@Ricardolindo FWIW, in regards to a surviving James Garfield in 1884, I suspect that Garfield might lose the popular vote while still winning reelection. Blaine almost won the 1884 election but him winning the popular vote would have required a bit more effort than him winning the election. He only needed to flip less than 600 votes in New York in order to win the election itself. And Garfield only won the popular vote in 1880 by something like 2,000 votes, according to one estimate.
Alternate History Ideas and Discussion
- Thread starter AndrewJTalon
- Start date
Let's try predicting the 1884 popular vote in a Garfield Lives TL using these 13 Keys:
If six or more keys are false, then the incumbent party is projected to lose the popular vote:
fivethirtyeight.com
Midterm gains: False
No primary contest: True
Incumbent seeking re-election: True. Please remember that Garfield lives in this TL.
No third party: False. Prohibition.
Strong short-term economy: False.
Strong long-term economy: Possibly false. Not sure.
Major policy changes: True. Civil service reform.
No social unrest: True.
No scandal: True.
No foreign/military failure: False. An unsuccessful attempt to negotiate an end to the War of the Pacific.
Major foreign/military success: False.
Charismatic incumbent: True.
Uncharismatic challenger: False.
I see six true keys. Maybe seven if strong long-term economy is true instead of false. But either way, this would mean that a surviving James Garfield should lose the 1884 popular vote. But he should still win the 1884 election thanks to the Electoral College.
If six or more keys are false, then the incumbent party is projected to lose the popular vote:
‘Keys to the White House’ Historian Responds
Allan J. Lichtman, the presidential historian at American University whose “Keys to the White House” system we posted a critique of here last week, has kindly p…
fivethirtyeight.com
Midterm gains: False
No primary contest: True
Incumbent seeking re-election: True. Please remember that Garfield lives in this TL.
No third party: False. Prohibition.
Strong short-term economy: False.
Strong long-term economy: Possibly false. Not sure.
Major policy changes: True. Civil service reform.
No social unrest: True.
No scandal: True.
No foreign/military failure: False. An unsuccessful attempt to negotiate an end to the War of the Pacific.
Major foreign/military success: False.
Charismatic incumbent: True.
Uncharismatic challenger: False.
I see six true keys. Maybe seven if strong long-term economy is true instead of false. But either way, this would mean that a surviving James Garfield should lose the 1884 popular vote. But he should still win the 1884 election thanks to the Electoral College.
@stevep @Circle of Willis @History Learner @raharris1973 @Zyobot @Chiron If there's no WWI and Austria-Hungary permanently survives, just how likely would Austria-Hungary be to see a lot of immigration from southeastern Europe, especially but not only the Balkans?
It might depend on events, as an economically successful empire could provide social and economic opportunities that prompt less to emigrate compared to pre-war OTL. A lot were going across the Atlantic and IIRC Austria did complain that Canada was using generous terms to attract far too many migrants from the empire to it. Coupled with the numbers going directly to the US - as many migrants to Canada later moved south - and possibly elsewhere unless and until Austria gets a healthy economic and opportunities for many, especially in the Slavic nations they will look to opportunities outside the empire.
Was there large-scale migration from A-H to Britain as well?
I read,that in late 19th century in some military unit they teach english,so soldiers later could have better future in USA or Canada.Forget source,as usual.
I don't think so. By the late 19thC we were pretty much full up, given the technology of the time. With trans-ocean shipping becoming so much cheaper and more practical it was more practical to have migrants going all the way to N America or further where there was plenty of land.
Do remember seeing a programme about this and British shipping companies had a kind of packet system where a migrate from northern Europe - and some of those people might have come from the Hapsburg empire possibly? - could buy a ticket which gave them a steamship to Britain, rail trip to the west coast, probably mainly Liverpool or Glasgow I would expect and then another ship passage to N America, along with food and accommodation during all stages including over-night stays in Britain.
Thanks. I was just asking because a sizable number of Eastern European Jews did, in fact, permanently settle in Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For instance, Whitechapel, the place of most of the Jack the Ripper murders in 1888, already had a sizable Jewish population back then, largely Eastern European immigrants and their descendants, if I recall correctly.
