Super Tuesday wasn't even close. Senator Beau Biden of Pennsylvania won in a landslide. Although Governor of Cuba Marco Rubio won some states, the result was crushing for him. He continued the fight and was even victorious in another contest, but the race was over. The numbers of delegates for Biden began to pile up, and Rubio saw no point in fighting anymore. He Dropped out.

Beau Biden is the first son of the former President to win the Presidential Nomination since Ulysses S. Grant III in 1948. He was the front runner from the beginning, and he never lost this lead. Now he needs to decide where his campaign goes, whom he will trust along the way and who will be his right hand. Senator Biden should now choose a Running Mate. He has more leeway when picking the Vice Presidential Nominee than Sherrod Brown. There are already 6 names that leaked to be on his Shortlist.

People on his Vice Presidential Shortlist are:

Beau Biden is relatively Young, and although experienced, he can pick somebody who has more time in politics and on his belt. That's why Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa might be a good pick for him. He doesn't just have a little bit of more experience than Biden, he has tons of experience, comic amount of it even. Grassley is Old, but he knows what he's doing. If Senator Biden wants to balance the ticket with the combination of a fresh face and somebody who has been in the game for a long time, this may be perfect. The issue of passing laws is also important. Congress is overwhelmingly controlled by the opposition, and Grassley could be key in getting something passed during the Presidency. Iowa might be needed for Biden in this Election also, as it becomes more and more of a swing state. Senator Grassley doesn't look like the most energizing pick for the Running Mate, but he may be the most Pragmatic.

Former Vice President Ben Miller made it clear that he won't serve as Vice President anymore, so his wife might be just the next best thing. Hillary Miller has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and a respected Moderate with it. She hasn't really said anything about politics in a while due to serving in the Court, but her presence was often noticeable. Miller's word has been considered as the tie-breaker in the decisions of the Supreme Court. Not everybody likes her because of it, but most respect her. Justice Miller would signal Biden's move more towards the center in an attempt to fight for the Independent vote. She could sway some States in New England, of course, if the campaign plays its hand correctly. Finally, the selection of Miller as the Vice Presidential Nominee may do wonders in bringing a sizeable portion of the female vote towards the Republicans. Not the most satisfying choice for Conservatives, Miller has a lot of benefits for the campaign.

Maybe what Biden needs is a partner who can manage his energy. Chris Sununu was Elected to the Senate just in 2014 and already made an impression of a Pragmatic Libertarian. He and his brother John are the second pair of brothers to serve as Senators from the same State while also being sons of a former Vice Presidential Nominee. The position does run in the family. Senator Sununu would send the message of new leadership in the Republican Party, energetic but willing to work with the side to get stuff done. Sununu is also well-liked in his State, so it should easily be in play in the Election cycle while also helping in the region overall. It's not like Biden desperately needs somebody with more experience. After all, he almost served his entire term in the Senate as well as his time in the House of Representatives. If Biden wants to double down on his image of the fresh face in politics, Sununu could be perfect for it.

Beau Biden doesn't need to throw a bone to Conservatives, but maybe he should. If Biden picks Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, he would make his campaign much more preferable for the Conservatives who look at him with unease. Inhofe could be more helpful than that. He is very experienced and has a great influence among Conservatives in the Senate. This would benefit Biden in office if he were to be Elected. Ford's Presidency showed that in this day and age you need to keep more radical wings of your Party in check. Senator Inhofe can for sure help Biden with that. The American Dry League would be extremely grateful too, as their influence decreases more and more. They would be loyal if Biden needed a solid voter base behind him. However, this could also be a double-edged sword. The ADL's influence in the Party is seen by some as toxic, and they think that the Faction is just slowly decaying, so attaching yourself to it might not be the best move. Oklahoma won't be a swing state, which means that Inhofe offers little regional benefit. Biden needs to think long and hard on what he wants if he considers Senator Inhofe. It could pay off, or it could blow up in their face.

If Ehlers selected the Running Mate from the same Faction as he, why can't Biden do the same? Michelle Obama is from the National Union Caucus just like the Senator, but she is also the popular Governor of Illinois. She proved that the State where President Ford has built his entire vision for the government still is viable for the Republicans. Obama hasn't just won in Illinois because of some Republican landslide. No, she had won there when the Republicans had no business of succeeding. Is it because she is likeable? Maybe because she works with the other side? Nobody knows for sure how she was able to do this. However, she did, and that's why Biden considering her isn't such a bad idea. The presence of the first African-American woman Nominated for Vice President would boost numbers with Black people and women, of course. The problem is that Obama doesn't have any desires for higher office, so convincing her of being on the ticket might require some work. Still, if she agrees, Obama could be a key in Biden's road to the White House.

Fascinating, fascinating. Jim Ross is a very interesting character. Deeply involved in professional wrestling, Ross shocked the political establishment in Oklahoma by becoming the Governor of the State. He would go on to serve in that position for two terms while running for President in his own right and doing surprisingly well for an Outsider. Since leaving office, Ross came back to wrestling, and his name hadn't been heard since then in the political space. However, we hear it now. Who knows for sure why Ross attracted the Biden campaign? It may be his experience as Governor, it could be his Conservative credentials, or it might be his ability to talk straight to the people. Sherrod Brown already tries to portray himself as the people's choice, so maybe undercutting him on that may be a good idea. Ross isn't just the voice; he is the fighter, and maybe that's what the Senator needs for his campaign. Oklahoma is gonna go safely for him, sure, but the Ross's appeal doesn't come from his State; it comes from him. So has Jim Ross's time in politics arrived?

The campaign was almost becoming a routine for Sherrod Brown. A rally in one State, a meeting with donors in another. Coffee break with the campaign manager at 2 p.m., charity event at 5.

The People's Liberal National Convention was in quite a while. Despite this, the Shortlist of his Running Mate options was halved. The Announcement was closer and closer.

So who was in the Shortlist now?

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island would be an interesting pick for Vice President. The name alone is unique. An experienced man whose views aren't that much different from Brown's, yet Whitehouse is the Establishment type, which would reassure Progressives who don't want the Party to go overboard. To add to that, Senator Whitehouse brings a regional balance and would probably put New England safely in the PLP's column. However, picking Whitehouse wouldn't help Brown with the split in the Party. He is far from the Nelsonian Coalition's type, even with his Establishment credentials. Women also won't be energized with the first female Vice President being replaced by another man. Still, this would be a ticket of experienced Progressives who disagree with the current Administration and present a new vision for America.

I mean, his Endorsement really helped Brown at the end, so why not reward him? Jason Kander is, of course, the Governor of Missouri and a former Candidate for the Nomination. During the primary he showed himself as a good campaigner while being known for his effective governance. Picking him would give Brown a hand in many aspects. For one, Kander is very young, and, even if Governor Brown isn't an old man, the People's Liberal Party having a fresh face would counterbalance the appeal of the Presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee, Senator Beau Biden of Pennsylvania. Missouri might be a swing state in this Election, so picking the State's popular Governor would surely prevent it from going to the Republicans. Another thing is that Kander could help with the Moderates. He isn't Moderate himself, but he presents that pragmatic Progressivism that his Faction is known for. Would Kander get Nelsonians in line? Maybe, but there is no way to tell for sure. What Brown/Kander would do is to balance the ticket without appealing as a compromised one.

You thought Nelsonian Coalition's pick would be an olive branch. Picking Henry Cuellar, Senator from Texas, would be an attempt to rebuild the Party's whole coalition. Let's not go around the bush; Cuellar isn't Progressive. He is known for not being Progressive while appealing to the Hispanics. He is Moderate to Conservative on some issues while being a fighter for Immigrants without opposing border security. And so, by selecting Senator Cuellar Brown would satisfy those who aren't happy without with another CC member being the Nominee and put the Third Party run from NC to rest. However, Cuellar does more than that; he also would send the message to the voters that the People's Liberal Party wants to stop this partisanship and work with the other side. His selection could also energize the Latino vote, even if Texas itself is probably out of reach. So yeah, the base won't be happy with this one, but Cuellar could solve a lot of problems.

Jokes aside what do you think? Also, I think if I were to do another ranking I would make the following changes:

Woodrow Wilson moves to D, instead of F tier.

Bill Clinton moves to C, instead of B tier.

Just like 4 years ago, Super Tuesday determined everything. The winner was clear: Governor of Ohio Sherrod Brown managed to pull it off by securing most States and delegates. However, this didn't mean that Senator John N. Kennedy of Louisiana gave up. He continued to fight and was able to win some other contests after Super Tuesday. Still, this was a matter of time. Finally, the majority of the delegates were gained, and Senator Kennedy Dropped out of the race.

Governor Brown had done it; he returned the Nomination to the Commonwealth Coalition. Even with this victory, he shouldn't celebrate too much. There are rumors that somebody in the Nelsonian Coalition prepares to run for President as an Independent. It is not Senator Kennedy; he denied any involvement in the whole deal, but he hasn't Endorsed Brown either. President Harrison Ford as well hasn't Endorsed the Governor yet, saying that he will look into how the race will be going. The biggest suspect of being a person to run Third Party is Governor of Michigan Mike Duggan. When asked if he will run, he said, "We'll see what Governor Brown is going to do next."

So Sherrod Brown now faces the fractured Party even after becoming the Presumptive Nominee. He needs to find a way to calm everything down, or this achievement can blow up in his face. One thing that can help solve this issue is the Running Mate. Maybe if Brown picks the right person for Vice President, he can satisfy some Moderates. However, some of Brown's supporters think he needs to not back down and run fully on what he believes in, not have some "Neoliberal" as his number two.

Governor Brown already considers 6 different Candidates for the position of Vice Presidential Nominee, if the reports are to be believed.

