Vive Le Hughes

[Bo]

DOWN WITH THE FASCIST! VIVE HUGHES!

[Bo]

It's a good thing Hughes did not lose Minnesota (which he only won by several hundred votes in RL), as that would ahve allowed Wilson to compensate for the loss of California. I also see Hughes still managed to lose NH. Oh well, it's a good thing he won, though.

[Bo]

Does the Russian Revolution still occur? If so, does Hughes help out the White Army much more than Wilson did?

[Bo]

Does the Fed still lower interest rates too much and keep them too low for too long as they did in RL in the 1920s?

[Bo]

I thought that if Hughes won, WWI would end on a different date due to the butterfly effect.

[Bo]

Great TL so far? I was wondering, is Hitler killed in WWI in this timeline (he was almost killed in RL)? If he is killed, that could have major repercussions for world history. BTW, what does Hughes plan to do for his retirement? I figure he would probably have another 30-35 years to do what he wants--maybe become a philatrophist, activist, or return to the Supreme Court. When do you plan to have Hughes die in this TL (I'm just curious)? BTW, I expected Hughes to lose, just not by this kind of margin. I didn't anticipate LaFollette running, though. I just figured the race would be closer since the Republicans were the dominant party in the U.S. from 1894 to 1930.

[Bo]

Does Hitler still survive in this TL?

[Bo]

Well, Just because he wasn't in office during that time period doesn't mean he still doesn't have the stroke. It's really up to Nik to figure out what he's going to do in regards to the Wilson Presidecy but all I say..."Vive Le Stroke!" in regards to Woodrow

Wow, Wilson is the most unpopular person in forum

Well this forum is Anti-Fascist for the most part.

Amen to that. Not only was Wilson a fascist, he was a racist, a homophobe, an intellectual, and a dick.

[Bo]

Well, Just because he wasn't in office during that time period doesn't mean he still doesn't have the stroke. It's really up to Nik to figure out what he's going to do in regards to the Wilson Presidecy but all I say..."Vive Le Stroke!" in regards to Woodrow

Wow, Wilson is the most unpopular person in forum

Well this forum is Anti-Fascist for the most part.

Nah, he was a dickhead, but not a fascist. Rather ole Southern gentleman, ughh...

He was from New Jersey, which is a Northern state. However, he was born in Virginia.

[Bo]

An update will probably be up on Friday; I'm real sick.

I hope you get better as soon as possible? What sickness do you have?

[Bo]

An update will probably be up on Friday; I'm real sick.

I hope you get better as soon as possible? What sickness do you have?

I've got the flu, sadly. I'm on my laptop; But I don't have MS Word on here. Thanks for your concern.

You're welcome.

[Bo]

I'm still sick; So I'll try for tomorrow, but realistically don't expect an update until Saturday.

I hope you get better soon.

[Bo]

What is the unemployment rate and inflation rate in 1924, as well as the interest rates that year? Also, what is Wilson's approval rating at the time of his reelection? I'm guessing around 55-60%.

[Bo]

I'm suspect that anyone, who replaces Woody would suffer OTL Hoover's fate.

It would be interesting to see if the crash still occurs in 1929 or in 1928, before the election.

[Bo]

Update coming Thursday on Wilson's Third Term. Any questions/comments/concerns?

Good to hear!

What's the unemployment rate at the end of 1924, and is Wilson still in good health, or is the presidency beginning to take a toll on him?

I previously asked NiK about the unemployment rate in 1924 and he said it was about 4%. About Wilson's health, I'm not sure, so NiK can answer that.

[Bo]

I hope to hear about what Hughes in currently doing on the next update.

[Bo]

I solemnly swear that an update will come within the week! Just putting on the finishing touches, revisions.

If you fail...

I will boycott every timeline of yours from now on.

[Bo]

Nice update. I think Robinson's Presidency has been pretty good so far. I wonder when the stock market crash is going to occur. I think it will occur due to the Fed maintaining low interest rates this long. Still, I was a little disappointed that you did not write much about what Hughes has been doing these last five years (1921-1926) like you promised you would. Well, other than that, keep up the good work.

[Bo]

I think the Great Depression might be much less severe since I'm not sure if Robinson will raise tariffs if the stock market crash occurs under his watch. I think that back then the Dems were the more free-trade party.

[Bo]

Go Robinson 1928!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bo]

I'm surprised that Robinson's reelection was relatively narrow (in comparison to Wilson's in 1924). I know about his racism, but I don't think too many voters would care about it if the economy was good (except African-Americans, but they wouldn't vote for the Democrats anyway at this point in time). I think the Fed will begin raising rates in 1929-1930 as they did in RL and thus cause the stock market bubble to pop. I wonder whether Robinson will raise tariffs (my hunch is no), since it could determine whether unemployment peaks at 10-15% or at 20-30% (as in RL).

[Bo]

Awesome update Nik, Although I was really gunning for a Ford Presidency, I think with Robinson's ebulient attitude, his own term will prove to be very interesting...I am actually not suprised that the election was this close due to it being to probable Democratic Voting fatiuge...Keep it comming

The GOP won all three Presidential elections in the 1920s in massive landslides. In this scenario, the economy is just as good in the 1920s as it was in RL, yet Democratic victories in 1924 and 1928 in this TL are much narrower than they were for the GOP in RL.

