WI: 2020 Pacific US + British Columbia ISOTed to 1968

[HaydenS222]

The Southern Democrats are in an interesting position. If the West Coast is fully enfranchised, they're powerless to prevent liberals from taking over the Democratic Party. There's a genuine possibility of them forming their own regional third party, sort of like a Bloc Quebecois for the American South. They have the ability to elect significant numbers of candidates from a large region of the country (even with the Voting Rights Act, African-American exodus to the West Coast will shore up their position).

Click to shrink...

If they do that I think they'll just end up splitting the vote. Whether a Dixiecrat, Democrat, or Republican comes out on top will vary by district. In the end the Dixiecrats will just fold into the Republicans like they did OTL.

 

[Anchises]

The resulting chaos is likely to lead to Covid-19 flares in the uptime areas, which means eventual spread to downtimers. 1968 is still a global economy, but with much less advanced medical technology. Heck, just having two separate flu reservoirs would likely have made it a bad year, epidemiologically speaking.

Click to shrink...

In 1968 the recently decolonized countries and most of Asia aren't nearly as prepared for a pandemic as they are in 2020.

Very nasty potential for a massive death toll if COVID-19 spreads globally.

-----------------------
Instead of endlessly debating how progressive California is or isn't we should talk about the economic implications and global political developments.

California isn't going to be an export nation on crack at first. Their global supply chains have collapsed and 1968 isn't advanced enough to catch up super quick. So we probably will see a massive national effort in the US to lift the tech-level up. Probably spearheaded by your friendly Silicon Valley neoreactionaries...

Global technological developments are accelerated substantially and there might even be a chance that humanity takes measures to prevent the global warming at a point where it was fairly easy.

The communist block is going to freak the fuck out about US future tech and future knowledge. Mao is going to kill every reformist and what the Soviets will do is really hard to predict.

 

[HaydenS222]

The communist block is going to freak the fuck out about US future tech and future knowledge. Mao is going to kill every reformist and what the Soviets will do is really hard to predict.

Click to shrink...

Perhaps the Soviets do not remove the Kosygin reforms, or even go further with them. That could do a lot to help their economy. Though backlash against it was in part driven by backlash against Prague Spring. That's another thing, do the Soviets decide to take a softer hand against Czechoslovakia? Their invasion had pretty bad effects on the global socialist movement, but I don't know how much they want to allow reform-ism. Maybe they get some minor concessions like increased commitment to the Warsaw Pact and a commitment to roll back reforms if after something like 5-10 years it hasn't worked.

 

[AYC]

Perhaps the Soviets do not remove the Kosygin reforms, or even go further with them. That could do a lot to help their economy. Though backlash against it was in part driven by backlash against Prague Spring. That's another thing, do the Soviets decide to take a softer hand against Czechoslovakia? Their invasion had pretty bad effects on the global socialist movement, but I don't know how much they want to allow reform-ism. Maybe they get some minor concessions like increased commitment to the Warsaw Pact and a commitment to roll back reforms if after something like 5-10 years it hasn't worked.

Click to shrink...

The Soviets are really between a rock and a hard place here. The entrenched powers-that-be of the Eastern Bloc (and the Soviet Union itself) were never enthusiastic about reform IOTL, hence the Brezhnev stagnation. A lot of them liked the system just the way it was, thank you.

...but the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. Not only did they lose it, but their country dissolved into 15 pieces and Mother Russia was sucked dry by capitalist oligarchs in the 90s. That CANNOT be ignored.

 

[Captain Carrot]

If they do that I think they'll just end up splitting the vote. Whether a Dixiecrat, Democrat, or Republican comes out on top will vary by district. In the end the Dixiecrats will just fold into the Republicans like they did OTL.

Click to shrink...

I think there's a good chance that several states in the Deep South have divergent factions - States' Rights Democrats were already a thing a couple of times, when the state party had a particularly jarring mismatch between the white racist residents and the Kennedy/Johnson administrations. So you will have some races between the Freedom Democrat and the Democrat, or Democrat and Dixiecrat. One of them might even split the vote and result in another Republican being elected. The thing to bear in mind here, though, is that even though Nixon did pretty well in the Confederacy in 1968, that didn't translate into significant downballot success. Twenty-six Republicans were elected in former Confederate states in 1968 to ninety-two Democrats, and only one of them replaced a Democrat.

