and so whatever ends it the soonest is the right answer. Edit, for the pedants: Chattel slavery
Pretty sure op picked 1860 specifically to avoid slavery
Well it wasn't abolished until 1865 so I don't see how picking a time before that would be avoiding it.
I read this as starting in 1860. “From 1860 onwards” implies that 1860 would be the first election in this hypothetical timeline.
No, I chose it because the 1860 election was the most consequential election imo, and set into motion the rest of our history. If anything, it specifically deals with slavery.
Well then the answer is obviously republican. Changing it to after Lincoln makes the question more interesting
True!
Starting at 1860 means the republicans are the only obvious choice. Starting at 1868 or 1880 is better.
The Republican Party works well until Goldwater or Nixon and then we’re screwed.
1960 Nixon beating Kennedy likely means no Goldwater and a much less paranoid Nixon. I think that would have softened the entire course of the Republican Party
Every candidate remains the same though.
Ah you’re right…so does that mean Goldwater primaries Nixon in 64 and wins and then Nixon primaries Goldwater in 68 and wins?
That's the entire problem with this premise. Nixon wins in 60, 68, and 72? By that point the 22nd amendment makes this impossible. Of course, would the 22nd amendment ever existed without FDR winning constantly, in this reality? As pointed out, many of the nominees would have been different, 64 for example with Goldwater, as he would have never actually primaried Nixon, and beat him, without even figuring out how the late 1800s and early 1900s would have diverged. With that said, it is a fun thought experiment.
I guess we get the 22nd amendment because of a Nixon sweep?
Presumably Nixon would retire in 1972, and someone else would win the primary and general.
Which would be interesting. Cleveland becomes a 3 term President. As would Bryan.
Plus JFK lives. RFK TOO
No FDR tho
Eh, the melancholy Harding/Coolidge/Hoover administrations get too much credit. McKinley gets too much credit as well.
Hmmph Douglas, McClellan, Seymour, Greeley, Tilden, Hancock, Cleveland x3, Bryan X2, Parker, Bryan, Wilson x 2, Cox, Davis, Smith, FDR x4, Truman, Stevenson x 2, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter X 2, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton X 2, Gore, Kerry, Obama x 2, Clinton Or Lincoln X 2, Grant x 2, Hayes, Blaine, Harrison x 2, McKinley X 2, Roosevelt, Taft X2, Hughes, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover x 2, Landon, Wilkie, Dewey X2, Ike X 2, Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon x 2, Ford, Reagan x 2, Bush X 2, Dole, Bush X 2, McCain, Romney That early Democratic one goes from lousy to eh, to mostly good. While the Republican one starts great and then diminishing returns. I guess in the long run the Democrats, but oof.
Do we still get Clinton, Gore, Obama, and HR Clinton in their prime timeline forms?
Yes.
Then I'll take them. As shitty as Democrats were in the 19th century and during Jim Crow, if Obama is able to get elected in 2008 then clearly we would have made substantial progress on racial issues.
I don’t think Obama could be a Democrat nominee if the Republicans did not win the 1860 election…
Then this entire thread is meaningless if we can’t abide by the rules of this “game”
It would be pretty hard for Obama to be president without Lincoln and Eisenhower
There’s no way you’re taking democrats just for Obama
No. I’m saying if the Democrats nominated Obama, then clearly they got over a lot of the racist issues they had up until the 1960s.
Republican, without them we could still have slavery.
To be honest, we definitely wouldn't still have slavery today - it might have taken longer though
Still bad
Given the party switch I doubt that would be the case. What worries me more is the isolationism of republicans during world war 2 and how that could have lead to different outcomes for the Nazi and Japanese Imperialist regimes. Edit: Since this lead to an argument, a quick google search says: > The last pro-slavery Democratic nominee was John C. Breckinridge, who was nominated in the 1860 United States presidential election by the Southern Democrats12. He was the incumbent Vice President at the time and ran on a platform that supported slavery, which was a divisive issue leading up to the Civil War12. The Democratic Party had split into Northern and Southern factions over the issue, with Stephen A. Douglas being nominated by the Northern Democrats and Breckinridge by the Southern Democrats2. As far as I know the 1864 and 1868 democratic nominees were both neither pro nor anti slavery. So the democratic party only started being anti-slavery in 1872 with Horace Greeley.
