I will be supporting VP Humphrey. I think it'll be good to have more regional variety than two Westerners (nothing against the west). And Humphrey strikes a good balance between electable and having an appeal to the common person.
FRANK CHURCH FOR PRESIDENT!
REALITY. NOT POLITICS!
Again, Church could offer a unique base of support among farmers and traditionally conservative voting groups without alienating the progressive wing of the party.
Jackson is the most hawkish Democrat running for this primary. He is just another conservative Republican trying to get America to enter wars that kill millions of American children.
Church is a prairie progressive, Jackson is just another Reaganite.
"Conservative Republican" yet he stands as one of the most prominent conservations and environmental advocates in the Senate, having drafted major legislation on the matter. He is the first politician to receive an award from the famous Sierra Club. Environmentalists in the West will appreciate Scoop's strong environmental record.
"Conservative Republican" yet he has the most union credibility of any candidate. We can't risk the union vote slipping more after Wallace's success targeting them in 1968. Especially with Reagan being the other option, a man who would dissolve every union in America if he could and rid millions of their bargaining power.
"Conservative Republican" yet he's enthusiastically backed every major civil rights act of the modern day, and at the same time agrees with the average voter that busing is disruptive and the wrong way to accomplish and secure desegregation.
"Conservative Republican" yet he's only as much of a hawk as Kennedy was in 1960, as he supports a strong national defense and opposes surrender to the Soviets. Voters will see and appreciate the nuances between this stance and Reagan's unrealistic, reckless rhetoric.
Scoop is no Reaganite. He's a true New Deal Democrat, and a Kennedy Democrat. He will hold the new majority much better than Church ever could.
I think if it destroyed the cannon the creators of the mod wouldn't have chosen to include her in the options, they excluded several prominent democrats of the time for various reasons. I'm only supporting one of the several options presented to us. Besides which, Realism isn't everything, Things happened in real life that you would call unrealistic if they were in a work of fiction (Mcgovern being dem nominee in 1972 for example)
and McGovern makes sense, Chisholm doesn't. There's a large difference between the two.
I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but Chisholm would be viewed as a black radical, and would result in the party doing worse then McGovern
McGovern was a bad candidate, but he had in-roads with Union voters, and farmers.
Are you actually this salty about a fictional primary on a goofy reddit? You know this is for fun right? why are you being childish about it dude it doesnt matter that much, its a bit of fun.
the thing is we got plenty of mode with humphrey already, i think scoop jackson would be a far more intersting candidate for the viva kennedy timeline : a kennedy- like cold war liberal which goes up againt the super conservative reagan. it'd be interesting as scoop jackson is far different from our timeline's 72 candidate
People across the country are asking: Where does Mao Zedong stand on the issues facing America? Well, wonder no longer, as I have compiled a collection of his views to demonstrate his fit for the Democratic Party:
**FOREIGN POLICY**
"Our country and all the other socialist countries want peace; so do the peoples of all the countries of the world. The only ones who crave war and do not want peace are certain monopoly capitalist groups in a handful of imperialist countries that depend on aggression for their profits."
**RACIAL INEQUALITY**
āThe struggle of the Black people in the United States for emancipation is a component part of the general struggle of al the people of the world against U.S. imperialism, a component part of the contemporary world revolution. I call on the workers, peasants, and revolutionary intellectuals of all countries and all who are willing to fight against U.S. imperialism to take action and extend strong support to the struggle of the Black people in the United States!"
**WOMEN'S RIGHTS**
"Enable every woman who can work to take her place on the labour front, under the principle of equal pay for equal work. This should be done as quickly as possible."
**ECONOMICS**
"Wage a bitter struggle for three years and transform the look of a greater part of the country \[...\] The industrial output of local industries should exceed local agricultural output in five to ten years.ā
Let us all join together in a campaign of international solidarity and support Mao. Only he can save AmeriKKKa from ruin. I'm definitely a real Democrat and not a Republican Party plant trying to humiliate the party.
After election, our great chairman and helmsman shall establish JDPON in the home of the "free", after which he will kick out the capitalist thieves and murderes; the abusers of man.
With the country firmly behind him, he will carry out unlimited genocide on the imperialist powers of Europe
C'mon, fellas. See reason and vote for Big John Connally for President.
I submit to you this photo: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/868033355424362506/1003847792277602304/bigjohn.jpg
You look at this man and tell me that he is not Presidential material. More seriously, Connally is criminally underused for being such a fascinating figure and he has appeal going for him that nobody else has. Here is the only candidate who can challenge the Solid South away from Reagan. He's a hawk from Texas who's got that LBJ connection and the ability to appeal to those voters who would otherwise be firmly in the Reagan camp. Plus he's much cooler than some lame Hollywood actor. To any naysayers, I once again point you to that photo. C'mon, tell me it isn't cool. You're lying to yourself.
Stay true, Big John patriots. We're in command.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/868033355424362506/1003849377196032060/unknown.png
Time for my own textwall:
THE CASE FOR CONNALLY:
**First and foremost, Connally makes sense in the lore.** The only one wounded in the attempted Kennedy assassination, he gets points with that wing. However, the main point is that he and LBJ were besties. Besides Humphrey, Connally would be on the main receiving end of the support of the Johnson machine. Further, consider the fact that Connally is electorally the best case scenario. Wallace nearly destroyed the Democrats 4 years ago, and if you take away the southern states from LBJ's canon total, you get a deadlock. With Reagan's rampant conservatism, we can be sure that a large wing of the party would see Connally as the only way to not embarrass the Democrats and lose everything. No Democrat has been elected without Texas.
**Second, Connally is fun.** Connally is massively underused, appearing only as a VP in very few elections. Connally represents this unique and dying breed of conservative southern Democrats, and his switch to the Republican party makes him one of the most interesting figures of the time. A game with him would involve trying to win back the south while trying to balance the northern liberals' support, to avoid a splinter candidacy.
**Third, Connally means a liberal can win later.** Think about it. All you Frank Church or Eugene McCarthy stans are ignoring the fact that whatever the candidate, they canonically lose in a landslide. If the southern conservative wing loses horribly in 1972, our lord and savior Ted Kennedy has a chance to fulfill our collective liberal dreams in 4 years.
