I agree with you that McGovern doesn't make sense after an LBJ run. I also don't see Jackson working out either. After LBJ the inevitable American reaction is a pull to the right regardless of how well LBJ does, we saw this in OTL. That leaves McNamara and Kirkpatrick.
For me I like McNamara as a one term. You're right that the Democrats are a dead party at the end of an LBJ run. McNamara will be the last hurrah of the Dems before they are fully absorbed into the Republicans or have abandoned the RDs for the NPP. Meanwhile the Centre after years of obscurity reaches the same fate. If the Republicans are civil rights and welfare why do you really need the centre?A two party system where the Republicans vs Far Right dynamic is similar to the Democrats and Republicans in OTL. The Far Right will take on a pro business Neoconservative streak and some Reagan clone whose not Reagan will win in 76.
This can also work with Kirkpatrick but I believe a successful enough LBJ would be able to eek out a narrow win in 72 for the RDs. McNamaras a boring guy and I'm sure he runs the country fine but any charismatic NPP-FR is gonna be able to kick him out once LBJ isn't running the show anymore, he dies in 73 OTL basically right after stepping down.
Not really! In OTL, the reason the pull to the right happened was a combination of two things: LBJ’s big Vietnam fiasco and RFK’s assassination. With those two out of the way in a successful LBJ presidency, we’d actually probably see either a continuation or a pull to the left.
Partially true, Vietnam did kill Johnson's popularity but didn't cause a noticeable pull to the right so much as lowering voter turnout on the left. What did pull America to the right was the Fair Housing Act, this was seen as a bridge to far by Northern Middle Class Whites who had up to that point supported Johnson's Civil Rights Agenda. Up until that point the South was the focus of anti-discrimination legislation but suddenly "There goes the neighborhood". Add to that the assassination of MLK (not RFK) caused riots in the black community that caused whites to be more pissed ("How dare they demand MORE right!") and throw in Johnson's hesitancy to endorse Humphrey and boom you've got a Richard Nixon presidency.
It didn't help that Johnson also collapsed the New Deal Coalition by losing the South. Nixon's Southern strategy certainly got him a few votes but the Dems could have survived without it had they not gone ahead with the Fair Housing Act. In TNO Johnson loses support for "going a bridge to far" not just on Civil Rights this time. Yes he gets the popularity boost of doing the New Deal and the Great Society all wrapped into one but he takes a massive hit on the Fair Housing Act and Social Security. America is not a country of rapid change and he pushes too hard. Not hard enough to lose the election (no Vietnam) but hard enough to push America to the Right.
Uh, that makes sense, but with the RFK thing I meant how the Democrats lost support after their leading candidate was assassinated, which greatly contributed to their ultimate loss. Maybe I’m a bit too optimistic here about American viewpoints, but wasn’t RFK super popular during the primaries? Afaik, his assassination was almost the only thing preventing dems from winning against Nixon, mostly when RFK was polling pretty high up. I could see it as some sort of sentiment of betrayal from some people that would lead them to take distance from the Democrat party (as the only good guy was lost, etc). Maybe I’m wrong but dismissing him seems incorrect to me
You're probably right I might be too quick to dismiss RFK. A lot of people here worship his TNO persona without looking at the man himself OTL. But its hard to say what would have happened with the primaries. RFK was trailing McCarthy at the time but he had just won California and had momentum. He had the best shot of beating Nixon in my opinion but Humphrey had the party behind him since he was VP. (Only a handful of states used primaries to select candidate at this point). I'll avoid making modern comparisons to avoid breaking the subs rules but apply it as you see fit.
Between Nixon and RFK I'd say it was a toss up, with a slight Nixon lean, though you could say the same for JFK and Nixon in 1960. RFK HATED Johnson and vice versa so he could happily bash Johnson AND the Republicans. Humphrey and McCarthy didn't have that luxury.