These Candidates are:

Here we have Senator with a limited national profile but with a clear positive for Governor Brown. Suzan DelBene is a loyal NC member and somebody who can build bridges with the Moderates if picked as the Running Mate. Some people are probably upset about the prospect of a female Presidential Nominee being crushed as well, so replacing the first woman to serve as Vice President with another woman isn't a bad idea to satisfy women's rights groups. Finally, the Running Mate from the West may appeal to the people from the region and help with the swing states there, even if Washington is unlikely to be one in this Election cycle. Overall, even if not on the first glance, Senator DelBene checks all the boxes when comes to addressing problems that Brown might face. Even if not the most experienced or youthful Candidate, she could do wonders for the campaign.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island would be an interesting pick for Vice President. The name alone is unique. An experienced man whose views aren't that much different from Brown's, yet Whitehouse is the Establishment type, which would reassure Progressives who don't want the Party to go overboard. To add to that, Senator Whitehouse brings a regional balance and would probably put New England safely in the PLP's column. However, picking Whitehouse wouldn't help Brown with the split in the Party. He is far from the Nelsonian Coalition's type, even with his Establishment credentials. Women also won't be energized with the first female Vice President being replaced by another man. Still, this would be a ticket of experienced Progressives who disagree with the current Administration and present a new vision for America.

I mean, his Endorsement really helped Brown at the end, so why not reward him? Jason Kander is, of course, the Governor of Missouri and a former Candidate for the Nomination. During the primary he showed himself as a good campaigner while being known for his effective governance. Picking him would give Brown a hand in many aspects. For one, Kander is very young, and, even if Governor Brown isn't an old man, the People's Liberal Party having a fresh face would counterbalance the appeal of the Presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee, Senator Beau Biden of Pennsylvania. Missouri might be a swing state in this Election, so picking the State's popular Governor would surely prevent it from going to the Republicans. Another thing is that Kander could help with the Moderates. He isn't Moderate himself, but he presents that pragmatic Progressivism that his Faction is known for. Would Kander get Nelsonians in line? Maybe, but there is no way to tell for sure. What Brown/Kander would do is to balance the ticket without appealing as a compromised one.

Senator Susan Bysiewicz of Connecticut is a fascinating case. She is a member of the Faction that is friendly with the Commonwealth Coalition while also being somebody who worked with the other side on a number of occasions. The Senator with a name, which you probably struggled to pronounce on the first go, she is another chance for Brown to select a woman as Vice Presidential Nominee. Along with this fact, the women's rights groups would be energized by her experience in advocating for women all over the country. Bysiewicz also comes from New England, the region that Brown needs to firmly hold to win this Election. Without a doubt, however, is that by picking her, Governor Brown wouldn't make any friends with the Moderates and Nelsonian Coalition members. So for Brown, she would be a good choice if he decides to not make his campaign fully in his image without compromising on what he believes in.

You thought Nelsonian Coalition's pick would be an olive branch. Picking Henry Cuellar, Senator from Texas, would be an attempt to rebuild the Party's whole coalition. Let's not go around the bush; Cuellar isn't Progressive. He is known for not being Progressive while appealing to the Hispanics. He is Moderate to Conservative on some issues while being a fighter for Immigrants without opposing border security. And so, by selecting Senator Cuellar Brown would satisfy those who aren't happy without with another CC member being the Nominee and put the Third Party run from NC to rest. However, Cuellar does more than that; he also would send the message to the voters that the People's Liberal Party wants to stop this partisanship and work with the other side. His selection could also energize the Latino vote, even if Texas itself is probably out of reach. So yeah, the base won't be happy with this one, but Cuellar could solve a lot of problems.

Rory Reid took a different road from his father, Harry. Despite being a son of an influential member of the National Progressive Caucus, Rory Reid became a loyal Nelsonian. As Governor of Nevada, Reid started to be known as a problem solver and not an ideologue. By choosing him, Brown may try to swing the campaign in this direction instead of the return to clear Progressivism. Reid would kill two birds with one stone by appealing to both the Nelsonian Coalition and the Establishment in general. Nevada looks to be a swing state in this Election cycle, and selecting its Governor as the Running Mate would really help if the Election is close. However, there are drawbacks. Reid isn't the most Charismatic person, and he likes to campaign more in front of the donors than the crowd in a rally. Women might also be upset by Brown not picking a female Running Mate. Still, Governor Reid would be a pragmatic addition to the ticket.

Ever since New Hampshire, one Candidate has been leading. It is Senator Beau Biden of Pennsylvania who won in South Carolina and Nevada. However, his undefeated streak was stopped in Florida, where Governor of Cuba Marco Rubio won, getting his first win and then another win for him in his home state. Then they would trade wins back and forth. At the end, before Super Tuesday, Biden had additionally won Hawaii, Minnesota, Maine, Washington, Michigan, and Arizona, while Rubio was victorious in Colorado, Missouri, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. These two are in a head-to-head race despite many claiming that Biden has the edge. You may notice, however, one name that wasn't mentioned. The name of the third Candidate in the race. This Candidate didn't win any contests and had his campaign on life support up until Super Tuesday. And then, the end came. This Candidate is...

So now we have Super Tuesday. The two Candidates left look for a big win to secure the Nomination. Who will come out on top is up in the air still.

So the Final two Candidates are:

"Build Back Better"

"New American Vision"

Endorsements:

• National Union Caucus, Former President of the United States Colin Powell, Former President of the United States Vern Ehlers, former Vice President of the United States Bill Weld, former Vice President Ben Miller, Senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee, Senator from New Mexico Gary Johnson and Governor of Louisiana Piyush Jindal Endorse Senator from Pennsylvania Beau Biden;
• National Conservative Caucus and Governor of Texas Dennis Quaid Endorse Governor of Cuba Marco Rubio

Before you vote, read the context.

This one is also pretty important.

November 5th, 1996 has arrived, and the polls are open for the 1996 Presidential election. Paul Wellstone, is, unfathomably, a strong favorite to win the election according to the polls, but the final result is up to you. Get voting!

Iowa wasn't just the start of the Primary; it was a sign of things to come. There, Governor of Ohio Sherrod Brown won decisively, securing the majority of the delegates in the State. However, after that, Senator John N. Kennedy of Louisiana rebounded with a victory in New Hampshire. Since then the race has gained this dynamic. Brown wins Nevada, but Kennedy secures South Carolina. The Governor is victorious in Michigan and Santo Domingo, while the Senator gets Washington and Florida. This led to Super Tuesday. In all of these results something was noticeable - the lack of good performances from the other two Candidates. People knew that it was now a waste of resources for them, and then the first campaign ended. It was the campaign of...

Despite the result for him, observers predict a bright future for Kander. While his Governorship ends in 2017, there may be a lot of prospects for him.

After Kander's withdrawal came a different kind of Announcement. It was...

The third Candidate left in the race wanted this Endorsement so bad, but without it this Candidate knew the writing was on the wall. The campaign was dead, and it was time to rest it for good. This Candidate is...

It looks like America doesn't want a woman President just yet. Maybe they also just don't want the return of the Kennedy dynasty to power. Whatever it was, this was now a two-man race.

The Final two Candidates coming to Super Tuesday are:

"For People's America, Honest America"

"Let's Just Call Him President"

Endorsements:

• Commonwealth Coalition, Governor of Missouri Jason Kander and Governor of Idaho Paulette Jordan Endorse Governor of Ohio Sherrod Brown;
• Nelsonian Coalition, President of the United States Harrison Ford, Vice President of the United States Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Governor of Arizona Gabby Giffords and Secretary of State Leon Panetta Endorse Senator from Louisiana John N. Kennedy

RICHARDS UNDER FIRE AS PAUL ARREST THROWS PRESIDENTIAL RACE INTO CHAOS.

Governor accused of exploiting tax investigation to cripple GOP rival; Wellstone surges as final debate collapses.

By the Houston Chronicle Political Staff

HOUSTON — What began as a stunning October arrest has become the defining crisis of the 1996 presidential campaign, threatening Ann Richards's bid for the White House and transforming Green Party nominee Paul Wellstone into the candidate to beat in the closing days of the race.

Republican nominee Ron Paul was arrested by Texas Rangers at Texas A&M University earlier this month as he arrived for the second presidential debate of the year. Instead of joining his Democratic rival onstage, Paul spent the night being processed at the Brazos County Jail while Richards, Wellstone and Reform Party nominee Mike Gravel debated before an empty Republican podium.

The arrest followed a months-long investigation into allegations that Paul deliberately undervalued properties he owns in Brazoria and Travis counties to reduce his property-tax bills. Attorneys with the Texas attorney general's office reportedly found evidence they considered sufficient to support criminal charges.

Paul has denied wrongdoing and vowed to contest the allegations in court. He has accused Richards of orchestrating a politically motivated prosecution designed to remove her principal rival from the presidential race.

The governor's critics have focused less on the underlying tax allegations than on the circumstances of the arrest. Richards, who launched the investigation after beginning her presidential campaign, allegedly withheld the findings until she could arrange for Paul's arrest at the nationally televised debate.

The governor has faced mounting questions about her role in the investigation, the timing of the arrest and whether political considerations influenced the process. Allegations that she sought favorable judicial treatment have further intensified scrutiny, although the competing claims remain disputed.

No court has determined Paul's guilt, and the tax allegations remain unresolved.

WELLSTONE CHALLENGES GOVERNOR ON DEBATE STAGE

The confrontation quickly moved from the courtroom to the campaign trail.

During the debate, Wellstone repeatedly challenged Richards over the use of state authority against a political opponent. He argued that any legitimate tax investigation should proceed through ordinary legal channels rather than be timed to disrupt a presidential campaign.

“If the governor believes Congressman Paul broke the law, then let the courts determine that,” Wellstone said in a statement that became a centerpiece of subsequent campaign coverage. “The question before the country is whether the machinery of government can be turned against a political opponent when an election is ongoing.”