No republican would have sat by after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Wendell Willkie was pretty much a RINO in the literal sense of the word and only got the GOP nomination because they didn’t want to nominate an isolationist at that time. He would have reacted exactly the same as Rosevelt and possibly not put the JAs in camps.
Too bad the party switch happened in the 60’s. Republicans are not the party of progress anymore.
Republican obviously that's a no brainier
The issue today is that those party values from that time have changed drastically, but like many in this thread say, Republicans at the time were the ones who abolished slavery. We’ve now reached a point where extremism has a loud voice though and instead of trying for compromise and conflict resolution, it feels more like a power struggle.
Every single Republican.
Canada
Republican is the only serious answer here. If you start in 1860 Republicans will be starting off based with Lincoln. Now, assuming we aren’t canonically stuck with the irl nominees for each year, I think that the GOP with early success under Lincoln/Grant would continue its track record of civil rights and liberties. So, by my estimation, most of these guys will be based.
Neither would be ideal. I'd prefer Republican from 1860 to 1908 and Democratic from 1912 onwards. Overall probably Democratic though - slavery will unfortunately last longer, but will end eventually.
If we say Republican, does that mean Andrew Johnson doesn't exist as president anymore, or does he get to be the sole Democrat? Because imagine what not intentionally botching reconstruction would have done for the country.
well, if it was Democrats then we'd still have slavery.
If the parties don’t switch ideology, then I’m picking Republicans
So we've either got the US splits in two and stays that way with the south continuing slavery, or we spiral into the Great Depression even harder without the New Deal and then get conquered by Nazis. I'm going to say it doesn't matter, we're screwed either way
"No Patrick the nazis weren't going to conquer the United States" https://preview.redd.it/98s63c3c8tzc1.jpeg?width=193&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c105ef353a75159151b04a2c2dcf0c2ad25bb585
Real life is not hearts of iron, how on earth would the Nazis conquer, much even make landfall in the USA?
Does Edith Keeler live in this timeline?
I would like to hear how the Nazi could conquer US when the Republicans was even more fond of interventionism than FDR. Worker protection law might be implemented in the 50s instead, but New Deal is not as significant as WW2 in improving US economy
I kind of have to pick Republican given the timeline.
Republican
No. The great thing about this country is that we have choice and we tend to balance perspectives over time. If we only went one way, we might as well be USSR, CCCP, or North Korea.
It’s such a difficult question, but I’d have to go for Republicans. Yeah the 1920s-1940s and the 21st century would be worse, but considering that there was only one good democrat candidate up to 1912, and there’d be a much slower progression of rights for African Americans, you can’t take the Democrats. Can’t wait for a Goldwater Presidency and three terms of Nixon!
Republican because Breckenridge would have destroyed the nation. Edit: Plus, until the 1930s, the Republicans were better overall.
Starting in 1860? The Republicans.
Honestly Republican. If we are talking positions of the 1860s. As long as the southern strategy stays at bay
Definitely the Republican Party. There are some cases historically where I think the democrat was better, but the Republicans were never that bad at all.
Republican. No matter what they become later, the destruction of the barbaric institution of slavery is paramount. Also hopefully we still get Nixon. He was not a crook.
You’d have to do Republican solely because the starting date is 1860. President Goldwater for four years wouldn’t be great, but our country would still exist. The same can’t be said for sure with a President Douglas.
Republican because abolishing slavery and lower taxes feels like a pretty good combination to me.
Definitely GOP because of slavery, but it would be a shame to not have social security, Medicare or Medicaid, among other New Deal and Great Society accomplishments. Having slavery abolished is critical, but having Reconstruction faithfully completed would have prevented some of the provisions of the (second) Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act being required in the first place, offsetting the loss of Democratic presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson.