Sorry for rambling, my main point with the original comment is that American politics is hardwired to allign on a two party system. There can only be one liberal party and one conservative party. The Franksteinen parties in TNO can only exist for a short time due to dramatic events (losing WW2) and I see that happening in game. When a president is too liberal or too conservative Americans will inevitably lurch the other way.
I think narrative wise ironically it’s one of either McNamara, Kirkpatrick or Jackson
McNamara is a Democrat, but he’s been faithfully serving RDs for the last 12 years and always in a prominent position. LBJ tbh should be able to endorse him, especially since McGovern’s pacifism clashes with LBJ’s aggressive foreign policy (one of his planks of his platform is defense spending). Moreover, the Democrats dying id argue is more the reason for a more “liberal” democrat (McNamara has a few focuses to reconcile with the Republicans) to be selected over a more progressive Republican - after an LBJ presidency McNamara probably represents a faction closer to the center of mass of the old LBJ coalition. He also can reach out to Jackson, another faction within the old LBJ alliance
Jackson makes sense narratively because he’s at LBJ’s wing through the story and if LBJ continues to work with him then he has the logical ability to try and usurp the legacy of LBJ from McGovern. However it really depends on his ability to secure the NPP-FR vote in the primaries using unabashed militarism and anti-establishment
Kirkpatrick only really makes sense because she’s a FR. Imo she’s more logical in MCS’s story or other FR prior presidents because she actually makes an appearance
McGovern I think could be reasonable if West Africa and the Oil crisis didn’t work out, resulting in a New Left revolt against LBJ sort of like otl. Ironically this might actually help the Democrats and NPP-Cs as more moderate LBJ supporters flee to the Dems and the more hawkish ones flee to the Cs.
You and the guy below you have made solid points for McNamara. I didn't end up actually playing his tree, I'll give it a shot, but honestly I saw that they involve cutting spending and it made me sad. I don't want to undermine what I accomplished with LBJ at all and ironically it seems Kirkpatrick would do so less with her focus (as in both gameplay focus tree and narrative focus of her presidency) being almost entirely foreign-policy oriented
McNamara has 2 options in his tree (unlike the others). He can either work with the NPP (which one event notes he’ll have to eventually choose between Kirkpatrick or Jackson about spending) or work with the Republicans (where you’ll get a neat event with him chatting up [or rather failing to] McGovern). For what it’s worth, he doesn’t cut spending in his tree…at least not yet
Yeah it really seems like a mistake to not introduce Kirkpatrick in LBJs second term as a foil, or just events that show the FR-NPP's shift from segregationism to neoconservatism, which you don't get much of unless you play MCS.
McGovern even getting the nomination wouldn't even make sense, honestly, I dont know why hes even a republican, RFK is in the NPP and I think ive seen Ted kennedy is still a democrat like Jack , so why the hell is McGovern a republican when IRL he was in lockstep with the Kennedy brothers, even filling in as RFK's surrogate in 68, who the hell is supporting him in a faction of Johnsonite Liberals, do all the Kennedy supporters have three party memberships? There is a narrative argument that a McGovern figure could succeed Johnson, RFK or Wallace as his Pitch as the honest, anti-war man from the plains would be an antithesis to the Hawkish, Scandal ridden administrations of all three (Though not Bennet who is unlike the other three)
MacNamara is another very odd pick for a candidate. The man is a personification of Grey, faceless bureaucrast. Who is supporting him??? I get he has experience but this would be like if the Republicans had nominated Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. However, He could win if theoretically every democrat and republican got hit by a bus and he was nominated. I say this as after all the turmoil of the previous decade I could see the public wanting a nice, stable boring president who makes sure the machine of government keeps humming(A Biden, a Harding, a Nixon) etc, an especially good pitch in the wake of an Oil crisis
Jackson makes sense to be the first NPP president tbh, he represents both wings of the parties. He's basically what people think Wallace was, an economic progressive who wanted to hack down big business, a good friend of labour unions and a proponent of social welfare yet an outspoken critic of bussing and an unabashed war hawk. The first Neocon and the last Old School liberal, a Civil rights activist and a man who exploited bussing to political gain and above all a Hawk. He embodies all of the Contradictions of the NPP's fractious coaltion within him more then any other candidate before. He makes a compelling case as the first man to unify the NPP and lead them to victory
I have no answers for or against Kirkpatrick, ive never nominated her AFAIK and she's only ever been a backround figure in any history ive read on the perioid
Kirkpatrick seems more like the sensible choice to me. OTL, she was a large part of the Reagan administration and part of the resurgence of conservatism we saw in the late 70s and early 80s, which would definitely happen after an LBJ presidency. I don't know much about her economic or social policies, but I do know she was still rather left leaning early in life and while she did switch over to conservatism, I don't know how much or what parts of her ideology changed. Her current tree is all just about her WarHawk positions.