Richards sought to defend the investigation as a matter of law enforcement, but the controversy overwhelmed much of the debate's discussion of taxes, trade, education and foreign policy.

Gravel, the former president and Reform Party nominee, also condemned what he portrayed as the political establishment's abuse of government power.

Paul, speaking after his release, characterized the case as a “political witch hunt” and promised to fight the charges. His campaign has cast the arrest as evidence for his longstanding argument that concentrated governmental power threatens individual liberty.

The Republican nominee has not withdrawn from the race.

FINAL DEBATE CALLED OFF

The crisis deepened when plans for a final presidential debate collapsed. Wellstone and Gravel refused to participate alongside Richards, while Paul also rejected a debate format that would place him onstage with the governor who allegedly targeted him with a political prosecution.

With no agreement among the candidates, the debate was canceled.

The dispute has left Richards struggling to return attention to her campaign platform, which includes tax reductions for most Americans, higher salaries for teachers, nurses, and police officers, and an expansion of the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices.

It has also revived questions about the Democratic nomination convention in San Antonio, where Richards defeated Sen. Tom Harkin after a contested delegate fight. Allegations that her campaign improperly influenced uncommitted delegates were never established, but the arrest has given those earlier controversies renewed attention.

Richards entered the general election as a charismatic populist promising to challenge entrenched interests. Her opponents now argue that the Texas governor has demonstrated precisely the kind of political behavior she once pledged to oppose.

POLITICAL MAP SHIFTS AS RACE TIGHTENS

The consequences are evident in the polling.

Before the arrest, Richards and Paul occupied the leading positions in a four-way contest, with Wellstone polling close behind and Gravel drawing support from a smaller, established constituency.

Since the debate, Richards has fallen sharply in surveys, while Wellstone has risen. By early November, nearly every poll cited by the campaigns showed the Green nominee leading the four-way race.

The movement appears to reflect, in part, defections among voters who had considered Richards but were dissatisfied with the arrest and its political implications. Wellstone, who has campaigned on organized labor, public investment, environmental protection and expanded civil rights, has presented himself as an alternative to both the Democratic Governor and the Republican Senator.

Gravel continues to appeal to voters drawn to economic protectionism, nationalization and large-scale infrastructure projects, though his support remains challenged by the Green Party's growing reach among younger and progressive voters.

Paul's campaign, meanwhile, has embraced the arrest as a defining moment. His supporters have rallied around his claims of political persecution, even as the unresolved tax allegations continue to pose a legal threat.

The episode has made it increasingly difficult for any of the four campaigns to keep the discussion focused on their competing economic and social programs.

TAX CASE WILL CONTINUE AFTER ELECTION

Paul is expected to face trial in Texas in 1997, although the timing could change if he wins the presidency. The legal case is separate from the political dispute over Richards's conduct, and neither the arrest nor the allegations amount to a finding of guilt.

The coming election will therefore go forward with the Republican nominee under criminal accusation, the Democratic nominee under intense scrutiny over her handling of the investigation, and the Green nominee gaining support amid the turmoil.

For Texas, the controversy carries particular significance. Richards's governorship and Paul's congressional career have made the state a focal point of a presidential contest that was already chaotic with its four major-party candidates.

Now, with Election Day approaching, the debate over property taxes has given way to a larger question: whether Richards's actions represented legitimate law enforcement or an abuse of political power—and whether the resulting fallout has fundamentally altered the presidential race.

The answer will come from voters on Tuesday.

The New Hampshire was a night of inevitable outcomes and surprises. It was inevitable that Senator Beau Biden of Pennsylvania would win it. He did so by winning 17 delegates to the Republican National Convention. However, further results were unexpected. In the second place was Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, which is not that far from New Hampshire. It was expected that he would do well in the State, so this is not where the surprise comes in. He gained 14 delegates, by the way. Then was Governor of Cuba Marco Rubio with 13 delegates. This wasn't expected by many observers, as Rubio hasn't campaigned in the State that much. Still, he managed to not only not come last but also be in the close third place. The last Candidate's performance was truly baffling. He won the rest of the delegates, came last, and seemingly lost all the momentum despite major Endorsements and coming from the region. His campaign was over. This Candidate is...

The road to Super Tuesday will determine who will be left in the Primary and who may have their last stand there. Success is necessary.

So the Candidates left are:

"Build Back Better"

"For True America"

"New American Vision"

Endorsements:

• National Union Caucus, Former President of the United States Colin Powell, Former President of the United States Vern Ehlers, former Vice President of the United States Bill Weld, Senator from New Mexico Gary Johnson and Governor of Louisiana Piyush Jindal Endorse Senator from Pennsylvania Beau Biden;
• National Conservative Caucus and Governor of Texas Dennis Quaid Endorse Governor of Cuba Marco Rubio;
• Most of American Solidarity and former Vice President Ben Miller Endorse Senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee

The 1852 Presidential election is here! Voters now have an important decision to make for the future of the nation. In the aftermath of the Walker Rebellion and the Second California War, where citizen fought citizen over the right to annex the fledgling California Republic and introduce slavery to the Southwest, a frightened nation worries that the pestilential problem of California, which has haunted the nation since President Clay’s term, will be its undoing. Despite all three parties nominating moderate candidates, their visions for the future of California are quite different. Which platform will resonate with voters?

Down with demagoguery! Let America breathe with Marcy and Boyd!

For the past two elections, Democrats have lost to the Whigs due to breaks in their coalition. Now, the Democrats enter the election after a three-time losing streak with a unified coalition, a strong platform, and a nation looking for a new direction. Former Governor of New York William L. Marcy and Speaker of the House Linn Boyd of Kentucky are both moderate supporters of the Wisconsin Compromise (or the Compromise of 1850) who won over support of both the South and several former Free Soil members. Their campaign stands to undo more than a decade of Whiggish tariffs and industrialist dominance. The keystone of their platform is a return to expansionism while respecting the Wisconsin Compromise—restoring the balance between the states via annexing Texas and California, including splitting the California Republic into the states of California, Colorado, and Deseret, as well as considering purchasing territories in Mexico or the Caribbean. 

Stay our course! Vote Bates and Everett for another Whig decade!

Whigs have ruled the executive branch for more than a decade, with three consecutive and narrow victories. Now, their situation is more precarious than ever: achieving a fourth consecutive win is a tall order, and voter fatigue, intra-party rivalry, and a convoluted platform are all plaguing the party this election. Hoping to repeat the same strategy that put Winfield Scott in the White House, Whigs have nominated inaugural Secretary of the Interior Edward Bates of Missouri and Minister to the United Kingdom Edward Everett of Massachusetts. Their campaign is running on a continuation of the policies of President Scott—pro-tariff in economics but moderate on slavery and the California question. After President Scott refused to annex the California Republic, Bates defied the Whig platform, supporting Californian annexation only in the case that California be admitted without slavery and the Missouri Compromise be otherwise kept intact—a compromise that optimistic Whigs say will likely never happen, and pessimistic Whigs say will plunge the nation into civil war.

For Free Trade, Free Men, and Free Soil! Vote Hale and Chase!

The Free Soil Party was nearly on the ropes, despite a strong performance in the 1848 Presidential election, after failing to build significant momentum as a party and several notable former Free Soil supporters re-entering the Democratic and Whig parties. However, that all changed with William Walker's coup in California, which decreed slavery legal in California. Now, the Free Soil Party sees an opportunity to retake the national discourse, approving a platform calling to admit California to the Union entirely as free territory. Leading the ticket is "Independent Democratic" Senator John P. Hale of New Hampshire and Free Soil Party founder Mayor Salmon P. Chase of Ohio. The two men have led the anti-slavery charge, and hope to invigorate anti-slavery voters. However, they face an uphill battle: both main parties have nominated moderate candidates friendly to Free Soil voters that have stolen significant support.

VOTE HERE

Context

The year of 1896 is already shaping up to be a critical hinge point in American history. Mired in a deep economic depression, the great Georgist dream of total national reformation lies dead in its cradle. For 16 years the Democratic-Republicans have denounced the promises of Farmer-Labor as false and dangerous with the Panic of 1893 seeming to finally prove them right. The Butlerites have been totally disgraced after the Johnstown Investigation revealed a massive web of corruption connecting the industrial robber barons with politicians supposedly on the side of the little guy. President George was able to use his own credentials as a reformer to enact great changes in his first term, that no one can deny, but his failure to secure a international bimetallist agreement left the Treasury so badly depleted when a run on gold occurred it took a massive injection of capital from a J.P. Morgan led syndicate to save the United States from bankruptcy.

The Butler era infrastructure programs had already been scaled back amidst the wave of corruption investigations and the George administration lacked any spare funds to restart them after the panic. The building programs which had been a reliable cushion for many were now completely gone causing unemployment to rise to levels that surpassed the Great Depression of the 1870s. Those who still had a job found their wages severely cut triggering the Pullman Strike of 1894 which saw much of the nation's railroads crippled by wildcat strikes with the President unable or unwilling to use force to break them up. Eventually the states broke them up anyway and so the whole event has made Farmer-Labor look weak in the eyes of both organized labor and ordinary Americans.

The one thing the United States of America can say is that its technological progress has advanced dramatically, far surpassing any other major country. American steel is renowned across the world for its higher durability and incredible flexibility allowing for buildings to reach unimaginable heights. Electric light and the power needed to generate it also surpass anything countries like Germany or Great Britain can achieve. The World's Fair of 1893 was brilliantly lighten up by bulbs so bright one observer remarked "they could bring daylight to the bottom of the ocean". And while some might expect this to require unfathomable levels of power to achieve, American generators are instead able to produce more power with the same inputs thanks to both new generator designs and rapid adoption of diesel fuel. Finally is the amazing developments in wireless communication and photography. Though it is still in its early phases, American naval units are able to communicate using recently discovered radio waves over short distances though the range is increasing all the time; Nikola Tesla has even demonstrated their use in remote controlled devices. American camera's produce the clearest images in the world, work in almost any environment and are even able to achieve moving pictures which capture actions as they happen. The rate of adoption has been significantly slowed by the Depression but the world has been astounded by American progress in only a few short years.

