https://preview.redd.it/xswj28y38xl31.png?width=920&format=png&auto=webp&s=ab82cac6e99e4067b595ffddc255e2f3496c5ba9
Would he be more favorable to the germans and fascists? Would he do more against communism?
What would be his national policies? Would the great depression ended faster?
Let's say the Enabling Act 1933 is never passed, and the 1936 elections are held in a fair way. What would the results be in your estimation, if elections are held in 4 year intervals (1936, 1940, 1944), all other things being equal?
Obligatory thank you all for your effort and great replies that I enjoy daily before I start.
Although I am Spanish national, I feel that public education is greatly lacking / biased when it comes to our Civil War. For this reason and after the pass of time I have become increasingly interested in it. After my wife (non Spanish) read Anthony Beevors "The Battle For Spain", and after reading really good critics of it in a recent post in /r/badhistory, I took it up.
In the introduction theres brief mention of the '36 elections quite clarifying that there were "fair" elections, but as I understood recent studies have come to the conclusion that they were indeed fraudulent (Stanley Payne, for one).
Where the elections of 1936 fraudulent?
Bonus question: In Beevors introduction there is no mention as far as I remember of José Calvo Sotelo assassination and how it was carried out- in my understanding a major, key factor in the background for the Civil War. To what extent am I wrong/right?
I stopped reading the book until I get some more clarity on these, but, regardless, I will definately read it through!!
Thanks for your time.
Any time you decide not to form the coalition ticket a series of events fire that indicate a "radicalization" of the country and a weakening of the 2 (or 3) democratic parties. By the time the election will fire the democratic parties will have approximately less then or equal to 5% support in the country, and usually a combined support of ~15%. I can't help but feel like this is FAR too much weakening of the Republican and Democratic parties in this scenario; it makes it hard for me to imagine how Landon or (especially) Garner could ever realistically win the election or even be supported in the House. It seems to me that the way the mod is written now, you MUST support the coalition or democratic ideals will collapse in America. Perhaps it would have made more sense if the coalition was attempted initially and could actually fall apart just before the election (as was suggested in the Dev Diary) so that this radicalization would not occur. Should there be some kind of adjustment to the events in the lead up to the 1936 election so the democratic parties each have 8%-10% support nationally just so there seems to be some politically feasibility of a Garner or Landon Presidency?
Socially, both men were nationalistic, but semi-progressive for the time, Coughlin was even a public enemy of the KKK. Would we have seen a radical shift in racial politics under this administration?
Economically, while both Long and Coughlin despised communism, both men advocated to knock big business and big bankers down a few pegs, and their “Share our Wealth” movement revolved mainly around redistributing wealth and protecting small businesses. How would the economy fare under this administration?
The big one: Long and Coughlin are re-elected in 1940, they stress that the war in Europe isn’t America’s business, perhaps with Coughlin’s influence, and the German American Bund, America leans more towards Axis sympathies during this time. How would Long’s extreme isolationism affect WW2?
albania
argentina
bolivia
brazil
bulgaria
cambodia
chile
costa rica
dominican republic
greece
grenada
guatemala
guyana
haiti
iceland
indonesia
iran
israel
italy
jamaica
japan
laos
lebanon
malaysia
malta
mauritius
nepal
nicaragua
panama
peru
philippines
romania
russia
san marino
slovakia
somalia
sri lanka
thailand
ukraine
united kingdom
uruguay
former countries:
west germany
south vietnam
czechoslovakia
former yugoslavia
Like I said, these are the parties that believe climate change is a hoax, CO^(2) isn't bad for the environment (or in some cases is actually good for the environment), and that the earth warms naturally, and this is just one of those times. I tried to simplify it as much as possible without losing the general idea, but I do recommend checking out the links so I don't miss out on anything or take anything out of context.
....
>"It is an undisputed fact that the world’s climate has always changed and will continue to change. Until twelve thousand years ago, much of Canada was under ice, and it is thanks to natural climate change that we can live here today."
....
>"There is however no scientific consensus on the theory that CO2 produced by human activity is causing dangerous global warming today or will in the future"
....
>" They make exaggerated claims to scare people. They even manipulate school children, getting them to pressure their parents and to demonstrate in the streets. "
....
>"Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future.[...] In fact, CO2 is beneficial for agriculture and there has recently been a measurable “greening” of the world in part thanks to higher levels. Despite what global warming propaganda claims, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential ingredient for life on Earth and needed for plant growth. "
Policies:
>Withdraw from the Paris Accord and abandon unrealistic greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
>
>Stop sending billions of dollars to developing countries to help them reduce their emissions.
>
>Abolish the Liberal government’s carbon tax and leave it to provincial governments to adopt programs to reduce emissions if they want to.
>
>Abolish subsidies for green technology and let private players develop profitable and efficient alternatives.
>
>Invest in mitigation strategies if problems arise as a result of any natural climate change.
>
>Prioritize implementing practical solutions to make Canada’s air, water and soil cleaner, including bringing clean drinking water to remote First Nations communities.
>"CHP Canada recognizes that pollution is a serious problem and that immediate steps m
... keep reading on reddit ➡This means the polling excludes everyone who hasn't voted recently. That is a very significant portion of Andrew Yang's support (such as myself, I am 42 and never even registered to vote before).
That means that the poll result is invalid. This should absolutely be brought up with the DNC and the media. Regardless of whether we think they are actually going to change the rules. Its not something that we should just let go.
Voter turnout for presidential elections was most recently 55.7%. So like always, turnout is key as long as people realize that and stick to their guns.
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <iomanip>
using namespace std;
int findWinner (int votes[]);
void printResults (string candidates[], int votes[]);
double calculatePercentage (int votes[], int vote);
// number of candidates is set as a constant int value to make it easier to change if needed in the future
const int NUMBER_OF_CANDIDATES = 5;
int main ()
{
string candidates[NUMBER_OF_CANDIDATES];
int votes[NUMBER_OF_CANDIDATES];
cout << "Please type the LAST name of the candidates, press the spacebar, then type the number of votes each candidate recieved Ex. McLovin 5280: " ;
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_CANDIDATES; i++) {
cin >> candidates[i] >> votes[i];
}
printResults (candidates, votes);
cout << "And the winner is: " << candidates[findWinner (votes)] << endl;
return 0;
}
// calculates the percentage of the total votes each candidate received
double calculatePercentage (int votes[], int vote) {
int sumOfVotes = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_CANDIDATES; i++) {
sumOfVotes += votes[i];
}
double percentage = static_cast<double>(vote) / sumOfVotes;
return percentage * 100;
}
void printResults (string candidates[], int votes[]) {
cout << "Name:" << setw (15) << "Votes:" << setw (15) << "Percentage:" << endl;
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_CANDIDATES; i++) {
cout << candidates[i] << setw (15) << votes[i] << setw (15);
int percentage = calculatePercentage (votes, votes[i]);
cout << percentage << "%" << endl;
}
}
int findWinner (int votes[]) {
int winner = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_CANDIDATES; i++) {
if (votes[i] > winner)
winner = i;
}
return winner;
}
Given all the events and the voter demographics by 1936, what party and candidate would win the US election if Kaiserreich happened IRL?