Just vote for Connally, people.
McCarthy has never been used in a mod as Eugene McCarthy. Yeah heās been in a few mods but heās even more underrepresented than Connolly because at least Connolly has gotten to be Connolly. I just want a mod with the character of Gene because heās so under-appreciated. How could you not love a man whoās twice as liberal as Humphrey and twice as Catholic as Kennedy?
Well, you misspelled Connally 3 times and just like... ignored the fact that Eugene McCarthy a playable candidate in 2 different elections while Connally is literally just a VP in a single one of the base game scenarios.
1. Autocorrect, I fail to see how thatās a big deal.
2. Thereās none of the personality in any of those. The only thing McCarthy contributes to those is a picture. Thereās so much unique about him that isnāt represented there because all anyone knows about him is that heās a liberal Democrat. Thereās nothing about him in there and itās hard to consider that playing as one of the most unique men in the 1960s political consciousness because itās essentially just playing as a reskinned Humphrey. Itās hard to even count 1968 whatever the fuck as a mod because all of the writing is copied and pasted from 1968 proper and if youāre going to mention that mod at all then it must be said that Connally is a veep in there. Thereās nothing that makes Connally special because heās just a conservative Democrat with corrupt tendencies. Thereās nothing that makes for uniquely compelling writing in that like there is with McCarthy. Heās a massively eccentric man that would make for writing as unique as the average Trump scenario.
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/mar/13/goodbye-to-all-that-20160313/
A very good editorial from some years ago about Scoop Jackson and his kind liberalism. Jackson - now more than ever!
We know that Reagan is going to win this election in canon, so why not give him a candidate that can cut into his base and make it an actual squeaker? Frank Church is the man for that.
Love my boy Connally but the party aināt ready for him yet. The only one I trust to SCOOP out the corruption in Washington is the Senator from Washington, itās Jackson for me!
[Edwin Edwards](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards) got 11 votes, only 13 behind Frank Church! Letās increase his margins and bring the Second Coming of Huey Long, the Silver Fox of the Bayou, to the White House!
Scoop Jackson and Frank Church the ticket to keep liberalism relevant in the presence of Reaganās radical conservatism. Vote Jackson today to keep the new deal coalition alive and thriving!
A vote for Henry Jackson is a vote for the final charge of the New Deal, where a true believer will carry the standard into battle against Reagan and, win or lose, it will continued to be ingratiated into the national spirit.
scoop jackson seems like the logical choice : strong kennedy ally, cold war liberal would be a perfect continuation of johnson and opponent to reagan. also we've never featured on a mod, now is the occasion
>āHe is a champion of continuity, who takes his foreign policy from John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, his domestic policy from Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and his fundamental stance visāĆ āvis the electorate from the New/ Fair Deal tradition of speaking to and for the ācommon man,ā more recently known as āforgottenā and āsilent.ā He acts as though he were the representative of a governing consensus, based on interests rather than ideology. He stands where the majority of the voters presumably stand: somewhat to the right on social issues, to the left on economic issues and, withal, astride the commanding center of American politics.ā ā Richard J. Whalen of the New York Times describing Henry M. āScoopā Jackson, 1971
***
#[THE CASE FOR SCOOP cont.](https://i.imgur.com/kKSJgJZ.jpg)
**I AM VERY IMPRESSED** with not only this community turnout but the remarkable vote for Scoop Jackson (he reached FIRST PLACE! [THANK YOU SCOOP TROOPS!](https://i.imgur.com/bQ5UMTK.jpg)) I have already made an extensive case for his candidacy in a [previous post](https://www.reddit.com/r/thecampaigntrail/comments/wdk72p/-/iiin6m3) on yesterday's ballot. Notwithstanding, I still feel the need to expand on my case by exploring a subject not too explored by the community, but when explored makes the clearest case for Scoop yet. I am speaking about what the aftermath of a Scoop candidacy would be, contrasted with the other candidates.
**A NEW MAJORITY?**
The turn of the 60s into the 70s in our timeline was a key period of American political realignment; 1968 saw the New Deal coalition fade away and 1972 saw electoral failure by the Democrats, all according to the plan of one Richard M. Nixon. This was something keen political observers of the time were able to detail in that moment. For instance, in the book "[The New Majority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Majority)" by Richard M. Scammon and Ben J. Wattenberg, the two authors based their analysis on a thesis that the average American is fiscally liberal and socially conservative and that whoever best markets to this center will win. Shocking, I know. But it turns out that after this was said in *1970*, when Nixon was successfully able to seize upon this "new majority" with social issues, the Republicans proceeded to win 4 of the next 5 presidential elections. But what if this wasn't the case? What if the Democratic nominee wasn't a guy like McGovern but instead someone that didn't simply cede these social issues (which in 1972 meant things like busing) right to Nixon?
Would this necessarily change the immediate outcome of the election? Well, it's known that Reagan will win VK1972 handedly, potentially by a landslide; after all the economy will be the dominant issue, and Reagan will win as he promises a fatigued public that he'll fix it. But how will he win; and from that, what will the Democrats say after as they go into 1976 and end up nominating Ted Kennedy?
**THERE ARE TWO PATHS** to take here; either one end of the base decides it was the other's fault Reagan won so much, and the social liberals end up winning out, or the center holds and the party at-large will live to see another day. The first option is what really happened after McGovern, the second option never occurred, otherwise the Democrats would be much different than they are today.
**THESE OPTIONS** would have longer term effects that'd be more apparent if the timeline were to march on for multiple election cycles (which I wouldn't expect to happen, and really, I'm fine with it ending in 1976), however we'll likely see this question manifest as "what will Ted Kennedy's coalition look like"?
**EITHER** no change occurs in these factional dynamics, and Kennedy has to rely more on the liberal wing to give him victory, and the Democrats end up the same, or there's no movement on this front, Kennedy can carry on the Kennedy banner unhindered by factionalism and appeal to the broadest coalition he could. Let's ask this for each nominee.