Yes there was a significant Jewish population and possibly many later arrivals choose Britain because there was already a community there. Possibly even family in some cases. That tends to happen with migrants as they have some sort of community to support them and commonality of values so the place feels less alien.
A lot would depend on the circumstances. How economically developed or not it is, how militarily developed, how politically stable, what allies it had and other such details. Assuming something like OTL, with an attack on an independent Ukraine it would also depend on the condition of that Ukraine - i.e. is it significantly more heavily populated as well and also Russia's relations with non-western powers.
If all other things are roughly as OTL, with a decrepit autocratic state with a dysfunctional military possibly not much different although Russia could be distinctly short of food in the medium term in this scenario. If Russia had developed the sort of population size that some were predicting ~1900 by now and had a good infrastructure and technological base as well as a large military then you could see this Russia not only in a stronger position but also in a position to attack other powers. Which could change the entire dynamics.
TheRomanSlayer
Kayabangan, Dugo, at Dangal
Solving the issue of chronic alcoholism on part of Russian males, combined with a Soviet Civil War that results in a similar expulsion of the Russian population from the other former Soviet republics a la Operation Storm might be possible.
Another potential PoD would be around 1945, with an earlier death of Stalin and an earlier outbreak of WWIII through Operation Unthinkable that results in an Allied victory over the USSR could result in the independence of all 15 Soviet republics, and have the earlier post-Soviet Russia face internal instability before it reforms, with one crucial difference: the Crimea was still a part of the Russian SFSR, and it was only in OTL 1954 that Crimea was transferred to Ukraine, which won’t happen here.
Possibly although the last doesn't avoid WWI, the civil war, Lenin and Stalin's slaughters and then WWII which are probably the primary reasons for a drastic decline in population expectations for the nation. - Not sure on what date your assuming for a Soviet civil war but probably not much earlier I suspect.
Definitely removing the chronic alcoholism and other social and medical issues would definitely help certain but I was thinking you were talking about say 100-150M more Russians and I doubt that's likely with a post-45 POD.
Yeah, I actually was talking about an extra 100-150 million Russians here. So, at least 250 million Russians as opposed to just 150 million Russians.
By the way, if Russia (and Ukraine, Belarus, et cetera) avoid the extreme demographic devastation that they suffered during the 20th century in real life, do you think that there would be a giant Russian (and Ukrainian, Belarusian, et cetera) diaspora worldwide right now similar to both the Chinese and Indian diasporas? :
On the last point it would probably depend on the relative economic and political positions of Russia and neighbouring states. If they have a decent life in an economically successful Russia and aren't been persecuted by their government I suspect many wouldn't be that eager to leave. Also such a Russia is likely to be a super-power so is probably going to have tensions with other great powers such as the US and say a more successful China or whoever/whatever is the dominant power in Europe in which case they could find themselves unpopular there. In such a scenario it might be minority groups that are going to provide diaspora from Russia.
If things are more like OTL and there are better off locations willing to take them then you could see a fair number of expats, although this still could be relatively small in proportion to the larger overall Russian population.
TBH, I was also thinking of Russians moving to other countries to help them develop, et cetera. Similar to Chinese moving to Sub-Saharan Africa right now.
Ah OK. Didn't realise this. Could well see that either for moral/ideological reasons or to gain political/economic influence.
Yeah, the idea would be for Russia to send some of its own smart people to help the Third World develop and thus to build up greater goodwill for Russia in those countries. If necessary, the Russians/Ukrainians/Belarusians, or at least some of them, could permanently stay in the Third World assuming that they will be well-treated and live comfortably there. Many Chinese are permanently willing to live in non-Chinese-majority Southeast Asia as opposed to moving to either China, Taiwan, or Singapore, after all.
@History Learner 'AHC: Have an armed independence movement break out in mid-19th century California similar to scale and scope to that in Texas in the 1830s--or, for that matter, to that in the Donbass in the 2010s'
@sillygoose Is there any realistic way that a surviving Ottoman Empire can become a giant Muslim immigration magnet? Also, what attitudes would a surviving Ottoman Empire have towards things such as Muhammad cartoons?