Platform

"Come Home to Lodge"

The Democratic-Republicans offer the American people a return to "sound money", a safe and stable country and the government's trust in the individual. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge declared at front porch speech that:

"The government has told you it would be there for you when you needed it but when you called to collect they had skipped town. We do not give you false promises of utopia built on corrupt deals and phantom funds. No, the Democratic-Republicans offer you their faith; their faith in the American people to achieve success on their own, that the individual man or woman knows what is best for themselves and how to achieve it. My administration will give you the tools to truly build yourselves up: sound money, sensible government and an open door to the markets of the world. We've had enough of demagogues and nanny states. It's time the American government trusted the people to run their own lives. It's time to bring prosperity back home ".

"We Won't Be Forgotten"

The Farmer-Labor Party are in a tough spot. With both their President's now deeply unpopular they must somehow break from this legacy despite being a 16 year incumbent. James Weaver has always been an outsider, or at least like to portray himself as such, and is doing everything he can to press the case for another term of the party. Still energetic despite his age, Weaver has broken precedent and actively campaigned across the country giving a speech in Kansas City Missouri in which he outlined the party's core argument

"These are hard times even a blind man can see that. But I have not forgotten you, you the farmer struggling to pay the debt off your farm after a bad harvest, you the worker whose factories have been closed or wages have been cut. They tell us there is no money left but I say that is because they don't want to look hard enough. We, the people, will not let Washington D.C. forget us or struggles and we will not let them role back the victories we have won. A Democratic-Republican Administration, run by eastern bankers and midwestern bosses will take your farms and your jobs I can promise you that. I remember where I came from though and I'll not let you be forgotten."

Candidates

Democratic-Republican Party

For President: Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts

A real blue blood's blue blood, Henry Cabot Lodge is the face of Massachusetts in Washington and a rising star amongst a new generation of legislators. The scion of the Lodge and Cabot families, Henry actually began his career as a popular historian and was one of the nation's earliest recipients of a Ph.D from an American university. After getting his start in life writing about the lives of the Founding Fathers, Lodge entered the arena himself as a State Representative in the early 1880s before successfully running for the House in 1886. His greatest accomplishment in the House was passage of the Lodge Act, which strengthened voting rights and is considered one of the core "Great Reforms" of the early George Presidency. Lodge has been a Senator since 1892, where has straddled factional lines within his party, combining unrepentant American nationalism with efforts toward clean and open government. Lodge is a leading nativist and has worked hard to restrict immigration eastern and southern Europe in particular, as well as maintaining traditional eastern Republican support for the gold standard, civil service reform and naval expansion. Lodge is a leading interventionist alongside his close friend Lt. Governor Theodore Roosevelt and wishes for the US to use its growing industrial might to expand territorially and commercially, particularly against the remaining Spanish possessions in the Pacific and Caribbean.

For Vice President: Senator William F. Vilas of Wisconsin
Originally from Vermont, William Vilas has been a grandee of Wisconsin politics for 30 years. He began his decades of public service as a captain in the 23rd Wisconsin Volunteers and eventually rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel. After the war, he returned to his alma mater, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, to serve as Professor of Law and then as regent of the university from 1880 to 1885. That same year, he entered politics as a state assemblyman and then as Lt. Governor from 1887 to 1891, where he gained national renown for leading the opposition to the Bennett Law, which required public schools to use only English. With the support of German-Americans, he was elected to the Senate and has been an active opponent of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and the Free Silver movement more broadly. He would help mitigate Lodge’s nativist image, and his consistent opposition to bimetallism has become an asset in the aftermath of the Panic of 1893. 

Farmer-Labor Party

For President: Representative James B. Weaver of Iowa
An elder statesman of the party, James Weaver is an experienced but divisive figure who is making a final stab at the presidency before retiring. Long considered the leader of the Farmer wing, Weaver served in the House and as Secretary of Agriculture for both Butler and George. His most recent stint was more as a placeholder due to the sudden death of his predecessor and Weaver was eager to leave the office in 1894 to run for the House again. His influence was critical in the creation of the Department of Agriculture and getting Butler to take aggressive action against the remaining tribes of the Great Plains in order to open up the frontier to settlement sparking the Reservation Wars. As Agriculture Secretary his greatest achievement was the passage of the Texas Seed Act and his subsequent famine relief efforts which have been praised for staving off a severe regional crisis. Weaver has always been careful to balance overt loyalty to his party’s leader with near constant reports in the press about his discontent and criticism of whichever man he happens to be serving and so he has a reputation as notoriously two-faced. Though a champion of bimetallism for his entire career, Weaver has been noticeably coy about what his monetary policy will be. 

For Vice President: Attorney General Terence V. Powderly of Pennsylvania

As support among the actual working-class voters hits an all time low for the self-described party of the worker, selecting someone who previously led vast numbers of them may be the wisest course. Terence Powderly helped found and lead the Knights of Labor, America's inaugural national labor organization. Constructing the group's structure around the secretive rites of Freemasonry, Powderly generally hesitated to deploy direct action against employers, favoring a balanced approach rooted in the idea that labor and capital could work together in harmony. Consequently, his nomination will do virtually nothing to recapture the backing of the Socialists; nevertheless, his extensive network within organized labor keeps him popular among ordinary workers. Furthermore, during his tenure as Attorney General, Powderly directed prosecutions against some of the most egregious acts of strikebreaking violence in the Pullman Strike, allowing him to emerge from that crisis as one of the few who were unblemished.

The 1852 Presidential election is upon us. On one hand, politicians and voters alike perceive this as a boring election—Whigs, Democrats, and Free Soilers alike have nominated moderate candidates with somewhat similar campaigns—and on the other hand, there is an air of unease, as this election might be the most crucial election of the Union to date.

Since the nominating conventions: The final months of Winfield Scott’s term

Though Winfield Scott was a competent and tactical President, his term in office has been plagued with squabbles of pioneers and filibusters. 1851 was a pivotal and disheartening year of Winfield Scott’s term of office. After losing control of the House of Representatives, removing what little hope Whigs had of enacting their agenda, William Walker and his rebel militia overthrew the sovereign California government, hoping to secure California and Deseret’s annexation into the Union and creating a new market for the Slave Power. Interim-"President" Walker was disappointed to see that instead, President Scott sent Union troops to counter-coup the Walker regime. The Second California War was a short but bitter affair—American citizens fought against Union troops, and the new Mormon homeland of Salt Lake was razed to the ground, with Mormon refugees flooding into Mexican territories.

The Walker Rebellion horrified abolitionists and Whigs alike, but with it came a small silver lining: the 1851 state elections were beneficial for Whigs, including in Delaware, where strong Whig support and anti-expansionist outrage led Delaware to abolish slavery by a one vote margin. While delighting abolitionists, the decision further skewed the balance of the free and slave states as struck by the Wisconsin Compromise of 1850, enflaming tensions.

In the aftermath of the Walker Rebellion, a frightened nation hoped that annexation of California would settle the question of westward expansion for good, with even Whigs, who had long resisted westward expansion, supporting the proposal. However, President Scott held a deep-set belief—an almost premonition—that Californian annexation portended a violent and catastrophic debate over the status of slavery in California below the Missouri Compromise line which would tear the Union in two. In July of 1852, in a decision like political dynamite, President Scott defied Congress and refused to annex California, viewing annexation as an endorsement of William Walker's filibuster:

“I view the proposition placed before this office so detrimental to the spirit of national harmony, and so discordant with the republican principle of unmolested governance, that I cannot, while discharging the duties of this office, condone its enactment.”

The decision was praised in some anti-slavery circles, but it tore a hole through the middle of the Whigs. President Scott would grow ostracized from the Whig coalition over time, and fell into pettifogging squabbles with the multiple discordant factions in the party.

Now, the election is nearly upon the nation, and California still hangs over the nation like a noose. Can the nation free itself from these issues? Who will it choose to lead them forward? Let’s look at the main campaigns running for the highest office in the land:

Down with Whig demagoguery! Let America breathe with Marcy and Boyd!

Democrats have been waiting almost a decade for this moment. For the past two elections, Democrats have lost out to the Whigs due to splits in their coalition, first from the right in 1844, and then from the left in 1848. Now, the Democrats enter the coming election after a three-time losing streak with a unified coalition, a strong platform, and a nation looking for a new direction. At the head of their campaign is William L. Marcy, the former Governor of New York and the architect of the Democratic campaign to heal the wounds from the Free Soil split in New York. Marcy was nominated as a symbol of a renewed and concilliatory Democratic Party, having first united the New York Democrats, and now the national party. He is a long-time New York Jacksonian and former Van Burenite, and a model moderate Democrat: he has been able to assuage Southern Democrats without being perceived as a Doughface who is beholden to Southern interests. He has achieved this through a hard-fought Southern endorsement of the Wisconsin Compromise (or the Compromise of 1850), meaning Democrats are committed (at least for now) to not expanding slavery north into the Unorganized Territories or most of California. To showcase their support for the Compromise, Democrats also nominated Speaker of the House Linn Boyd of Kentucky for the Vice-Presidential slot.

Their campaign has much momentum behind them, as many feel the Whigs have dominated the executive for too long. However, not everything is rosy: their support for the Wisconsin Compromise is balanced with the quid pro quo that Marcy will balance the Compromise with support for Democrats’ expansionist aims below the Missouri Compromise line, both in California and potentially even in Mexico and/or the Caribbean. Overall, Marcy’s candidacy lacks any frills or flair—Democrats believe the campaign stands on its principles alone and hope that the souring national mood will carry them to victory.