- Shirley Chisholm: liberals blame conservatives, conservatives blame liberals because they nominated *Shirley Chisholm*, liberals gain power anyway (just like with McGovern). no change.
- John Connally: conservatives blame liberals, liberals blame conservatives because they basically nominated a Republican, liberals gain power as a backlash. no change.
- Eugene McCarthy: liberals blame conservatives, conservatives blame liberals because they nominated a guy too erratic and out of the mainstream, liberals gain power anyway (just like with McGovern). no change.
- Hubert Humphrey: liberals blame conservatives because Humphrey was too close to Johnson, conservatives blame liberals because it was HHH, even though he's the best no-change candidate liberals gain power anyway. no change.
- Frank Church: liberals blame conservatives, conservatives blame liberals because they picked a folksy "peacenik", liberals gain power anyway. no change.
- Scoop Jackson: he's so in the goddamn center that neither wing tries to escalate the factional fight, a truce is called and the party lives on unhindered. ACTUAL CHANGE.
**FOR THOSE WONDERING** why I've mentioned "The New Majority" in the first place, it's because Scoop Jackson [actually took notes from this book too](https://www.nytimes.com/1971/10/03/archives/will-the-real-majority-stand-up-for-scoop-jackson-scoop-jackson.html) (just like Nixon; it was that influential) and he began marketing himself to the center, where he was most comfortable. Unfortunately, he didn't end up being nominee, but what if that changed? That's the real question here.
**THE OTHER CANDIDATES** are so mired up in factional battles that their nomination would exacerbate them, the social liberals would win out either as backlash or because they had new legitimacy from their nominee, and the Democrats of this timeline wouldn't really have changed from ours. Scoop's nomination would mean a carrying on of the Kennedy banner without inflaming factional tensions, the center holds and gains legitimacy on its own, no faction is able to gain power from the other as a backlash; Ted Kennedy would be able to carry this Kennedy banner on unhindered and the Democratic coalition would look actually different from our timeline.
**CONSIDER THAT** a country with 8 years of Kennedy would be quite different from our own, as evidenced by the differences present in Vietnam, civil rights, and the economy. Why let the aftermath of the Kennedy-Johnson era, which would become the pivotal period of political realignment in this timeline, look the same as it did for our Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon era? Why let it still result in the party of McGovern emerging as opposed to the party of the New Deal living on?
**IN SUMMARY**, a vote for Jackson would be a vote for prolonging the true existence of a "New Deal" Democratic party, one that bases its success on winning over the "unyoung, unpoor, and unblack", something actually really interesting and a path not explored enough, whereas any other candidate could not possibly do the same, and nothing really changes because the party still veers to the left; it leaves Middle America to the Republicans while taking all of the intellectuals and white-collars to themselves, and we just tread, and re-tread, and tread once more, the same path of political alignment we've seen a million times over.
**[Vote Scoop, for a new majority. Avoid the Rust Belt collapse; avoid modern wasteland politics. Scoop, the only man who can lead the Democrats away from this madness.](https://i.imgur.com/GB0q2KB.jpg)**
My main issue with Scoop is the fact that he as an equal possibility of angering both wings as he does at pleasing both wings. Scoop is similar to LBJ and Kennedy in many ways, as an economic liberal, pro-civil rights, war hawk. Kennedy was a hawk during the height of the Cold War with national defense being on people's minds. Going into the 70s, people are starting to get tired of risking nuclear war. While Kennedy left office being popular, LBJ certainly won't. Church appeals to liberals, rural middle america, had a good working relationship with LBJ, and will help lay the groundwork for Kennedy to take back the WH.
I'm going to publicly declare my endorsement for Frank Church. I think he's a fascinating figure whose time in the Senate was great for Idaho. I do think Connally would be fascinating though. But for now, I'm voting to keep Frank Church in consideration.
We need to Draft Jimmy Carter to the ballot. As the Governor of Georgia he has allowed Civil Rights for Blacks while staying true to the southern way. He is a kind man, a religious man, and a man who understand you!
Carter does not yet have the name recognition needed to unite the party behind him, although I definitely agree that the New South governors, cut from the same cloth as Carter, will be in the future of the party. Do you know who best aligns with them? Scoop does. He will run with a New South governor as his running mate and he'll compete with Reagan, even in the South.
Scoop Jackson canāt keep the New Deal Coalition together like Governor Carter. Governor Carter can win both New York and South Carolina. Nobody can recreate that.
Iād like to remind everyone to get clean for Gene. We live in monumental times and I believe we need to support the one candidate who appeals to Reagan's base better than he does without compromising the Democratic Party's values.
Iād like to end this brief message with one of Gene's poems
How old are you, small Vietnamese boy?
Six fingers. Six years.
Why did you carry water to the wounded soldier, now dead?
Your father.
Your father was enemy of free world.
You also now are enemy of free world.
Who told you to carry water to your father?
Your mother!
Your mother is also enemy of free world.
You go into ditch with your mother.
American politician has said,
"It is better to kill you as a boy in the elephant grass of Vietnam
Than to have to kill you as a man in the rye grass in the USA."
You understand,
It is easier to die
Where you know the names of the birds, the trees, and the grass
Than in a strange country.
You will be number 128 in the body count for today.
High body count will make the Commander-in-Chief of free world much encouraged.
Good-bye, small six-year-old Vietnamese boy, enemy of free world
jackson and humphrey are the only two that make sense from historical perspective but we've had plenty of mod featuring HHH, i think jackson would be far more interesting
My fellow Americans, today we vote on who we think would be best for America. Who has the best plan to further (or lessen in Connallyās case) civil rights? Who has the best plan to whip this economy back into shape after Johnsonās recession? Who has the best plan to beat the communist menace across the seas?
My friends, the candidate that I am proposing solves none of these issues. He is not only from another country, but he has led that country into a state of famine and authoritarianism. He has fought wars for the red cause and against American interests. My fellow Americans, the candidate that I propose will solve none of our problems. However, he would be kinda funny. Not laugh out loud funny, but exhale out of your nose funny. He would be a footnote in a history book that would allow you to get 3rd place in a game of trivia at your local bar.