Nixon and Johnson are both toast. Johnson losing his main rival in RFK doesn't change the fact that the party didn't want him, which he recognized on March 31, two months before the West Coast returns. With the Lost History of him illegally wiretapping Nixon and dying in 1973, there's no way he can come back. Nixon, for his part, was being wiretapped for a good reason, as it will also get out that he told the North Vietnamese to delay peace until he got elected, so he could give them better terms. That combined with Watergate make Rockefeller and Reagan much stronger candidates by comparison, and the latter will have a significant advantage of a two-term presidency in LH.

California/Washington/Oregon have more to gain by staying in. For one thing, their estimated population in July 2019 was 51 million; in the 1970 Census, that was 25.4 million, versus 203 nationally. 51 to 178 isn't a great ratio, but it significantly strengthens the internal forces pushing for civil and economic rights. With the leverage of technology, they'll get far more concessions than they have to give - no federal government is going to make them discriminate against their residents. Traveling outside the region is still going to be iffy for people who aren't straight white men, though.

 

[ATP]

It wouldn't matter. The stuff about Trump will ruin his reputation. He won't be able to even get started in business, even with his daddy's money. He's going to be a total pariah- except maybe in the Deep South. He might end up being an Alabama real estate magnate or something.

Also, I wonder if the Black Panthers will be a lot more supported and well-funded ITTL?

Click to shrink...

Why ? He is not some dictator,he got elected. Being pariah,becouse he made money and become president ? since when american treated succesfull people as pariah ?

More important is what new american would do to prevent communist genocide. Soviets arleady stopped that,but Mao is murdering his own people.
And soviet-backed regimes in Africa and Asia would do that,too.
If anything else,they could at least kill Pol-pot and his band of genociders.

 

[Nyvis]

Why ? He is not some dictator,he got elected. Being pariah,becouse he made money and become president ? since when american treated succesfull people as pariah ?

More important is what new american would do to prevent communist genocide. Soviets arleady stopped that,but Mao is murdering his own people.
And soviet-backed regimes in Africa and Asia would do that,too.
If anything else,they could at least kill Pol-pot and his band of genociders.

Click to shrink...

Soviet backed regimes in Africa and Asia weren't worse than the colonizers they usually replaced.

Potentially this could change the US position on Cambodia and avoid most of the issues with Pol Pot. I'm not holding my breath though.

Meanwhile, the US is still at war with Vietnam, and they now know their current strategy is a losing one, so they'll probably escalate even further because it's the US. If you're very lucky you get the peace agreement Nixon sabotaged OTL, but again, not holding my breath because the US will know the south will fall if they leave.

 

[HaydenS222]

Meanwhile, the US is still at war with Vietnam, and they now know their current strategy is a losing one, so they'll probably escalate even further because it's the US. If you're very lucky you get the peace agreement Nixon sabotaged OTL, but again, not holding my breath because the US will know the south will fall if they leave.

Click to shrink...

I suspect they pull out. Vietnam was never super popular and now it is going to appear to be a lost cause. I feel like the cold war as a whole is going to be less pressing because people "know" that the Soviet Union will collapse anyway, so why bother making such an effect in a minor country. Never mind that Vietnam and the US end up building a pretty good relationship anyway a few decades after the fall of the south.

 

[ATP]

Soviet backed regimes in Africa and Asia weren't worse than the colonizers they usually replaced.

Potentially this could change the US position on Cambodia and avoid most of the issues with Pol Pot. I'm not holding my breath though.

Meanwhile, the US is still at war with Vietnam, and they now know their current strategy is a losing one, so they'll probably escalate even further because it's the US. If you're very lucky you get the peace agreement Nixon sabotaged OTL, but again, not holding my breath because the US will know the south will fall if they leave.

Click to shrink...