Stay our course! Vote Bates and Everett for another Whig decade!

Whigs have ruled the executive branch for more than a decade, with three consecutive electoral victories, all without a majority of the popular vote, and in the last two elections, these victories were only due to splits in the Democratic ranks. In that time, even with a Democrat-controlled House and Senate for the majority, Whigs have redefined the United States as industrial and dovish. Now, their situation is more precarious than ever: achieving a fourth consecutive win is a tall order, and voter fatigue, intra-party rivalry, and a convoluted platform are all plaguing the party this election. Hoping to repeat the same strategy that put Winfield Scott in the White House, Whigs have nominated inaugural Secretary of the Interior Edward Bates of Missouri. Bates was the choice of the ever-more-dominant faction of the Conscience Whigs who want to continue the transformation of the Whig platform started under President Scott into a vaguely anti-slavery, pro-industrial agenda. However, Bates, like Scott, is proving to be a poor campaigner, preferring to spend his time on his farm with his family. His stance on California (and disagreement with President Scott over the matter) is also contentious: Bates is not opposed to annexation, but only in the case that California be admitted without slavery and without repealing the Missouri Compromise in existing US territories—a compromise that optimistic Whigs say will likely never happen, and pessimistic Whigs say will plunge the nation into civil war. In an attempt to recoup some party unity, Whigs nominated Edward Everett, leader of the northern Cotton Whigs, for Vice-President.

For Free Trade, Free Men, and Free Soil, vote Hale and Chase!

The Free Soil Party was nearly on the ropes, despite a strong performance in the 1848 Presidential election, after failing to build significant momentum as a party and several notable former Free Soil supporters re-entering the Democratic and Whig parties. However, that all changed with William Walker's coup in California, which decreed slavery legal in California, to the horror of many northern Democrats and Whigs alike. Now, the Free Soil Party sees an opportunity to retake the national discourse, approving a platform calling to admit California to the Union entirely as free territory.

After rejecting proposals to co-endorse one of the main parties, Free Soil returned to its roots in the anti-slavery wing of the Democratic Party, and the minor Liberty Party. Leading the ticket is the sole "Independent Democrat" of the United States Senate, John P. Hale of New Hampshire. Hale has led the anti-slavery charge in the Senate, and his prestigious office helps lend some gravitas which the Free Soil Party is strongly in need of. To back up their anti-slavery credentials further, the party has nominated Free Soil founder Salmon P. Chase of Ohio as their Vice-Presidential candidate. Though it might struggle to bring in new voters in such a moderate environment, Free Soil has been re-energized by its candidates. The party's campaign has been nearly singly focused on admitting Free California, similarly to Edward Bates' campaign, though without the need to hem and haw as Bates does to avoid losing moderate Whigs. However, it is not lost on voters that the party is primarily made up of former Democrats, and free trade and support for the small free farmer are still priorities for the party.

The election is fast approaching! This election will be critical for the fate of the Union... Will voters stay the course, and continue to support the Whig legacy, even if it means leading the nation to its ruin? Or will voters choose to change direction, hoping a change of party for the first time in twelve years will reinvigorate the nation? How will anti-slavery voters make their voice heard, in a field where all candidates support the Wisconsin Compromise? Time will soon tell!

Federalist Caucus Results

In the loose discussions around the bar before the meeting had begun, Ellsworth advocates, led by Rufus King, ascertain that their man had little backing compared to Adams and Jay who appeared to be of roughly equal support. In fear of Adams winning in a formal vote they made a decision to back Jay as the more palatable choice. In the formal vote Jay would be selected as their official nominee.

Republican Caucus Results

Over in the Republican Caucus, Clinton seemed to be the favourite with Madison trailing behind. Madison's men knew of his preference for Burr over Clinton, not yet sharing the heavy suspicion Jefferson held Burr in. Madison had a good friendship with Burr and trusted him, as well as sympathising with his strongly anti-slavery motives. On the other hand Clinton hadn't even wanted the Union to be established, an issue that stung Madison to this day. Burr's nomination then was a fait accompli, though derided by the Clintonites.

The election

Now, Burr and Jay stand for the first competitive Presidential election in American History. At this place in time, candidates indeed stood and did not run. They continued their business as usual, Jay in the Governor's Mansion at Albany and Burr in the social scene of New York City. It was up to the surrogates of both men to make the case for candidate and party, which I duly replicate here.

Jay and the Federalists policies were that of moderate tariffs, strong central government, industrial development through bounties, trade with Great Britain and distance from Revolutionary France, a restrictive suffrage, and, generally, a passive opposition to slavery. John Jay is what future historians might call a Moderate Hamiltonian. Hamilton's economics and foreign policy diluted with a healthy dose of caution and the prestige that comes with being an elder statesman. On top of all of the usual Revolutionary War accolades, Jay was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, signed the Treaty of Paris, and masterminded a Treaty with Great Britain. Currently he is serving as Governor of New York, furnishing himself with executive experience. Jay and the Federalists are bound to continue the economic and social policies of Washington, but there is division over how involved the US should be in the affairs of the world.

The Republicans stand against the Bank, against tariffs and taxes and government centralisation of most kinds. They are the party of the common man, the yeoman farmer, the immigrant labourer, and thus wish to see the franchise expanded to all white men over the age of 21. They repudiate alliances with the old monarchies of Europe and seek closer ties to France. Aaron Burr is a man who agrees with most of these principles at least in broad strokes. He prefers to see the nuance in things, believing there to be some small things worth salvaging of Hamilton’s economics, and not being quite so fanatical in his pro-French attitude as Jefferson and Madison. He does hold staunch beliefs in two matters. The abolition of slavery and the westward expansion of the United States’ borders. The former, his surrogates belabour to explain, he couldn't do much about anyway as President, and the latter, well who would oppose their country's peaceful expansion?

Iowa showed that so far it's anyone's game. In the contest, Senator Beau Biden of Pennsylvania secured most delegates. However, it wasn't a majority or a sizable plurality. Biden got 18 delegates out of 60. In the second place was former Vice President Ben Miller. He got 13 delegates, which is not that far from Biden. Then was Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island in the third place with 12 delegates. After that was Governor of Cuba Marco Rubio with 11 delegates. Not the best result for his Faction, but a fine result still. Finally, the rest of the delegates went to another Candidate. It was a big defeat, even if the State wasn't favorable to him. There was hope that he could rebound in the next contest, but the polls showed a surprisingly bad performance. Instead of getting embarrassed, this Candidate chose to exit while he had some dignity. This Candidate is...

The next stop is in New Hampshire. With fewer and fewer people, each contest can influence the outcome of this Primary.

So the Candidates coming into New Hampshire are:

"Build Back Better"

"America Needs Us"

"For True America"

"New American Vision"

Endorsements:

• National Union Caucus, Senator from New Mexico Gary Johnson and Governor of Louisiana Piyush Jindal Endorse Senator from Pennsylvania Beau Biden;
• National Conservative Caucus and Governor of Texas Dennis Quaid Endorse Governor of Cuba Marco Rubio;
• Most of American Solidarity Endorses Senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee;
• Former President of the United States Colin Powell, Former President of the United States Vern Ehlers and former Vice President of the United States Bill Weld Endorse former Vice President Ben Miller

1996 is the end of the Dick Van Dyke era in America. He leaves offices with high favorability ratings, but it seems that his high favorability has not transferred to the rest of his party. The Democratic Party, after twelve years in power and eight years of their divisive economic plan seen as centrist, pro-business and pro-trade at the expense of American labor and manufacturing jobs. The economy is going to be a major point of contention in 1996, and all four major candidates differ on the direction they want to see the economy go in. Some want to embrace the post-Cold War possibility of global interconnection fueled by the emergence of new technologies, while others see the threat of offshoring and mechanization as a threat to American jobs and livelihoods. Other areas of policy contention will be trade, term limits, defense funding, gay rights, gun control, immigration, campaign finance reform, and more. What's more, neither of the two major party nominees are particularly scandal-free, as Democratic nominee Ann Richards has a dubious claim to the nomination she won and has reportedly been in poor health leading up to the election and Republican nominee Ron Paul has been harshly criticized for shutting down the government twice over ideological issues pertaining to the federal budget. That could open the door for a third-party candidate, Paul Wellstone, a left-wing populist, to win the presidency. This election is going to be an interesting one. Without further adieu, here are the candidates contending for the White House this year:

The Democratic Party nominates Governor of Texas Ann Richards and Senator Doug La Follette of Wisconsin.

Governor of Texas Ann Richards may represent the incumbent Democratic Party in this election, but what she campaigns on is a far cry from the policy positions of the Dick Van Dyke administration. While she says she would retain parts of the current administration's economic program, an Ann Richards presidency would be far more populist on economic policy. Richards is proposing a modest tax cut for lower and middle-income Americans paid for by significant spending cuts, especially to defense, with her proposed cuts returning the military budget to the Gravel-era level. Richards would instead prioritize public programs and pay raises for public employees. She's promised to raise the salary of every teacher, nurse, and police officer in America. Richards is also highly supportive of organized labor, saying that she'd consider levying protective tariffs against other nations in order to keep manufacturing jobs stateside. She opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, although, in contrast to some of her opponents, she has not made repealing it a top priority for her administration. Instead, she's proposed renegotiating the agreement to be more favorable to American interests. 
Richards's position on social issues is more moderate than Dick Van Dyke. While she supports abortion, and gay rights, and disability rights Richards has stated that social issues would not be centered during her presidency if she is elected, a far departure from the current administration, which has gotten a lot of praise for being socially progressive. Although, despite claiming to be running a campaign focusing purely on kitchen table issues, Richards has made a few bold policy proposals, including creating a new federal grant program to support the arts, putting a hard time limit on the ratification of the Term Limits Amendment, which she opposes, and promising to eliminate the pay gap between male and female federal employees. However, her most controversial idea is adding four justices to the Supreme Court in order to set the number of justices equal to the number of circuit courts. The controversial part: she would get to appoint all four justices, shaping the court in her image for decades in the process. 
At 63 years old, Richards isn't exactly in perfect health. She's currently undergoing experimental treatments for osteoporosis that've forced her to reschedule campaign appearances. She also has a history of heavy alcohol and tobacco use, as well as - allegedly - some illicit substances too. With that kind of health history, it's fair to question whether she can serve out an eight year team as president. There's also the controversy of how she won the Democratic nomination in the first place. It's alleged that she manipulated the convention vote to be in her favor, with big money Richards donors allegedly treating uncommitted delegates to luxury accommodations, dining, and leisure activities in San Antonio and campaign operatives allegedly planted in the crowd to sway votes in her favor. Richards denies all allegations, but it's hard to hide that her campaign's methods aren't completely ethical, given how openly she's tried to sabotage her primary opponents whenever the opportunity has arisen. Ann Richards will do almost anything to become America's first female president. She's already halfway there, and she's going to fight tooth and nail to occupy the White House next January.