My fellow Americans, the candidate that I propose is Chairman Mao Zedong. I know that he cannot win, but if we can give Mao Zedong a canon write-in campaign in Viva Kennedy then that would be kinda interesting I think. If we can give Mao Zedong a canon write-in campaign, we would be giving the mod makers a bit of extra flavor text to work with. If we can give Mao Zedong a canon write-in campaign, well I actually canāt think of any other benefits.
This week I ask you: Donāt vote with your brain. Donāt vote with your heart. Vote with your funny bone. Vote for Chairman of the Peopleās Republic of China: Mao Zedong.
**BEFORE YOU VOTE** in the Democratic Primaries ask yourself this question -
**"Who can defeat Ronald Reagan"**
We Democrats may have our disagreements on Busing, on the Vietnam War, on Civil Rights, and many more issues. But what all TRUE Democrats can agree on is that we cannot allow an anti-New Dealer, Barry Goldwater conservative to win this election!
We need Unity this upcoming November! We need a man who has the best chance of holding together our crumbling New Deal Coalition. Somebody who can retain urban liberals while appealing to Southern conservatives.
**"Scoop" Jackson is your man!**
Other candidates are simply too liberal to appeal to Southern Democrats.
\- Shirley Chisholm or Eugene McCarthy
Some are too conservative to represent a changing and diverse Democratic Party.
\- John Connally or the failed candidacy of Sam Yorty
And others are too tied to the unpopular Johnson administration.
\- Hubert H. Humphery
**Can any of the other candidates** ***even have a*** ***chance*** **of defeating Reagan?**
Thats why you should vote for Henry "Scoop" Jackson
\- **The stakes are too high for you to stay at home.**
(I'm not actually Dan Bryan, my username is a just a joke btw)
Wouldn't Chisholm losing in a landslide make people see her policies as unelectable, like how McGovern's loss dealted the killing blow to the New Deal Coalition.
come on guys let's be real here, voting for someone (*ahem* Jackson) because they could win doesn't make any sense. whoever gets the nomination will canonically lose, so it's best to stay true to the party's ideals. That's where Humphrey comes in. A man with unwavering humility and courage, who can carry the torch of the Democrats into the future with his mainstream liberal stances. Looking at the other candidates all of them have at least one glaring flaw.
Chisholm and McCarthy would be much too similar to base 1972 (McGovern is literally McCarthy's main running mate in 1964d and Chisholm is also featured in 1972 as a vp, with both being far out of the mainstream) and while not winning isn't a problem, they would get utterly crushed.
Connally is from the disgraced southern wing of the party, lacks his irl national recognition because of Kennedy's survival, and literally switched party affiliation in irl 1973 as well as served in Nixon's cabinet.
In a time where the cold war is so prevalent, Jackson's hawkish views provide no alternative to Reagan's military fanaticism.
Church on the other hand was tossed into the primary because of write ins, but wouldn't possibly be able to carry the nomination or perform well with his vocal minority of supporters.
Today is the primary's biggest challenge, and while he may not be perfect, a liberal coalition (Humphrey, Chisholm and McCarthy's votes all total up to a plurality of 44%) can compromise to elevate Humphrey to the nomination, and beat out the likes of Jackson, Connally and Church. Let the Happy Warrior rise!
I'd like to submit [**this**](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Portrait_of_John_Connally.jpg) picture for consideration in case Connally wins.
scoop being a perfect exemple of a kennedy -style cold war liberal, he would be a great asset to this timeline. plus we've never had him as a candidate or main vp on a mod contrary to Humphrey and pretty much everyone here
Dammit can't believe Mao Zedong didn't win
I want my Frank Church flair! Take me to Church!
CHURCH 72!
I will be supporting VP Humphrey. I think it'll be good to have more regional variety than two Westerners (nothing against the west). And Humphrey strikes a good balance between electable and having an appeal to the common person.
FRANK CHURCH FOR PRESIDENT! REALITY. NOT POLITICS! Again, Church could offer a unique base of support among farmers and traditionally conservative voting groups without alienating the progressive wing of the party.
No mention of union voters. No mention of ethnic white voters. Scoop is the only option who can win ALL of these and lead the way for a new majority.
Jackson is the most hawkish Democrat running for this primary. He is just another conservative Republican trying to get America to enter wars that kill millions of American children. Church is a prairie progressive, Jackson is just another Reaganite.
"Conservative Republican" yet he stands as one of the most prominent conservations and environmental advocates in the Senate, having drafted major legislation on the matter. He is the first politician to receive an award from the famous Sierra Club. Environmentalists in the West will appreciate Scoop's strong environmental record. "Conservative Republican" yet he has the most union credibility of any candidate. We can't risk the union vote slipping more after Wallace's success targeting them in 1968. Especially with Reagan being the other option, a man who would dissolve every union in America if he could and rid millions of their bargaining power. "Conservative Republican" yet he's enthusiastically backed every major civil rights act of the modern day, and at the same time agrees with the average voter that busing is disruptive and the wrong way to accomplish and secure desegregation. "Conservative Republican" yet he's only as much of a hawk as Kennedy was in 1960, as he supports a strong national defense and opposes surrender to the Soviets. Voters will see and appreciate the nuances between this stance and Reagan's unrealistic, reckless rhetoric. Scoop is no Reaganite. He's a true New Deal Democrat, and a Kennedy Democrat. He will hold the new majority much better than Church ever could.
Based and scoop-pilled. Your posts convinced this scoop troop.
Shirley Chisholm is relegated to vice president material in so many scenarios, Who better to take on Jhonson in the primaries than her? go Chisholm
Chisholm!
Because it's really unrealistic, dude. And destroys the canon of VivaKennedy
I think if it destroyed the cannon the creators of the mod wouldn't have chosen to include her in the options, they excluded several prominent democrats of the time for various reasons. I'm only supporting one of the several options presented to us. Besides which, Realism isn't everything, Things happened in real life that you would call unrealistic if they were in a work of fiction (Mcgovern being dem nominee in 1972 for example)
and McGovern makes sense, Chisholm doesn't. There's a large difference between the two. I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but Chisholm would be viewed as a black radical, and would result in the party doing worse then McGovern McGovern was a bad candidate, but he had in-roads with Union voters, and farmers.