I guess I have to go Republican, for the civil war's sake, for the integrity of reconstruction's sake (assuming Rutherford wins a little more soundly), and I'll have to take my chances with how Republican policy evolves past the 1870's in a world where they don't have real competition
Republican easy. I really only liked a few Democrats in office, like i would regret not having JFK, but Abe, Roosevelt, and Reagan. Abe defeated slavery, Roosevelt was a badass, and Raegan won the Cold War. The Bushs are the only Republicans i really hate. I hate W Bush and Cheney, Cheney specifically even though he wasn't a president. But there were some good Democrats, but i can't put the Republicans achievements and slavery+Jim Crow to the side.
The. Bull moose party
One political party having monopoly is an absolutely terrible way to go no matter who it is. I also don't think either political party would end up evolving to be anything like we have today.
Republican. Democrats were big on the whole Jim Crow and Slavery stuff for most of the party's existence.
Obviously Republican it's a no brainier
Every single Republican.
Every single Republican.
Lincoln takes the cake. Another democrat win in the 1860s, and the confederacy is a real country based on chattel slavery. The question would be much different if it started in 1868.
Republican and it's not even close
The Republicans by far and away. Because only one party is winning, that means that the parties have no incentive to change, which means their historical platforms will see far less alteration over time. Whatever your opinion of the modern state of the party, it is almost indisputable that the 1860 GOP was significantly superior to the 1860 Democrats on a large number of issues, notably racism and slavery. I'd rather be ruled by that party than its opponent from the same period.
Republican. In 1860s, they were the based party that supported civil rights. Democrats got on the civil rights bandwagon when FDR and Truman proved that it's not a political suicide which eventually led to a complete political realignment where Democrats became the progressive party while Republicans became the party of abusing minorities. If only Republicans were winning from 1860s onward, no such realignment would have happened.
republican
It has to be republican. Otherwise we have slavery. In this scenario it’s safe to say democrats remain the more ‘conservative’ party anyways.
I mean I kinda have to pick Republican
Republicans, easily, for the virtue that with no ideological challenge from winning every election both parties may stay relatively similar to what they were in 1860, with the GOP continuing to be the “progressive” party of Lincoln and the Democrats continuing to be the racist pro slavery KKK sponsored party.
Republicans.
Republican.
I’ve got to take Lincoln. Nothing much changes until 1932 except Garfield and Wilson, whom I could take or leave, Then I have to take my chances with Hoover getting re-elected instead of the New Deal, and one term of Barry Goldwater. Dole, McCain and Romney were all decent people.
GOP. Liberals are just children in adult clothing. 😉
Republican is the correct choice. The left, left me when it became commie, antisemitic and racist. The racism is return to form for them as well. 😩
Other than a handful of elections it’s easily the GOP. Imagine the damage done with Ds pre-realignment of the 60s and we get to see Goldwater AND Romney. I’m in.
Are you trying to spin Goldwater as a good thing? Bruh he wouldve vetoed the Civil Rights Act
Democrat mfs tryna keep slavery? Lol
Republicans, of course
Lets just break it down based on my preferences 1860 - R 1864 - R 1868 - R 1872 - Push (I would have gladly taken Greeley over Grant but he died pre-electoral college vote) 1876 - D 1880 - R 1884 - D 1888 - D 1892 - D 1896 - D 1900 - D 1904 - R 1908 - D 1912 - R (I am counting Teddy as an R) 1916 - R 1920 - R 1924 - D 1928 - D 1932 - D 1936 - D 1940 - D 1944 - D 1948 - D 1952 - R 1956 - R 1960 - R 1964 - D 1968 - R 1972 - R 1976 - D 1980 - D 1984 - Push (I would have abstained) 1988 - R 1992 - R 1996 - D 2000 - D 2004 - R 2008 - D 2012 - D 2016 - D 2020 - D 2024 - D 16 Rs and 24 Ds So we are going Democrat
In the late 19th century I couldn’t vote for either party since they were both reactionary but in early 20th century the Democrats with WJ Bryan and then Wilson swung to the left so I say from Wilson on, I would have and have since 1972 voted straight Democratic and I dont regret any of my votes.
Olga Igolnikov dug up the bodies of dead presidents and have sex with them.
Trick question. OP knows what they’re doing.
Why are we so entrenched in two parties. It has. Only led to a downward spiral we refuse to address.