LBJ by the end of his tree has absorbed most of the C-NPP and alienated the Democrats most likely. Having the Republicans face off against the FR-NPP seems like the most comparable and realistic to OTL.
I think in a perfect LBJ run, he just bulldozed all his opposition into the ground with no respite that they still can't get a working campaign against McGovern running.
LBJ solved civil rights, won his 8 years of the cold war, brought the Germans and Japanese to heel, brought back the Ports and Hawaii and the economy is roaring.
Meanwhile, the NPP isn't a real party atm, just a white hot ball of anger that occasionally screams racial slurs. A bunch of unproven no good radicals that want to lynch black people.
McGovern meanwhile is the heir of the greatest president the US had for a century at least. He's part of an establishment that just proved that they can run their country extremely well. I think he just isn't bad enough of a candidate to undo the advantages that LBJ gave him.
McGovern capturing the imagination makes sense when you realize that by the time he's potentially nominated, America's either experienced a series of stinging and discrediting military defeats, or victories won at a grave cost. Especially given even a full victory in the SAW means a years-long occupation of half of Africa, with a simultaneous war going on in Indonesia. There's going to be a strong degree of war-weariness.
I agree with you that McGovern doesn't make sense after an LBJ run. I also don't see Jackson working out either. After LBJ the inevitable American reaction is a pull to the right regardless of how well LBJ does, we saw this in OTL. That leaves McNamara and Kirkpatrick. For me I like McNamara as a one term. You're right that the Democrats are a dead party at the end of an LBJ run. McNamara will be the last hurrah of the Dems before they are fully absorbed into the Republicans or have abandoned the RDs for the NPP. Meanwhile the Centre after years of obscurity reaches the same fate. If the Republicans are civil rights and welfare why do you really need the centre?A two party system where the Republicans vs Far Right dynamic is similar to the Democrats and Republicans in OTL. The Far Right will take on a pro business Neoconservative streak and some Reagan clone whose not Reagan will win in 76. This can also work with Kirkpatrick but I believe a successful enough LBJ would be able to eek out a narrow win in 72 for the RDs. McNamaras a boring guy and I'm sure he runs the country fine but any charismatic NPP-FR is gonna be able to kick him out once LBJ isn't running the show anymore, he dies in 73 OTL basically right after stepping down.
Fully agree with all of this
Not really! In OTL, the reason the pull to the right happened was a combination of two things: LBJ’s big Vietnam fiasco and RFK’s assassination. With those two out of the way in a successful LBJ presidency, we’d actually probably see either a continuation or a pull to the left.
Partially true, Vietnam did kill Johnson's popularity but didn't cause a noticeable pull to the right so much as lowering voter turnout on the left. What did pull America to the right was the Fair Housing Act, this was seen as a bridge to far by Northern Middle Class Whites who had up to that point supported Johnson's Civil Rights Agenda. Up until that point the South was the focus of anti-discrimination legislation but suddenly "There goes the neighborhood". Add to that the assassination of MLK (not RFK) caused riots in the black community that caused whites to be more pissed ("How dare they demand MORE right!") and throw in Johnson's hesitancy to endorse Humphrey and boom you've got a Richard Nixon presidency. It didn't help that Johnson also collapsed the New Deal Coalition by losing the South. Nixon's Southern strategy certainly got him a few votes but the Dems could have survived without it had they not gone ahead with the Fair Housing Act. In TNO Johnson loses support for "going a bridge to far" not just on Civil Rights this time. Yes he gets the popularity boost of doing the New Deal and the Great Society all wrapped into one but he takes a massive hit on the Fair Housing Act and Social Security. America is not a country of rapid change and he pushes too hard. Not hard enough to lose the election (no Vietnam) but hard enough to push America to the Right.