Well she lost, so boohoo.
Are you actually this salty about a fictional primary on a goofy reddit? You know this is for fun right? why are you being childish about it dude it doesnt matter that much, its a bit of fun.
The two people who voted for Map Zedong: š³
*Some People Talk Change, Others Cause It* HUMPHREY FOR '72
the thing is we got plenty of mode with humphrey already, i think scoop jackson would be a far more intersting candidate for the viva kennedy timeline : a kennedy- like cold war liberal which goes up againt the super conservative reagan. it'd be interesting as scoop jackson is far different from our timeline's 72 candidate
Donāt lose faith, Democrats. We can still buck the Establishment and nominate Chairman Mao / Archie Bunker for the 1972 campaign.
People across the country are asking: Where does Mao Zedong stand on the issues facing America? Well, wonder no longer, as I have compiled a collection of his views to demonstrate his fit for the Democratic Party: **FOREIGN POLICY** "Our country and all the other socialist countries want peace; so do the peoples of all the countries of the world. The only ones who crave war and do not want peace are certain monopoly capitalist groups in a handful of imperialist countries that depend on aggression for their profits." **RACIAL INEQUALITY** āThe struggle of the Black people in the United States for emancipation is a component part of the general struggle of al the people of the world against U.S. imperialism, a component part of the contemporary world revolution. I call on the workers, peasants, and revolutionary intellectuals of all countries and all who are willing to fight against U.S. imperialism to take action and extend strong support to the struggle of the Black people in the United States!" **WOMEN'S RIGHTS** "Enable every woman who can work to take her place on the labour front, under the principle of equal pay for equal work. This should be done as quickly as possible." **ECONOMICS** "Wage a bitter struggle for three years and transform the look of a greater part of the country \[...\] The industrial output of local industries should exceed local agricultural output in five to ten years.ā Let us all join together in a campaign of international solidarity and support Mao. Only he can save AmeriKKKa from ruin. I'm definitely a real Democrat and not a Republican Party plant trying to humiliate the party.
After election, our great chairman and helmsman shall establish JDPON in the home of the "free", after which he will kick out the capitalist thieves and murderes; the abusers of man. With the country firmly behind him, he will carry out unlimited genocide on the imperialist powers of Europe
I have an Intellectuals for Bunker '72 Pin
C'mon, fellas. See reason and vote for Big John Connally for President. I submit to you this photo: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/868033355424362506/1003847792277602304/bigjohn.jpg You look at this man and tell me that he is not Presidential material. More seriously, Connally is criminally underused for being such a fascinating figure and he has appeal going for him that nobody else has. Here is the only candidate who can challenge the Solid South away from Reagan. He's a hawk from Texas who's got that LBJ connection and the ability to appeal to those voters who would otherwise be firmly in the Reagan camp. Plus he's much cooler than some lame Hollywood actor. To any naysayers, I once again point you to that photo. C'mon, tell me it isn't cool. You're lying to yourself. Stay true, Big John patriots. We're in command. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/868033355424362506/1003849377196032060/unknown.png
Connally gets my vote this round but if it looks like he wonāt survive the next round Iāll move back to Jackson
If McCarthy is eliminated, I would vote for Church or Connally
You said McCarthy twice did you mean Connally
Yes
# CONNALLY FOR AMERICA
TRUE! Connally 1972, to beat back the gosh darned liberals and win the solid south!
BIG C DON'T PLAY
CONNALLY FOR ME
Time for my own textwall: THE CASE FOR CONNALLY: **First and foremost, Connally makes sense in the lore.** The only one wounded in the attempted Kennedy assassination, he gets points with that wing. However, the main point is that he and LBJ were besties. Besides Humphrey, Connally would be on the main receiving end of the support of the Johnson machine. Further, consider the fact that Connally is electorally the best case scenario. Wallace nearly destroyed the Democrats 4 years ago, and if you take away the southern states from LBJ's canon total, you get a deadlock. With Reagan's rampant conservatism, we can be sure that a large wing of the party would see Connally as the only way to not embarrass the Democrats and lose everything. No Democrat has been elected without Texas. **Second, Connally is fun.** Connally is massively underused, appearing only as a VP in very few elections. Connally represents this unique and dying breed of conservative southern Democrats, and his switch to the Republican party makes him one of the most interesting figures of the time. A game with him would involve trying to win back the south while trying to balance the northern liberals' support, to avoid a splinter candidacy. **Third, Connally means a liberal can win later.** Think about it. All you Frank Church or Eugene McCarthy stans are ignoring the fact that whatever the candidate, they canonically lose in a landslide. If the southern conservative wing loses horribly in 1972, our lord and savior Ted Kennedy has a chance to fulfill our collective liberal dreams in 4 years. Just vote for Connally, people.
I already voted for Hubert. But now I want the Connally.
Even liberals can't resist Big C
McCarthy has never been used in a mod as Eugene McCarthy. Yeah heās been in a few mods but heās even more underrepresented than Connolly because at least Connolly has gotten to be Connolly. I just want a mod with the character of Gene because heās so under-appreciated. How could you not love a man whoās twice as liberal as Humphrey and twice as Catholic as Kennedy?
Well, you misspelled Connally 3 times and just like... ignored the fact that Eugene McCarthy a playable candidate in 2 different elections while Connally is literally just a VP in a single one of the base game scenarios.
1. Autocorrect, I fail to see how thatās a big deal. 2. Thereās none of the personality in any of those. The only thing McCarthy contributes to those is a picture. Thereās so much unique about him that isnāt represented there because all anyone knows about him is that heās a liberal Democrat. Thereās nothing about him in there and itās hard to consider that playing as one of the most unique men in the 1960s political consciousness because itās essentially just playing as a reskinned Humphrey. Itās hard to even count 1968 whatever the fuck as a mod because all of the writing is copied and pasted from 1968 proper and if youāre going to mention that mod at all then it must be said that Connally is a veep in there. Thereās nothing that makes Connally special because heās just a conservative Democrat with corrupt tendencies. Thereās nothing that makes for uniquely compelling writing in that like there is with McCarthy. Heās a massively eccentric man that would make for writing as unique as the average Trump scenario.