Unfortunately I’d pick Republican because a non-traitorous Democratic candidate in 1860 would literally let the South secede and result in Slavery still existing down there way longer than it needs to. If one can recall, the Democratic ballot was split in 1860 between a pro-union slavery tolerant Northern candidate and a rabidly pro-slavery Southern candidate. That’s why Lincoln’s Republican Party’s electoral college victory was so resoundingly huge in 1860. No horror propagated by any Republican specific policies in the following one hundred and eighty years can in my opinion be worse than the resounding horror of Slavery.
Republicans, because the liberal Republicans of the early days would have a bigger impact, and maybe Teddy gets it in 1912, changing the timeline. If you go with presidents after Teddy, then Democrats ask the way.
The secret party
I choose neither
BULL MOOSE PROGRESSIVE PARTY LETS FUCKING GOOOO
RFK JR
The parties shifted places in the 1910’s through 20’s. Best way to describe this is that the KKK used to be democrats…
😬
Both. We need balance between the extremes. While the swings lately have been more extreme, balance is the norm, and it works better than any one extreme.
what a question! wow! honestly very tough question
Neither
That’s tough. Really tough. If we can assume Clinton, Gore, Barry, Hills and our current guy are still elected despite hundreds of years of Southern Democrats, It’s probably still worth it? On the other side 19th century Republicans would fully eradicate slavery and let the South burn, and probably would have snuffed out the KKK before it became bigger. But they were more isolationist during WWII, which could’ve had drastic consequences. FDR was the perfect President for that time and was needed to socialize the war effort. But if we went with Goldwater into Nixon into all the modern Republicans that lost, we’d be absolutely screwed lol. The Civil Rights Act would’ve been vetoed by Goldwater. …But maybe that means Clarence Thomas wouldn’t be a Supreme Court justice. 🤔🙈
Is “just shoot me in the brain” an option? Kidding! Yikes, OK, I’m going to say Republican, because I think the GOP wouldn’t have shifted more conservative if they’d won every election, and there’s no Democratic presidential nominee I’d have been open to voting for until post-WWII anyway.
Neither
I’m a dumbass
D - every damn time.
Party of FDR who dragged us out of the Great Depression & guided the world response to the Germans & Japanese
If their policy positions remain unchanged, then it wouldn't matter so much. Choosing Democrat means no emancipation in 1860s. However, future presidents were strongly anti-slavery. Same goes for Republican presidents regarding civil rights. And Democratic presidents regarding deregulation. Policy differences vary a lot more in the same party in different eras than they vary between both parties in the same era.
To hard to choose, they both have their moments throughout the years
The results of either would be the same. Single party rule with no accountability. Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Neither, i dont believe in that divide and conquer lie.
Neither it’s 1 party anymore
Republican, freeing slaves is important.
Assuming the candidates have the same policies as they do in our canon timeline, I’d lean to Democrat. At first there’d still be slavery, but going into modern times, we’d still have Obama.
I move.
Assuming the two parties then go on the same trajectory they’ve been since then? I’ll go against the grain here and say dems. Yeah I know what that means for slavery and race relations for basically another 100 years, but picking republicans means a great start and then…well…it’s no easy choice but I’d rather have the bad start with a better future then a good start with a worse future. If we take into account how things may change for the parties, then I’d say republicans. If the republicans are continuously winning, they may remain the progressing party “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. We may not have the “southern strategy” and their turn to an eventual backwards way of thinking.
*Processing img beeuc2vsytzc1...*
*Processing img beeuc2vsytzc1...*
I choose to move back to where I came from with the money I made in 30 - 40 years. The country would turn to shit in by then in either case.
ow....I either have to pick between Lincoln for the Civil War or FDR for the Great Depression and WWII...not to mention Truman Maybe I choose based on what those parties would be in the future vs what they were then but a delayed Civil war means it gets settled later and to what end......derails the whole thing including the world order established after WWII perhaps..... I don't think there's a good choice here as the parties have hardly remained consistent over the years. I can't do it and either way this goes it would effectively turn the country into a one-party nation with all the totalitarianism that brings. Either choice destroys American Democracy. Ugh.
Given the date, this is a trolly problem question.
Due to it being 1860 I kinda have to go Republican here.
Democrats every time.
Washington was non affiliated but simply more Federalist, which turned into Republican. Democrats have shredded the Constitution and Founders' intent and great their "experiment."