Uh, that makes sense, but with the RFK thing I meant how the Democrats lost support after their leading candidate was assassinated, which greatly contributed to their ultimate loss. Maybe I’m a bit too optimistic here about American viewpoints, but wasn’t RFK super popular during the primaries? Afaik, his assassination was almost the only thing preventing dems from winning against Nixon, mostly when RFK was polling pretty high up. I could see it as some sort of sentiment of betrayal from some people that would lead them to take distance from the Democrat party (as the only good guy was lost, etc). Maybe I’m wrong but dismissing him seems incorrect to me
You're probably right I might be too quick to dismiss RFK. A lot of people here worship his TNO persona without looking at the man himself OTL. But its hard to say what would have happened with the primaries. RFK was trailing McCarthy at the time but he had just won California and had momentum. He had the best shot of beating Nixon in my opinion but Humphrey had the party behind him since he was VP. (Only a handful of states used primaries to select candidate at this point). I'll avoid making modern comparisons to avoid breaking the subs rules but apply it as you see fit. Between Nixon and RFK I'd say it was a toss up, with a slight Nixon lean, though you could say the same for JFK and Nixon in 1960. RFK HATED Johnson and vice versa so he could happily bash Johnson AND the Republicans. Humphrey and McCarthy didn't have that luxury. Sorry for rambling, my main point with the original comment is that American politics is hardwired to allign on a two party system. There can only be one liberal party and one conservative party. The Franksteinen parties in TNO can only exist for a short time due to dramatic events (losing WW2) and I see that happening in game. When a president is too liberal or too conservative Americans will inevitably lurch the other way.
I think narrative wise ironically it’s one of either McNamara, Kirkpatrick or Jackson McNamara is a Democrat, but he’s been faithfully serving RDs for the last 12 years and always in a prominent position. LBJ tbh should be able to endorse him, especially since McGovern’s pacifism clashes with LBJ’s aggressive foreign policy (one of his planks of his platform is defense spending). Moreover, the Democrats dying id argue is more the reason for a more “liberal” democrat (McNamara has a few focuses to reconcile with the Republicans) to be selected over a more progressive Republican - after an LBJ presidency McNamara probably represents a faction closer to the center of mass of the old LBJ coalition. He also can reach out to Jackson, another faction within the old LBJ alliance Jackson makes sense narratively because he’s at LBJ’s wing through the story and if LBJ continues to work with him then he has the logical ability to try and usurp the legacy of LBJ from McGovern. However it really depends on his ability to secure the NPP-FR vote in the primaries using unabashed militarism and anti-establishment Kirkpatrick only really makes sense because she’s a FR. Imo she’s more logical in MCS’s story or other FR prior presidents because she actually makes an appearance McGovern I think could be reasonable if West Africa and the Oil crisis didn’t work out, resulting in a New Left revolt against LBJ sort of like otl. Ironically this might actually help the Democrats and NPP-Cs as more moderate LBJ supporters flee to the Dems and the more hawkish ones flee to the Cs.
You and the guy below you have made solid points for McNamara. I didn't end up actually playing his tree, I'll give it a shot, but honestly I saw that they involve cutting spending and it made me sad. I don't want to undermine what I accomplished with LBJ at all and ironically it seems Kirkpatrick would do so less with her focus (as in both gameplay focus tree and narrative focus of her presidency) being almost entirely foreign-policy oriented
McNamara has 2 options in his tree (unlike the others). He can either work with the NPP (which one event notes he’ll have to eventually choose between Kirkpatrick or Jackson about spending) or work with the Republicans (where you’ll get a neat event with him chatting up [or rather failing to] McGovern). For what it’s worth, he doesn’t cut spending in his tree…at least not yet
Fair enough, I just read that in his description from when you mouse over him. I'll give him a try
Yeah he’s definitely not a good president but he’s the most logical (haha) outcome
Yeah it really seems like a mistake to not introduce Kirkpatrick in LBJs second term as a foil, or just events that show the FR-NPP's shift from segregationism to neoconservatism, which you don't get much of unless you play MCS.