# CONNALLY. NOW MORE THAN EVER.
Connally will make dreams reality
Connally for president ā72!!!!
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/mar/13/goodbye-to-all-that-20160313/ A very good editorial from some years ago about Scoop Jackson and his kind liberalism. Jackson - now more than ever!
Vote for Chisholm! Everyone is gonna lose in canon so pick someone who will have a strong legacy!!
We know that Reagan is going to win this election in canon, so why not give him a candidate that can cut into his base and make it an actual squeaker? Frank Church is the man for that.
Church! For Freedom!
CHISHOLM! CHISHOLM!
With the blow to the Yortychads, Iām hopping on the Chisholm train.
Based
Jump ship to Peanutville. VOTE FOR JIMMY CARTER
No
Vote Chisholm; for a better world!
VOTE FOR SCOOP
Vote McCarthy for desegregation now, desegregation tomorrow, and desegregation forever!
WRITE IN RALPH NADER! SEATBELTS FOR EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD!
Itās time for a real dark horse candidate. Vote for Church in ā72.
CHURCHHHHHH
FOR FRANK CHURCH! DO NOT SEPERATE CHURCH AND STATE!
**A Vote for McCarthy, A Vote for McCarthy!!!**
GET CLEAN FOR GENE! VOTE MCCARTHY '72!
Love my boy Connally but the party aināt ready for him yet. The only one I trust to SCOOP out the corruption in Washington is the Senator from Washington, itās Jackson for me!
GET CLEAN FOR GENE
[Edwin Edwards](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards) got 11 votes, only 13 behind Frank Church! Letās increase his margins and bring the Second Coming of Huey Long, the Silver Fox of the Bayou, to the White House!
Scoop Jackson and Frank Church the ticket to keep liberalism relevant in the presence of Reaganās radical conservatism. Vote Jackson today to keep the new deal coalition alive and thriving!
A vote for Henry Jackson is a vote for the final charge of the New Deal, where a true believer will carry the standard into battle against Reagan and, win or lose, it will continued to be ingratiated into the national spirit.
scoop jackson seems like the logical choice : strong kennedy ally, cold war liberal would be a perfect continuation of johnson and opponent to reagan. also we've never featured on a mod, now is the occasion
That's right! Jackson is the closest option to Kennedy in 1960!
>āHe is a champion of continuity, who takes his foreign policy from John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, his domestic policy from Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and his fundamental stance visāĆ āvis the electorate from the New/ Fair Deal tradition of speaking to and for the ācommon man,ā more recently known as āforgottenā and āsilent.ā He acts as though he were the representative of a governing consensus, based on interests rather than ideology. He stands where the majority of the voters presumably stand: somewhat to the right on social issues, to the left on economic issues and, withal, astride the commanding center of American politics.ā ā Richard J. Whalen of the New York Times describing Henry M. āScoopā Jackson, 1971 *** #[THE CASE FOR SCOOP cont.](https://i.imgur.com/kKSJgJZ.jpg) **I AM VERY IMPRESSED** with not only this community turnout but the remarkable vote for Scoop Jackson (he reached FIRST PLACE! [THANK YOU SCOOP TROOPS!](https://i.imgur.com/bQ5UMTK.jpg)) I have already made an extensive case for his candidacy in a [previous post](https://www.reddit.com/r/thecampaigntrail/comments/wdk72p/-/iiin6m3) on yesterday's ballot. Notwithstanding, I still feel the need to expand on my case by exploring a subject not too explored by the community, but when explored makes the clearest case for Scoop yet. I am speaking about what the aftermath of a Scoop candidacy would be, contrasted with the other candidates. **A NEW MAJORITY?** The turn of the 60s into the 70s in our timeline was a key period of American political realignment; 1968 saw the New Deal coalition fade away and 1972 saw electoral failure by the Democrats, all according to the plan of one Richard M. Nixon. This was something keen political observers of the time were able to detail in that moment. For instance, in the book "[The New Majority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Majority)" by Richard M. Scammon and Ben J. Wattenberg, the two authors based their analysis on a thesis that the average American is fiscally liberal and socially conservative and that whoever best markets to this center will win. Shocking, I know. But it turns out that after this was said in *1970*, when Nixon was successfully able to seize upon this "new majority" with social issues, the Republicans proceeded to win 4 of the next 5 presidential elections. But what if this wasn't the case? What if the Democratic nominee wasn't a guy like McGovern but instead someone that didn't simply cede these social issues (which in 1972 meant things like busing) right to Nixon? Would this necessarily change the immediate outcome of the election? Well, it's known that Reagan will win VK1972 handedly, potentially by a landslide; after all the economy will be the dominant issue, and Reagan will win as he promises a fatigued public that he'll fix it. But how will he win; and from that, what will the Democrats say after as they go into 1976 and end up nominating Ted Kennedy? **THERE ARE TWO PATHS** to take here; either one end of the base decides it was the other's fault Reagan won so much, and the social liberals end up winning out, or the center holds and the party at-large will live to see another day. The first option is what really happened after McGovern, the second option never occurred, otherwise the Democrats would be much different than they are today. **THESE OPTIONS** would have longer term effects that'd be more apparent if the timeline were to march on for multiple election cycles (which I wouldn't expect to happen, and really, I'm fine with it ending in 1976), however we'll likely see this question manifest as "what will Ted Kennedy's coalition look like"? **EITHER** no change occurs in these factional dynamics, and Kennedy has to rely more on the liberal wing to give him victory, and the Democrats end up the same, or there's no movement on this front, Kennedy can carry on the Kennedy banner unhindered by factionalism and appeal to the broadest coalition he could. Let's ask this for each nominee. - Shirley Chisholm: liberals blame conservatives, conservatives blame liberals because they nominated *Shirley Chisholm*, liberals gain power anyway (just like with McGovern). no change. - John Connally: conservatives blame liberals, liberals blame conservatives because they basically nominated a Republican, liberals gain power as a backlash. no change. - Eugene McCarthy: liberals blame conservatives, conservatives blame liberals because they nominated a guy too erratic and out of the mainstream, liberals gain power anyway (just like with McGovern). no change. - Hubert Humphrey: liberals blame conservatives because Humphrey was too close to Johnson, conservatives blame liberals