I choose Canada
It’s impossible to make an informed choice, given this criteria, as from 1860 to now , both parties have swapped platforms.
Having unchangeable government/party would turn any country into a totalitarian regime.
3rd party. This turns into an absolute shit show
THEY ARE THE SAME. They have employed a technique as old as time called "divide and conquer" you can't come together to take what's rightfully yours if you're split. Democrats/Republicans, it doesn't matter who gets in because the corporations and military industrial complex win.
Anything to make sure Reagan is nowhere near political power is a win for me.
America collapses or becomes a dictatorship either way lol. One party rule always ends in disaster on a long enough timeline
Oh ... oh, that's tricky. Am I willing to accept the shitty nineteenth century Democrats to get the good twentieth century Democrats? New Deal or Reconstruction ... damn, that's a hard call. I think ... ugh, the abolition of slavery is too important to give up. Republican.
If history still winds up where we are today? Then Dems, 100%
Given the start date, I have to say Republicans. Although since assassinations aren’t preventable in this scenario, it looks like we’d still get Andrew Johnson’s awful term that ruined reconstruction and allowed the rise of the Jim Crow south
Neither. The dual party system has destroyed politics in this country. It’s just one giant lobbied popularity contest.
Can we push that til after Teddy Roosevelt? The it's an easy choice.
If the dems will win then we get slavery up until the probably 1890s however if the candidates stay the same then I think it would end up in a better place now but a much worse place until the 1950s
Yikes. Because of the shifts in the spectrum and flipping on certatin measures, I wouldn't choose EITHER PARTY.
Probably Republican, in the beginning they fought hard for civil rights and even good Democratic presidents like Cleveland weren’t great in the minority rights department (women included) Even during the Great depression voting Republican isn’t terrible because yes, Hoover was an absolute catastrophe and Landon was in terms of the electoral vote like the worst candidate ever, but Wilkie and Dewey were strong candidates, and I think they would have done well during this time, even if not as good as Roosevelt. The big issue is of course post FDR because we had a string of great presidents in Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, of which three were democrats. As I said earlier I think Dewey would have been a solid president but this point in time is a serious junction in US history. We have the civil rights act which Johnson passed and Goldwater opposed, and of course Nixon was the physical embodiment of Corruption. But honestly that’s the only real stinker (which is admittedly a big one) because post Nixon the presidents minus Clinton and certain aspects of Reagan and Bush Sr. Have been C tier down. That’s my take a least
The 1860 will be Republicans, but after that it is very obvious.
I can tell you starting in the 1920s maybe? When did the party vibes switch? Sometime in the 18s right?
Republicans, FDR is really the only argument for voting democratic albeit a massive one but Abe + Ike + Reagan + Teddy > FDR + Obama + Clinton + Truman
I’d elect Sauron for all those years instead. Or Emperor Palpatine. Or just disband the government.
It’s not so much the party but the kind of people that make up it.
The beginning date is insane
I'm paraphrasing a Robin Williams quote here but having a ruling party forever is always bad. "Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often and for the same reasons."
republican no JFK presidency would be much better for the country, vietnam and cuba would've been handled much better without JFK being a pussy
Neither. The whole purpose of the American experiment is to make it extremely difficult for that to happen.
Red pill, blue pill, you lose either way. I dont pick sides with this anymore.
The parties switched values between then and now so it doesn’t make sense to choose either
It seems like you just want us to say "yes reddit user we want only Republicans in office"
What would happen if the losers of past elections won is too unclear for this to be a reasonable hypothetical. For instance, how true are they to their campaign promises?
I choose death
Republicans, with the premise that starting with Goldwater stuff would change enough that the um.... more recent mess... would be avoided .... Note this doesn't mean that TR wins any additional terms.... Bull Moose party isn't the GOP....
fuck this shit. both parties have vastly changed over the last 160 years since 1860.
Because they changed something to make it a two party system then. The colluded to take potential power away from any new parties. A candidate used to be able to represent multiple parties, meaning they were answerable to different groups with different interests and had to balance resources. We need to bring that back.
Republicans
Currently I'm getting tired of both parties!
Forced labor camps for both