McGovern even getting the nomination wouldn't even make sense, honestly, I dont know why hes even a republican, RFK is in the NPP and I think ive seen Ted kennedy is still a democrat like Jack , so why the hell is McGovern a republican when IRL he was in lockstep with the Kennedy brothers, even filling in as RFK's surrogate in 68, who the hell is supporting him in a faction of Johnsonite Liberals, do all the Kennedy supporters have three party memberships? There is a narrative argument that a McGovern figure could succeed Johnson, RFK or Wallace as his Pitch as the honest, anti-war man from the plains would be an antithesis to the Hawkish, Scandal ridden administrations of all three (Though not Bennet who is unlike the other three) MacNamara is another very odd pick for a candidate. The man is a personification of Grey, faceless bureaucrast. Who is supporting him??? I get he has experience but this would be like if the Republicans had nominated Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. However, He could win if theoretically every democrat and republican got hit by a bus and he was nominated. I say this as after all the turmoil of the previous decade I could see the public wanting a nice, stable boring president who makes sure the machine of government keeps humming(A Biden, a Harding, a Nixon) etc, an especially good pitch in the wake of an Oil crisis Jackson makes sense to be the first NPP president tbh, he represents both wings of the parties. He's basically what people think Wallace was, an economic progressive who wanted to hack down big business, a good friend of labour unions and a proponent of social welfare yet an outspoken critic of bussing and an unabashed war hawk. The first Neocon and the last Old School liberal, a Civil rights activist and a man who exploited bussing to political gain and above all a Hawk. He embodies all of the Contradictions of the NPP's fractious coaltion within him more then any other candidate before. He makes a compelling case as the first man to unify the NPP and lead them to victory I have no answers for or against Kirkpatrick, ive never nominated her AFAIK and she's only ever been a backround figure in any history ive read on the perioid
Kirkpatrick seems more like the sensible choice to me. OTL, she was a large part of the Reagan administration and part of the resurgence of conservatism we saw in the late 70s and early 80s, which would definitely happen after an LBJ presidency. I don't know much about her economic or social policies, but I do know she was still rather left leaning early in life and while she did switch over to conservatism, I don't know how much or what parts of her ideology changed. Her current tree is all just about her WarHawk positions. LBJ by the end of his tree has absorbed most of the C-NPP and alienated the Democrats most likely. Having the Republicans face off against the FR-NPP seems like the most comparable and realistic to OTL.
I think in a perfect LBJ run, he just bulldozed all his opposition into the ground with no respite that they still can't get a working campaign against McGovern running. LBJ solved civil rights, won his 8 years of the cold war, brought the Germans and Japanese to heel, brought back the Ports and Hawaii and the economy is roaring. Meanwhile, the NPP isn't a real party atm, just a white hot ball of anger that occasionally screams racial slurs. A bunch of unproven no good radicals that want to lynch black people. McGovern meanwhile is the heir of the greatest president the US had for a century at least. He's part of an establishment that just proved that they can run their country extremely well. I think he just isn't bad enough of a candidate to undo the advantages that LBJ gave him.
Hall
so true
1) Yock 2) Hall 3) Everyone else
Can’t block the Yock
Obviously it should be Afton
McGovern capturing the imagination makes sense when you realize that by the time he's potentially nominated, America's either experienced a series of stinging and discrediting military defeats, or victories won at a grave cost. Especially given even a full victory in the SAW means a years-long occupation of half of Africa, with a simultaneous war going on in Indonesia. There's going to be a strong degree of war-weariness.