In Ethiopia soviets genocided more then million people. But in other cases you are right.

PolPot was Mao puppet,so he would try to genocide his people till somebody stopped him.In OTL stopped him soviet backet Vietnam.They really was good guys there.

Vietnam...if USA was smart,they would send only air forces and green berets there.And it would be enough to stop Nort Vietnam from invading.
But you are right,they rather would do something stupid.
Sometimes USA look like dude who long think before choosing most stupid course of action.

 

[Nyvis]

In Ethiopia soviets genocided more then million people. But in other cases you are right.

PolPot was Mao puppet,so he would try to genocide his people till somebody stopped him.In OTL stopped him soviet backet Vietnam.They really was good guys there.

Vietnam...if USA was smart,they would send only air forces and green berets there.And it would be enough to stop Nort Vietnam from invading.
But you are right,they rather would do something stupid.
Sometimes USA look like dude who long think before choosing most stupid course of action.

Click to shrink...

Didn't think about Ethiopia. Yeah that's a dark one.

The Khmer Rouge were supported by the PRC, yeah. But they arose in the vacuum left by the 1970 coup the US supported. And probably weren't as insane before fighting through 5 years of bombing campaigns. In the 80s, the US backed Pol Pot in exile to annoy the Vietnamese, going full circle.

I doubt the US can hold South Vietnam without boots on the ground, it wasn't a very functional government. Maybe with modern weapons?

I suspect they pull out. Vietnam was never super popular and now it is going to appear to be a lost cause. I feel like the cold war as a whole is going to be less pressing because people "know" that the Soviet Union will collapse anyway, so why bother making such an effect in a minor country. Never mind that Vietnam and the US end up building a pretty good relationship anyway a few decades after the fall of the south.

Click to shrink...

If the west coast join in full, yeah that could happen.

Pretty sure the US and Vietnam only built a positive relationship after the fall of the USSR?

It would be funny if the US becomes complacent because they believe the USSR's end is inevitable, when it was in fact quite circumstantial.

 

[HaydenS222]

Pretty sure the US and Vietnam only built a positive relationship after the fall of the USSR?

It would be funny if the US becomes complacent because they believe the USSR's end is inevitable, when it was in fact quite circumstantial.

Click to shrink...

They did, after they normalized relations in the 90s. However, the Vietnamese always disliked the Chinese more than the Americans. America is no doubt going to be more concerned about China given OTL knowledge and I see no reason they wouldn't want to prop up basically anyone against them to stop them from getting as powerful as they did.

I do think it is very likely that the US basically ignores the Cold War for a while. They have to deal with integrating the uptime states, not a small task. There are a number of things from infrastructure or tech to culture to politics that have to be dealt with. That's going to make them more internally focused anyway, but combine that with the knowledge that they're "supposed" to win anyway and the Cold War drops way down in priority. The result is likely an earlier and longer Détente. It was beginning around this time anyway. The Soviets too are going to be more internally focused as they deal with the fact that they might collapse and debate how to deal with it. I suspect the Cold War doesn't pick back up for a decade or more, until everyone has sorted out their shit and realize history is already going down a different path.

 

[Nyvis]

They did, after they normalized relations in the 90s. However, the Vietnamese always disliked the Chinese more than the Americans. America is no doubt going to be more concerned about China given OTL knowledge and I see no reason they wouldn't want to prop up basically anyone against them to stop them from getting as powerful as they did.

Click to shrink...

Would they? I think "China becomes capitalist and open their markets to our companies" will register before "China becomes stronger than us" does. Hubris will lead them to think they can avoid the latter and benefit from the former.

I do think it is very likely that the US basically ignores the Cold War for a while. They have to deal with integrating the uptime states, not a small task. There are a number of things from infrastructure or tech to culture to politics that have to be dealt with. That's going to make them more internally focused anyway, but combine that with the knowledge that they're "supposed" to win anyway and the Cold War drops way down in priority. The result is likely an earlier and longer Détente. It was beginning around this time anyway. The Soviets too are going to be more internally focused as they deal with the fact that they might collapse and debate how to deal with it. I suspect the Cold War doesn't pick back up for a decade or more, until everyone has sorted out their shit and realize history is already going down a different path.