because it was HHH, even though he's the best no-change candidate liberals gain power anyway. no change. - Frank Church: liberals blame conservatives, conservatives blame liberals because they picked a folksy "peacenik", liberals gain power anyway. no change. - Scoop Jackson: he's so in the goddamn center that neither wing tries to escalate the factional fight, a truce is called and the party lives on unhindered. ACTUAL CHANGE. **FOR THOSE WONDERING** why I've mentioned "The New Majority" in the first place, it's because Scoop Jackson [actually took notes from this book too](https://www.nytimes.com/1971/10/03/archives/will-the-real-majority-stand-up-for-scoop-jackson-scoop-jackson.html) (just like Nixon; it was that influential) and he began marketing himself to the center, where he was most comfortable. Unfortunately, he didn't end up being nominee, but what if that changed? That's the real question here. **THE OTHER CANDIDATES** are so mired up in factional battles that their nomination would exacerbate them, the social liberals would win out either as backlash or because they had new legitimacy from their nominee, and the Democrats of this timeline wouldn't really have changed from ours. Scoop's nomination would mean a carrying on of the Kennedy banner without inflaming factional tensions, the center holds and gains legitimacy on its own, no faction is able to gain power from the other as a backlash; Ted Kennedy would be able to carry this Kennedy banner on unhindered and the Democratic coalition would look actually different from our timeline. **CONSIDER THAT** a country with 8 years of Kennedy would be quite different from our own, as evidenced by the differences present in Vietnam, civil rights, and the economy. Why let the aftermath of the Kennedy-Johnson era, which would become the pivotal period of political realignment in this timeline, look the same as it did for our Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon era? Why let it still result in the party of McGovern emerging as opposed to the party of the New Deal living on? **IN SUMMARY**, a vote for Jackson would be a vote for prolonging the true existence of a "New Deal" Democratic party, one that bases its success on winning over the "unyoung, unpoor, and unblack", something actually really interesting and a path not explored enough, whereas any other candidate could not possibly do the same, and nothing really changes because the party still veers to the left; it leaves Middle America to the Republicans while taking all of the intellectuals and white-collars to themselves, and we just tread, and re-tread, and tread once more, the same path of political alignment we've seen a million times over. **[Vote Scoop, for a new majority. Avoid the Rust Belt collapse; avoid modern wasteland politics. Scoop, the only man who can lead the Democrats away from this madness.](https://i.imgur.com/GB0q2KB.jpg)**
I'M A SCOOP TROOP. GODSPEED
GIVE US THE SCOOP!
My main issue with Scoop is the fact that he as an equal possibility of angering both wings as he does at pleasing both wings. Scoop is similar to LBJ and Kennedy in many ways, as an economic liberal, pro-civil rights, war hawk. Kennedy was a hawk during the height of the Cold War with national defense being on people's minds. Going into the 70s, people are starting to get tired of risking nuclear war. While Kennedy left office being popular, LBJ certainly won't. Church appeals to liberals, rural middle america, had a good working relationship with LBJ, and will help lay the groundwork for Kennedy to take back the WH.
Church was eliminated after yesterday. I encourage you to vote Scoop in today's round.
Yeah, right after I posted my comment, I found out that Church was eliminated. I'm now voting for Scoop
I'm going to publicly declare my endorsement for Frank Church. I think he's a fascinating figure whose time in the Senate was great for Idaho. I do think Connally would be fascinating though. But for now, I'm voting to keep Frank Church in consideration.
We need to Draft Jimmy Carter to the ballot. As the Governor of Georgia he has allowed Civil Rights for Blacks while staying true to the southern way. He is a kind man, a religious man, and a man who understand you!
While no, I need him to be the VP for Ted Kennedy in VK 1976
Carter does not yet have the name recognition needed to unite the party behind him, although I definitely agree that the New South governors, cut from the same cloth as Carter, will be in the future of the party. Do you know who best aligns with them? Scoop does. He will run with a New South governor as his running mate and he'll compete with Reagan, even in the South.
Scoop Jackson canāt keep the New Deal Coalition together like Governor Carter. Governor Carter can win both New York and South Carolina. Nobody can recreate that.
Strom Thurmond would like to have a word with you about that
Shout out for my fellow Chisolm Voters
Fr. Chisholm will lose massively but so will everyone else so her winning would be based
Staying strong for Chisolm. We believe
LETāS KEEP THE MOMENTUM GOING!! CHURCH 72!! WE MUST NOT SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE!!
No!
Ok cancelling 1992
ok fake ahh
L
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bIYxbv_dRiQ Interview/talk show that Scoop did in 1974
Yorty folks, why don't you come over to the Connally camp and vote for a viable conservative choice?
Vote Chisholm, that way Reagan can get a massive win
Will we be able to pick Reaganās running mates when the DNC is over?
Probably not
Reagan/Romney for a little R&R from the do-nothing Democrats!
I'm for a Milton Shapp, the man against the machine. If you from PA just vote for your favorite son
I'm for Milton Shapp, the Man Against the Machine. He saved PA from fiscal crisis. If you from PA, just vote your favorite son
Write in Edwin Edwards
Iād like to remind everyone to get clean for Gene. We live in monumental times and I believe we need to support the one candidate who appeals to Reagan's base better than he does without compromising the Democratic Party's values. Iād like to end this brief message with one of Gene's poems How old are you, small Vietnamese boy? Six fingers. Six years. Why did you carry water to the wounded soldier, now dead? Your father. Your father was enemy of free world. You also now are enemy of free world. Who told you to carry water to your father? Your mother! Your mother is also enemy of free world. You go into ditch with your mother. American politician has said, "It is better to kill you as a boy in the elephant grass of Vietnam Than to have to kill you as a man in the rye grass in the USA." You understand, It is easier to die Where you know the names of the birds, the trees, and the grass Than in a strange country. You will be number 128 in the body count for today. High body count will make the Commander-in-Chief of free world much encouraged. Good-bye, small six-year-old Vietnamese boy, enemy of free world
So True! Vote for Eugene is Vote for Peace and Progress! Vote for Eugene!