[Bo]

Good so far, but I think the GOP gained way too many seats in the Senate in 1930. There were only 33 Senate seats (I believe) for election that year, and the GOP had some of those Senate seats before 1930, so I seriously doubt the Democrats would lose all (or almost all) their Senate seats that were up for election that year. A more realistic gain for be 10 Senate seats for the Republicans. In 1930 in RL the Democrats gained 8 Senate seats, and the absolute maximum that the Democrats could have picked up that year was 20 Senate seats. I seriously doubt that the GOP will win the absolute maximum number of seats up for election that year--some Democratic incumbents in the South will survive. You know that only one-third of all seats in the Senate are up for election every two years, right? Other than that, keep up the good work.

[Bo]

Good so far, but I think the GOP gained way too many seats in the Senate in 1930. There were only 33 Senate seats (I believe) for election that year, and the GOP had some of those Senate seats before 1930, so I seriously doubt the Democrats would lose all (or almost all) their Senate seats that were up for election that year. A more realistic gain for be 10 Senate seats for the Republicans. In 1930 in RL the Democrats gained 8 Senate seats, and the absolute maximum that the Democrats could have picked up that year was 20 Senate seats. I seriously doubt that the GOP will win the absolute maximum number of seats up for election that year--some Democratic incumbents in the South will survive. You know that only one-third of all seats in the Senate are up for election every two years, right? Other than that, keep up the good work.

Well, perhaps, but I noticed that the Democrats were *really* overinflated from their victories prior. I mean, who could imagine a Democratic majority of 58 in the twenties? Unthinkable. In RL 1928, The Democrats had 35 seats, so I just pushed them down to those levels.

Yes I know that one third of seats are up at midterms.

Even if the Dems were overinflated from their RL levels, that doesn't mean they will lose that much seats at once. Maybe in two elections, but since only one-third of Senate seats are up for election, that just seems to much to lose in one election. I'm assming you're not keeping a chart of which Senators are up for election are which ones are not? If not, I would honestly suggest making the Democrats lose about 10 seats. It's just so much more realistic. I seriously doubt there would be 21 vulnerable Democrats in that one election cycle--maybe in two or three election cycles, but not in one.

[Bo]

Good so far, but I think the GOP gained way too many seats in the Senate in 1930. There were only 33 Senate seats (I believe) for election that year, and the GOP had some of those Senate seats before 1930, so I seriously doubt the Democrats would lose all (or almost all) their Senate seats that were up for election that year. A more realistic gain for be 10 Senate seats for the Republicans. In 1930 in RL the Democrats gained 8 Senate seats, and the absolute maximum that the Democrats could have picked up that year was 20 Senate seats. I seriously doubt that the GOP will win the absolute maximum number of seats up for election that year--some Democratic incumbents in the South will survive. You know that only one-third of all seats in the Senate are up for election every two years, right? Other than that, keep up the good work.

Well, perhaps, but I noticed that the Democrats were *really* overinflated from their victories prior. I mean, who could imagine a Democratic majority of 58 in the twenties? Unthinkable. In RL 1928, The Democrats had 35 seats, so I just pushed them down to those levels.

Yes I know that one third of seats are up at midterms.

Even if the Dems were overinflated from their RL levels, that doesn't mean they will lose that much seats at once. Maybe in two elections, but since only one-third of Senate seats are up for election, that just seems to much to lose in one election. I'm assming you're not keeping a chart of which Senators are up for election are which ones are not? If not, I would honestly suggest making the Democrats lose about 10 seats. It's just so much more realistic. I seriously doubt there would be 21 vulnerable Democrats in that one election cycle--maybe in two or three election cycles, but not in one.

Well... ok. I'll change the seats to a net loss of sixteen instead.

Well, I am keeping (somewhat) of a chart, but I've been focusing on the people who are most crucial to the timeline working. I'm just a bit too lazy to go through everything, though.

It's good that you reduced the number of seats lost, but I still think that number should be reduced further. I believe the highest number of seats lost in one election after 1894 was 13 seats (which the GOP lost) in 1932. Thus, I think that the ideal loss for the Dems in this scenario would be 7-13 Senate seats. In RL, the GOP's large Senate majority was reduced throughout the course of several elections (1930, 1932, 1934, and 1936), with each election being a loss of 7-13 seats for the GOP. Thus, I think it would be most realistic for the Democrats to lose about 10 seats this cycle, with about 10 the next election, and another 10 the following election. I think that if there would be an approxiamtely equal number of vulnerable Senate Democrats in each of the election cycles (1930, 1932, and 1934), and if there would be about 30 vulnerable Democrats (out of 58, I believe), that would equal to a loss of about 10 Senate seats in each cycle.  Besides, since the Dems didn't massively increase their Senate numbers in either 1924, 1926, or 1928, there would be no reason for them to lose so many seats and have so many vulnerable incumbents in this election.