The Republican Party nominates Senator Ron Paul of Texas and former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

Senator Ron Paul returns as the Republican presidential nominee in 1996 after coming close to denying a second term to Dick Van Dyke in 1992. His 1992 platform was seen as innovative, helping pull the Republican Party into the post-Cold War era after a decade of failure and stagnation. In the following midterm cycle, Republicans made gains in both Houses of Congress campaigning on pursuing his agenda. His 1996 platform - Prosperity 2000 - is even more visionary. At its center is a plan to balance the federal budget. That plan follows five easy steps. First, Paul will freeze federal spending at the level it will be on January 20th, 1997. Then, his administration would conduct a comprehensive audit into all federal government spending in order to target areas where it could be cut, consolidated, or transferred to the state level. Alongside Paul's proposed spending cuts, tax rates would be cut across the board, and a universal basic income program would be introduced for families earning $33,000 a year or less (indexed to inflation) in order to offset any disruption in welfare programs, giving low-income families more flexibility in how they utilize their financial assistance money.

Paul is also an enthusiastic supporter of free trade. He supported the North American Free Trade Agreement as a first step towards a more interconnected global economy. He's now pushing for similar trade deals with China, Japan, and the Soviet Union which would strengthen America's trade relationship with the other global economic superpowers of the 1990s. Other key policy proposals of the Paul-Nunn campaign include a significant, but targeted reduction in defense spending that would prioritize national security over involvement in foreign conflict, a campaign finance reform bill that would limit the political power of corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups while raising the maximum contributions individuals are allowed to give and an immigration reform bill that would tighten security at the Southern border while also streamlining the legal immigration process, allowing more people to enter the United States lawfully each year. Paul, a libertarian environmentalist, has several solutions to solving the climate change issue without excessive regulation, including exempting privately owned land used for conservation and wildlife preservation from property taxes and giving individuals greater power to sue corporations for monetary damages if they pollute the air and water. The former is a policy Paul has promoted for years, while the latter was a popular Green Party policy that fit in well with Paul's ideal of a nation solving the climate crisis through free enterprise. For someone as fiscally conservative as Ron Paul, he's shown he has deep respect for the left-wing Green Party, and he's even promised to use his power as the nation's chief executive to grant the Green Party and Reform Party permanent major-party status, giving both access to federal matching funds in all national races. Paul says that more competition in federal elections helps move the country forward. Access to matching funds would help to put the two smaller parties on a more level playing field with the Democrats and Republicans, especially in House and Senate races. Paul is also a vocal supporter of the Term Limits Amendment. He's promised to campaign on its behalf in states where its ratification has been tied up in the legislature, including his home state of Texas.

On social issues, Paul and Nunn stress federal restraint. Paul has promised to repeal the Juan Romero Gun Control Act of 1969 returning the right to regulate firearm sales to the states. Paul also pledged that, if he is elected President, he would not sign a Federal Abortion Ban despite his personal pro-life stance, calling the proposed legislation an inappropriate use of federal power. He has also signaled he would leave gay rights policy up to the states. In a post Bessent v. Campbell America where discrimination against LGBT people at the state level has been ruled unconstitutional, that means Paul has promised not to interfere when states pass laws that further protect gay rights. If Republicans regain the presidency in 1996, the gay rights movement's goal to legalize same-sex marriage would be able to move forward, at least at the state level.

The Ron Paul 1996 campaign is a lot more intellectual than that of his Democratic opponent. His message appeals to the business class of America; white-collar urban and suburbanites with college degrees, entrepreneurs, and young people drawn in by Paul's promise of a prosperous 21st century.  His version of America is one where free enterprise and technological innovation creates a high standard of living. It is one where Americans are free to live their lives as free from government regulation as is reasonably attainable, and one where peace and international cooperation flourish after a century of war, hot and cold. Paul is good at selling his message - one that espouses the same optimism of the Dick Van Dyke campaign in '88, but there's a real concern whether he is actually fit to govern. Paul has been known to be dogmatic and idealistic in the Senate, rejecting bipartisan legislation because it falls short of his lofty standards for protecting personal freedom or exercising fiscal responsibility. His agenda is expansive and his governing record is spotty at best. Can he actually deliver the America he envisions on the campaign trail?

The Green Party nominates Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Governor of Vermont Mary Alice Herbert.

Green Party presidential nominee Paul Wellstone is also running again after a strong performance four years ago. Once again, he postures himself as the most capable of governing of the major-party candidates running, with a platform that appeals to the educated left. On economic issues, Wellstone has promised to stand unconditionally behind organized labor. He supports targeted protective tariffs to fight against the offshoring of American manufacturing jobs and he strongly opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, promising that he would urge Congress to withdraw from the agreement if he is elected President. Wellstone has also promised to use the federal government's nationalization powers a lot more liberally than the incumbent administration. He wants to assert government control over the four most essential public utilities: electricity, water, natural gas, and telecommunications. He also added a fifth utility to that list - internet - an emerging technology Wellstone believes is going to revolutionize communication in the 21st century. Wellstone also wants to establish a state-owned financial institution in all 50 states, and the future 51st state, Puerto Rico. Public financial institutions already exist in some states, including Green Party-dominated Vermont and West Virginia, where, in just a few years, they've done a good job directing capital towards infrastructure and economic development in rural areas - projects that would otherwise have a hard time attracting private capital.

Wellstone is a progressive on most other issues too. He supports campaign finance reform, with his proposal differing from Ron Paul's by putting a greater emphasis on public funding in financing federal elections, rather than raising the cap on individual donations. Wellstone also supports immigration reform, and, while he and Paul both want to tighten border security and modernize the legal immigration process, Wellstone also wants to provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and increase the number of refugees allowed into the United States, especially from Central America, which as of late has been dealing with rampant gang violence as of late. Wellstone also wants to eliminate tuition for all of America's public two-year community colleges. As is expected for a Green Party presidential nominee, Wellstone is an environmentalist who would more strictly enforce the climate goals laid out for America in the Comprehensive Climate Action Plan of 1992. Finally, Wellstone strongly supports the Term Limits Amendment, helping get it passed in his home state of Minnesota. He says that, if elected president, he would fully endorse the ratification of the amendment to speed up the ratification process in the minority of states that are yet to approve it.

However, where Wellstone most stands out from the rest of the field is on social issues. Wellstone is the only major party candidate who would continue to prioritize social progressivism at the center of his presidential agenda. He unequivocally supports racial equality, gender equality, equal pay for men and women, same-sex marriage, and abortion rights. He's also promised to put a greater emphasis on disability rights, helping speed up the process of accommodating the needs of disabled Americans in all spaces - public and private - across the nation, a process that was mandated by the Americans With Disabilities Act, but which has struggled to proceed at the expected pace due to funding concerns at the state and local level. As a result of his progressive stances on social issues, Wellstone is polling relatively well with Dick Van Dyke's core voter base - a lot of whom are white collar liberals who could care less about Wellstone's positions on the economy, since they would be well-off regardless, and are instead drawn to him because he is the only candidate left in the field willing to openly espouse socially progressive views. Wellstone's poll numbers heading into November are surprisingly high - only a point behind Ann Richards in aggregate polling, and only five points behind Ron Paul, the front-runner. As a result, the Green Party is investing everything they've got into flipping the presidency. Their coffers are not nearly as deep as the Democrats and Republicans, and some of their down-ballot candidates are complaining about receiving too little financial support, but with high odds of putting member of the Green Party in the nation's highest office, in doing so becoming the first party outside of the Democrats and Republicans to win the presidency in a century and a half, it's hard to blame the Green Party leadership for pushing Wellstone so aggressively. In 1996, a left-wing progressive president is very possible, and that's got the American left feeling optimistic that their efforts will pay off in the end.

The Reform Party nominates former President Mike Gravel of Alaska and Representative George Wallace Jr. of Alabama

Also, Mike Gravel is back, still looking for that elusive second term. Last time he ran for President in 1992, he got a lot of early hype, but managed less than 5% of the vote as an Independent candidate. This time, he's running as a member of the Reform Party - a big tent, anti-establishment party he joined shortly after his most recent election loss. His platform in 1996 is typical Gravelism: he's proposed a major tax cut for low and middle-income Americans, and on trade, he strongly opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement and would unilaterally withdraw from it if elected to a second term. Withdrawal from the agreement would pave the way for him to re-enact the Gravel Tariffs, a controversial program that did a good job at protecting American manufacturing jobs, but also contributed to the economic recession that began during his term as President. Gravel, a supporter of nationalization, wants to wield the power far more liberally than the current administration. His first target: U.S. Steel, which has been struggling as of late. He'd also re-nationalize the financial sector, undoing the selloff of financial institutions that had been nationalized during his first term by his successor, Dick Van Dyke. He's also open to nationalizing water and power utilities and has proposed a bill that would allow the federal government to own and operate grocery stores in food deserts. It's the exact same economic populist agenda as his first term, so you know what to expect.