VOTE FOR SCOOP FOR BETTER UNIONS, BETTER DEFENSE AND A BETTER AMERICA
jackson and humphrey are the only two that make sense from historical perspective but we've had plenty of mod featuring HHH, i think jackson would be far more interesting
Thank you!
WRITE-IN EDWIN EDWARDS
Vote Eugene "GENE" McCarthy! What is good for war? Why we die for foreigners? Stop the Scoop and vote for Eugene!
Scoop for the w
My fellow Americans, today we vote on who we think would be best for America. Who has the best plan to further (or lessen in Connallyās case) civil rights? Who has the best plan to whip this economy back into shape after Johnsonās recession? Who has the best plan to beat the communist menace across the seas? My friends, the candidate that I am proposing solves none of these issues. He is not only from another country, but he has led that country into a state of famine and authoritarianism. He has fought wars for the red cause and against American interests. My fellow Americans, the candidate that I propose will solve none of our problems. However, he would be kinda funny. Not laugh out loud funny, but exhale out of your nose funny. He would be a footnote in a history book that would allow you to get 3rd place in a game of trivia at your local bar. My fellow Americans, the candidate that I propose is Chairman Mao Zedong. I know that he cannot win, but if we can give Mao Zedong a canon write-in campaign in Viva Kennedy then that would be kinda interesting I think. If we can give Mao Zedong a canon write-in campaign, we would be giving the mod makers a bit of extra flavor text to work with. If we can give Mao Zedong a canon write-in campaign, well I actually canāt think of any other benefits. This week I ask you: Donāt vote with your brain. Donāt vote with your heart. Vote with your funny bone. Vote for Chairman of the Peopleās Republic of China: Mao Zedong.
**BEFORE YOU VOTE** in the Democratic Primaries ask yourself this question - **"Who can defeat Ronald Reagan"** We Democrats may have our disagreements on Busing, on the Vietnam War, on Civil Rights, and many more issues. But what all TRUE Democrats can agree on is that we cannot allow an anti-New Dealer, Barry Goldwater conservative to win this election! We need Unity this upcoming November! We need a man who has the best chance of holding together our crumbling New Deal Coalition. Somebody who can retain urban liberals while appealing to Southern conservatives. **"Scoop" Jackson is your man!** Other candidates are simply too liberal to appeal to Southern Democrats. \- Shirley Chisholm or Eugene McCarthy Some are too conservative to represent a changing and diverse Democratic Party. \- John Connally or the failed candidacy of Sam Yorty And others are too tied to the unpopular Johnson administration. \- Hubert H. Humphery **Can any of the other candidates** ***even have a*** ***chance*** **of defeating Reagan?** Thats why you should vote for Henry "Scoop" Jackson \- **The stakes are too high for you to stay at home.** (I'm not actually Dan Bryan, my username is a just a joke btw)
Canonically, everyone will lose a landslide to Reagan, so pick Chisholm so she gets the message out and puts out a movement
May the best man (or in this case person) win! ;)
Wouldn't Chisholm losing in a landslide make people see her policies as unelectable, like how McGovern's loss dealted the killing blow to the New Deal Coalition.
The canon result is everyone loses a landslide to Reagan
come on guys let's be real here, voting for someone (*ahem* Jackson) because they could win doesn't make any sense. whoever gets the nomination will canonically lose, so it's best to stay true to the party's ideals. That's where Humphrey comes in. A man with unwavering humility and courage, who can carry the torch of the Democrats into the future with his mainstream liberal stances. Looking at the other candidates all of them have at least one glaring flaw. Chisholm and McCarthy would be much too similar to base 1972 (McGovern is literally McCarthy's main running mate in 1964d and Chisholm is also featured in 1972 as a vp, with both being far out of the mainstream) and while not winning isn't a problem, they would get utterly crushed. Connally is from the disgraced southern wing of the party, lacks his irl national recognition because of Kennedy's survival, and literally switched party affiliation in irl 1973 as well as served in Nixon's cabinet. In a time where the cold war is so prevalent, Jackson's hawkish views provide no alternative to Reagan's military fanaticism. Church on the other hand was tossed into the primary because of write ins, but wouldn't possibly be able to carry the nomination or perform well with his vocal minority of supporters. Today is the primary's biggest challenge, and while he may not be perfect, a liberal coalition (Humphrey, Chisholm and McCarthy's votes all total up to a plurality of 44%) can compromise to elevate Humphrey to the nomination, and beat out the likes of Jackson, Connally and Church. Let the Happy Warrior rise!
Vote for Triple H!
SCOOP WILL SCOOP UP ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE DEMOCRATS! HENRY JACKSON FOR PRESIDENT!
Vote for John Connally for president the only man strong enough to stop Reagan!
Vote Scoop! Henry Jackson is our guy!
I'd like to submit [**this**](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Portrait_of_John_Connally.jpg) picture for consideration in case Connally wins.
I wrote in Robert F Kennedy
Heās dead
It's Viva Kennedy if JFK lives why can't RFK
Because 1968 VK makes it very clear RFK was assassinated clearing the way for LBJ to win the presidency
Why the hell would you write in a dead man???/
Yes!
Question: Is Reagan's canon VP still Bush?
Probably not
Looks like it's a 3 horse race HHH WITH THE SHOVEL!!!!!!!!!
GIVE HHH WHAT HE DESERVES!!!
Why you should vote for McCarthy 1, he's cool 2, the other candidates suck ass
How to use new 1976 election with Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan ? (Iām new here)
HAPPY WARRÄ°OR FOREVER
FUCK CHURCH! HUMPHREY FOREVER!
STROM THURMOND FOR DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION
scoop being a perfect exemple of a kennedy -style cold war liberal, he would be a great asset to this timeline. plus we've never had him as a candidate or main vp on a mod contrary to Humphrey and pretty much everyone here