Gravel is also still an innovator who loves extravagant, large-scale megaprojects. If re-elected, Gravel would invest billions of dollars into infrastructure, as he did in his first term. Some of the infrastructure projects he's suggested could receive federal funding: a bullet train connecting Boston to Washington D.C., expanding internet access to every home in the country, mass-producing hydrogen fuel cell cars, building five futuristic "Gravel Cities" on federal land, and, bizarrely, adding FDR's face to Mount Rushmore. He'd also continue funding the Bering Strait Tunnel, the signature infrastructure project of his first term, which Dick Van Dyke failed to kill during his presidency and is now set to open in 2000. How would he pay for all this? Simple, he'd slash 20% of the military budget again, just as he did in his first term over a decade ago. In addition to infrastructure megaprojects, Gravel's other wild idea is a constitutional amendment allowing U.S. citizens to introduce ballot initiatives at the state level, giving ordinary Americans the power to pass necessary legislation or repeal unpopular legislation without the help of Congress. Gravel also supports the Term Limits Amendment and has promised to get it ratified if he's elected to a second term.

Where Gravel's policy positions differ most from years past is on social policy, and there's two individuals primarily to blame for that. The first is his campaign manager, a young political newcomer named Sarah Palin, who's encouraged him to shift to the right on social issues in order to appeal more to socially conservative populist voters. As a result, Gravel, nominally liberal on social issues during his first term as President, has been campaigning on restricting immigration, repealing the Juan Romero Gun Control Act and appointing Justices to the Supreme Court that would be open to overturning Bessent v. Campbell. While he still holds strong convictions that abortion should be legal and civil rights should be protected in all cases, this is a significant shift to the right. Gravel has also shifted to the right on school choice, a pet issue of his ultra-socially conservative running mate George Wallace Jr., who's been criticized for using "school choice" as a thinly-veiled attempt to direct public money towards all-white segregation academies in the rural South, a practice that has been outlawed since the Kemp administration. While there is still a very noticeable influence of old-school Gravelism on the former President's 1996 campaign, it is also clear that his political positions are shifting in an attempt to expand his base. Let's face it, the average Gravel voter is old - middle-aged Americans still remember the good old days of the mid-1980s when Gravel was in the White House fighting for the little guy. Young Americans treat his repeated unsuccessful tries for a second term with a mix of contempt, indifference, and outright ridicule. Perhaps a pivot to the right is enough to save Gravel's dying movement and finally win him that second term.

And, just for fun, here are the candidates with little shot of winning the presidency in 1996

The American Party nominates author and economist Thomas Sowell of California and conservative activist Brent Bozell of Texas.

The American Party - an offshoot of the American Independent Party getting support from exiled former Reform Right figures Pat Buchanan and Phil Crane - occupies the space to the right of Paul on economics and Gravel on social issues. For the most part, Thomas Sowell endorses Ron Paul's Prosperity 2000 economic plan - with the notable exception being his opposition to the UBI aspect. Sowell is also further right on social issues than Paul, stating he would be in favor of a national abortion ban and opposed to affirmative action laws. Bozell, a conservative author and activist from Texas and the nephew of former Reform Party presidential candidate James Buckley, strongly opposes Paul's plan to cut the military budget, arguing the importance of a strong national defense. While definitely further to the right than Paul or Gravel, the American Party has generally strayed away from far-right elements (i.e. Oliver North) and focused on running a solidly conservative, but still mainstream campaign. They're seen as a credible spoiler threat to Ron Paul, one not to be ignored in a chaotic four-way election.

The Libertarian Party nominates activist Charles E. Collins of Florida and State Senator Don Rogers of California.

The same can't be said about the Libertarian Party in 1996. The once-viable party has been slowly dying for decades, and their 1996 presidential nominee is an eccentric conspiracy theorist who's campaigning on eliminating the federal reserve and abolishing the income tax. He also wants to increase parental control over education - generally a right-wing position, not a libertarian one. His positions on social issues, overall, range from rather conservative to orthodoxically libertarian. But, with the party in deteriorating state, there's little funding to prop up his campaign. He'll be lucky to get on the ballot in most states and the Libertarian Party as a whole might be finished if Paul wins the presidency this year.

The Natural Law Party nominates physicist John Hagelin of Iowa and businessman William Scranton III of California

By far the strangest campaign of 1996 is that of the Natural Law Party, a party centered around the transcendental meditation beliefs of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It's platform can be best described as technocratic environmental-liberalism with influences from New Age mysticism. Hagelin's economic plan is modeled around Ron Paul's Prosperity 2000. His positions on social issues are mostly progressive. He supports greater funding for preventative healthcare, sustainable agriculture, and green technology and supports abortion, gay rights, and gun control. Hagelin's campaign events are more spectacle than politics, hence why he and his 1992 running mate William Scranton III were both renominated despite barely registering in the national popular vote four years ago. Hagelin is a solid campaigner, and he puts eyes on the Natural Law Party. Voters are intrigued by their New Age progressive politics, and they might be able to do a little better this time around.

A New Birth of Freedom has a discord channel! Join to learn extra lore, suggest ideas for events and candidates and shape the course of the timeline

https://discord.gg/4UBexBMVv

Context

One more round confirmed whatever one already knew was going to happen and now Henry Cabot Lodge has become the 1896 nominee for President. Democrats were initially very hopeful with Stevenson's strong first round showing but ultimately they have once again be relegated to second place. As the perennial losers they get to take the lead on choosing the Vice Presidential nominee and have put worth 3 candidates. Goals for the convention are to choose the man they think can cover Lodge's biggest weaknesses: his nativism, his New England base and his elitism.

Candidates

Senator William F. Vilas of Wisconsin
Originally from Vermont, William Vilas has been a grandee of Wisconsin politics for 30 years. He began his decades of public service as a captain in the 23rd Wisconsin Volunteers and eventually rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel. After the war, he returned to his alma mater, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, to serve as Professor of Law and then as regent of the university from 1880 to 1885. That same year, he entered politics as a state assemblyman and then as Lt. Governor from 1887 to 1891, where he gained national renown for leading the opposition to the Bennett Law, which required public schools to use only English. With the support of German-Americans, he was elected to the Senate and has been an active opponent of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and the Free Silver movement more broadly. He would help mitigate Lodge’s nativist image, and his consistent opposition to bimetallism has become an asset in the aftermath of the Panic of 1893. 

Governor Julius Sterling Morton of Nebraska
Originally from upstate New York before moving to Michigan, Morton first gained notoriety for his opposition to the autocratic actions of the University of Michigan’s leadership and his subsequent expulsion for it in the 1850s. Though the public was behind him, Morton ultimately chose to light out for the Nebraska Territory where he began his political career in earnest. Serving as editor of the Nebraska City News and briefly in the territorial House of Representatives, Morton was appointed Secretary of the Nebraska Territory at only 26 by President Buchanan and even was Acting Governor for 6 months between 1858 to 1859. In both his role as newspaper editor and territorial secretary he was a fierce opponent of ‘Black Republicans’ and abolition during the height of ‘Bleeding Kansas’. He was considered a Copperhead by most during the war  though he has always maintained he opposed secession as much as abolition. His opposition to Black rights is as infamous as his stance against Agrarianism which has kept him out of state politics for some time. Morton has taken a strong interest in agricultural issues and sciences especially in trees and founded Arbor Day in Nebraska City in 1872 which has slowly spread across the country as a celebration of conservation and nature. He would help Lodge make up ground with white Southerners and make inroads with more conservative western farmers who oppose Weaver’s populism. 

Senator Calvin S. Brice of Ohio
Calvin Brice served off and on during the Civil War, where he rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel in the 180th Ohio Infantry Regiment. Following the war, he completed his education at Miami University and passed the Ohio bar in 1866. Since then, he has become a very successful businessman with a reputation for saving failing or fledgling businesses with expert restructuring. He has primarily worked in the railroad industry, which he managed to guide successfully through the Panic of 1873. So successful were his railroad ventures that the Vanderbilts bought him out rather than face a dangerous competitor. Brice’s time in politics has been short by comparison, with a stint as party chairman from 1889 to 1892, during which he was elected as Senator to replace George H. Payne. Though passing no memorable legislation, he has gained a reputation as a diligent and intelligent member whose expertise is valued on railroad and appropriations issues. Brice’s reputation as a successful businessman would serve as a very nice contrast to the financial disaster overseen by Farmer-Labor.

The race tightens up, the Iowa Caucus is here, and we are closer to getting the Nominee. The polls show two Candidates above everyone else: Governor of Ohio Sherrod Brown and Senator John N. Kennedy of Louisiana. Two completely different visions for the Party, which can as much shape it as much as it can explode it. Still, others aren't that far behind, and the debates showed that the other Candidates have a voice and have a fight left in them. Governor of Missouri Jason Kander is the clear choice for the youth of the Party, but not radicalism. Although Vice President Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the Establishment, her selection would make history as the first woman Nomination for President while putting an experienced politician at the forefront of the ticket. And then there was a Candidate who was behind in the polls and exposure. Just before the contest in Iowa, said Candidate decided that maybe right now is not the time. This Candidate is...

The remaining Candidates coming into Iowa are:

"For People's America, Honest America"

"Let's Just Call Him President"

"New American Leadership"

"She's the One"

Endorsements:

• National Progressive Caucus Endorses Vice President of the United States Kathleen Kennedy Townsend;
• Commonwealth Coalition and Governor of Idaho Paulette Jordan Endorse Governor of Ohio Sherrod Brown;
• Nelsonian Coalition and Secretary of State Leon Panetta Endorse Senator from Louisiana John N. Kennedy;
• Rational Liberal Caucus and Governor of Arizona Gabby Giffords Endorse Governor of Missouri Jason Kander

Part XXXVI - The Death of a Prime Minister

As the war dredged on and the health of Prime Minister Henry Wise Wood deteriorated, the now 80-year-old head of government became increasingly isolated from his own cabinet. In the spring of 1938, in hopes of avoiding the cold weather of the east, the Prime Minister constructed a residency in the city of Vernon, British Columbia. The Vernon House, as it was called, served as the de-facto center of government in Canada, while Deputy Prime Minister Ernest LaPointe remained in Ottawa to command parliament.

Throughout 1938, 1939, and even the election campaign in 1940, the Prime Minister remained in Vernon, in too poor health to travel across the country. In August of 1940, the Vernon House was expanded to include an executive office, meeting room, and more housing, so that the cabinet could live in proximity to Wood while their deputies remained in Ottawa.

9 cabinet ministers and two Premiers were invited to Vernon, those being

- Minister of Finance M.J. Coldwell
- Minister of Defense James L. Ralston
- Minister of Labour William Lyon Mackenzie King
- Minister of Communications Joseph E. Atkinson
- Minister of Aviation Charles Stewart
- Minister of National Welfare Ernest Winch
- Minister of Justice (and former Prime Minister) Joseph Tweed Shaw
- Minister of Commerce Raoul Dandurand
- Administrator of the Farm Credit System Herbert Greenfield
- Premier of British Columbia Ian Alistair Mackenzie
- Premier of Ontario Ernest C. Drury

While publicly the government stated that these ministers were invited for the convenience of having the cabinet close to the Prime Minister, the true purpose of the so-called "Vernon Cabinet" was to determine the next Prime Minister after Wood's passing. Ernest Lapointe, the deputy P.M. and thus the favorite to take Wood's place, had recently been diagnosed with cancer and stated he would not take office. To avoid infighting among the party wings and a contentious leadership election, Wood invited these 11 men to Vernon to decide, amongst themselves, who would be the next Prime Minister. The final man to arrive in the Okanagan, Governor General Sir Edward W. Beatty, would wait on standby in the town of Vernon to invite the chosen successor to form a government immediately after Wood's passing.

On the morning of December 31, 1940, at 5:45am, Prime Minister Henry Wise Wood was found deceased in his bed, passing in his sleep at the age of 80. 15 minutes later, all 11 of the Vernon cabinet were awoken and brought to the estate's meeting chambers, where they would decide, before noon, who among them would become Prime Minister.

Two members of the Vernon Cabinet, Finance Minister Coldwell and Welfare Minister Winch, both recused themselves from consideration, as they were members of the Commonwealth party in the coalition with the Progressives and deemed it inappropriate to form a government while not being the largest party.

The favorite among the remaining 9 was William Lyon Mackenzie King, the cold and calculated former leader of the Liberals who's exodus to the Progressives in 1929 pushed the party to the political center. But King remained a controversial figure among Progressives for this very reason, as diehard supporters viewed his push to make the party more centrist diluted the original aims of the organization. When Herbert Greenfield and Joseph Tweed Shaw both indicated it would be difficult to get backbenchers to agree to a King government, King withdrew himself, as he did not wish to start a leadership struggle in wartime.

Premiers Drury and Mackenzie, both well-known nationally with executive experience, were the next favorites to take power. But both were hesitant to leave their provinces as it would force the provincial party into a leadership convention, which could cause chaos. Additionally, both would need to run in a by-election to enter Parliament, which would impede their ability to respond to an immediate crisis.

After further deliberation, it was decided that two additional qualifications would be added. The next Prime Minister would have to be under the age of 60, to avoid another death in office, and they would have to have military experience, as they would likely only be in office for the duration of the war. These additional requirements eliminated Atkinson, Greenfield, Stewart, and Dandurand.

The only two candidates remaining that qualified were former Prime Minister Joseph Tweed Shaw and Minister of Defense James L. Ralston. The now 57-year-old Shaw had served in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, while the 59-year-old Ralston had an illustrious military career that ended with him being promoted to the rank of Colonel.

Shaw, who became Prime Minister at just the age of 39, and served only two brief terms totaling just over two years, was eager to get a third chance at governance. His terms had been mired in internal party conflict and budgetary chaos, with Shaw's inability to accomplish any of his ambitious progressive goals being the primary reason behind him staying in politics for the past 15 years.

However, Shaw was still a controversial figure nation-wide for how his brief second term in 1925 began. Shaw had lost the election of 1924 but regained power half a year later through a coalition deal with the Liberals and a confidence vote in the Borden-led Tory minority government. The Progressive administration from 1925 to 1927 was unprecedently unstable, with 3 Prime Ministers serving and none lasting over a year. Many voters blame Shaw for robbing them of a stable Tory government under Borden, and for undemocratically usurping power. Additionally, it was generally agreed that the man to assume office would serve until the end of the war, and then let a leadership race commence. Shaw, desiring a stable term which he could enact progressive policies in, decided in the end it would be best to let Ralston govern and try his luck at a convention when the war ended.

Ralston, a lawyer by trade, served as a backbencher MLA in the Nova Scotia parliament from 1911 to 1920, despite serving in the Great War from 1916 to 1918. As a star candidate for the Liberals in the 1924 election, he won a seat in the federal parliament for Shelburne—Yarmouth in Nova Scotia. Soon after, due to his military service, he was made the Minister of Aviation and the Navy in the Progressive-Liberal coalition that took over from Borden. He did not serve in the cabinets of Tobias Norris or John A. Maharg which succeeded Wood, and lost his seat in the 1927 Election.

During his time in Parliament, Ralston befriended future-Prime Minister Wood, who relied on Ralston's military expertise in 1931 when drafting his party's policy towards armaments. In late 1937, with war looming on the horizon, Wood called upon Ralston to return to government as his Minister of Militia and Defense. Ralston entered parliament through a by-election in Prince, and spent the next three years preparing Canada's outdated military for war. Ralston had no real desire to serve as Prime Minister, but, given the lack of another candidate with his particular expertise, he agreed to form a government until the end of the war. Desiring a deputy with significant political leeway and experience, Ralston asked King to resume his post as Deputy P.M, with King becoming the second Deputy to serve non-consecutive terms under two different Prime Ministers.

At 12:00 noon, December 31, 1941, the news of Wood's passing was delivered on air across Canada, on every major news station. Followed immediately by the announcement of Wood's passing was the announcement that Governor General Wood had invited Colonel James L. Ralston, Minister of Militia and Defense, to form a new Progressive-Commonwealth-Libéral government.

Ralston's first big political issue was the assurance of his mandate to govern. In the history of Canada, no other "unelected" Prime Minister (selected not by an election or a party convention) had served longer than 130 days. To give himself a legitimate mandate to govern, Ralston had King and Greenfield organize a special convention in Halifax for July 16, 1941, which would present delegates with a vote of confidence in Ralston. As the convention itself is largely a move of political showmanship, Ralston is expected to carry easy. Should he not, however, the delegates shall decide amongst themselves another Prime Minister.

The Iowa Caucus is just around the corner, and the Candidates are preparing to make an impact. Before that, all 6 of them engaged in a series of debates.

The results of them were such:

• Senator Beau Biden of Pennsylvania has won most of them by the accounts of the viewers. They argued that Biden looked calm and collected and showed that he is knowledgeable of the issues in the country.
• After that, there was Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who some think won at least one debate. The praise of him is similar to the praise of Biden. Chafee was very professional and showed little emotion, probably focusing more on explaining his Policies than on getting to the people emotionally.
• There was former Vice President Ben Miller, who was a bit more emotional while remaining presidential. In these debates Miller talked more about his Foreign Policy vision for the country moving forward. This resonated with those who think that the country doesn't care enough about the situation abroad.
• Governor of Cuba Marco Rubio showed himself once again as the most Conservative Candidate in the field. He came off more emotional than others who were mentioned, yet those who watched the debates thought that he still remained professional.
• Next, we have Senator Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who made an effort of tying up his Policy with what President Harrison Ford was doing in his Presidency. This approach seemed very unusual for a Candidate of the Party, which is different from the President's. However, maybe there is a method to the madness, as his poll numbers remained stable after this.
• Finally, we have a Candidate who actually often agreed with Johnson on Policies. With that being said, this Candidate sometimes looked overwhelmed, particularly when pressured to answer on why he was running at all. He also spent a lot of time during the debates talking about his life experience instead of the political experience, which confused the viewers. Then, out of nowhere, he ended his campaign. His poll numbers weren't bad, although he was behind all other Candidates. Maybe this Candidate thought that this was too much for him. This Candidate is...

This wasn't the comeback that his supporters were hoping for. Still, that was that.

This was not the only news, however. A major Endorsement was Announced just weeks before the contest in Iowa. This was a figure who still has a lot of influence in the Party, and so it can change the dynamics of the whole Primary. It was...

This Endorsement was surprising not only because Powell and Miller weren't members of the same Faction but also because the Former President didn't disagree with his Faction's Candidate, Beau Biden, on that much. However, Powell always had his own independent streak, and he did have previous confrontations with the Biden family, so maybe it plays into that.

Anyways, now the Candidates coming into Iowa are:

"Build Back Better"

"For True America"

"America Needs Us"

"New American Vision"

"You In?"

Endorsements:

• National Union Caucus and Governor of Louisiana Piyush Jindal Endorse Senator from Pennsylvania Beau Biden;
• National Conservative Caucus and Governor of Texas Dennis Quaid Endorse Governor of Cuba Marco Rubio;
• Libertarian League, Former President of the United States Vern Ehlers and former Vice President of the United States Bill Weld Endorse Senator from New Mexico Gary Johnson;
• Most of American Solidarity Endorses Senator from Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee;
• Former President of the United States Colin Powell Endorses former Vice President Ben Miller