Click to shrink...

Hey the soviets get to avoid Afghanistan! And detente is great for them too. We may see a more successful reformer earlier because detente give them a lot more room to maneuver.

 

[HaydenS222]

Would they? I think "China becomes capitalist and open their markets to our companies" will register before "China becomes stronger than us" does. Hubris will lead them to think they can avoid the latter and benefit from the former.

Click to shrink...

Maybe, but regardless I doubt the Vietnam war continues much longer.

Hey the soviets get to avoid Afghanistan! And detente is great for them too. We may see a more successful reformer earlier because detente give them a lot more room to maneuver.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, how the Soviets go really depends on who comes out on top of the shitshow of trying to avoid their OTL fate. I might be a reformer, or maybe hardliners come to power by blaming Gorbachev in-particular and reformers in-general for the fall. Maybe they allow some for of Prague Spring to continue, or maybe they double down. It really depends on who comes out on top and their specific plan.

 

[AYC]

After doing some digging, I found a document of Hubert Humphrey's campaign that says he was at the Democratic State Convention in Detroit on June 1. AS IOTL, Hubert Humphrey will likely be the Democratic nominee.

Others have pointed out LBJ isn't in a strong position and RFK and McCarthy are both gone, so he's basically it.

 

[Madam Carstein]

California's primary wasn't until June 4, the ISOT is on June 1.

Click to shrink...

Though in a case like this, arrangements would probably be made to host another primary or maybe even delay the 1968 election. I mean, it's hard to predict what way things would go, but this is an extraordinary case and delaying the election seems like a logical choice in such a circumstance.

I mean, everything else aside, it would be obviously true that the uptime Pacific states are obviously different (and would correspondingly, vote differently) than their downtime counterparts.

Perhaps the Soviets do not remove the Kosygin reforms, or even go further with them. That could do a lot to help their economy. Though backlash against it was in part driven by backlash against Prague Spring. That's another thing, do the Soviets decide to take a softer hand against Czechoslovakia? Their invasion had pretty bad effects on the global socialist movement, but I don't know how much they want to allow reform-ism. Maybe they get some minor concessions like increased commitment to the Warsaw Pact and a commitment to roll back reforms if after something like 5-10 years it hasn't worked.

Click to shrink...

The trends in Soviet politics around this time were generally towards Detente with the US. The arrival of a massively-superior uptime West Coast would only weaken the position of hardliners at least in the matter of foreign policy circles. So the Soviets would, as they did around this time IOTL, push for disarmament and a general ease of Cold War tensions which in turn gives the Soviet Union badly-needed breathing room to deal with its domestic economy.

I don't really imagine that the population of the uptime US will be particularly supportive of the Vietnam War or the wider Cold War. Quite the contrary, Senators and Representatives from uptime California are probably going to be notably to the left of popular opinion on these issues.

Also, it's worth noting that the Vietnam War was approaching a nadir of popular support in 1968. The Tet Offensive really changed how the majority of the US public viewed the Vietnam War.

In general, US politics is in for a tailspin as California is a stronghold of the GOP at this point and now it's going to flip from being safely Republican to safely Democratic and generally supercharge the left wing of the Democratic Party.

 

[AYC]

Though in a case like this, arrangements would probably be made to host another primary or maybe even delay the 1968 election. I mean, it's hard to predict what way things would go, but this is an extraordinary case and delaying the election seems like a logical choice in such a circumstance.

Click to shrink...

That would require a constitutional amendment, and I'm not sure if a bipartisan consensus exists for one in 1968. The GOP definitely won't want to give LBJ another year.

 

[Nyvis]

After doing some digging, I found a document of Hubert Humphrey's campaign that says he was at the Democratic State Convention in Detroit on June 1. AS IOTL, Hubert Humphrey will likely be the Democratic nominee.

Others have pointed out LBJ isn't in a strong position and RFK and McCarthy are both gone, so he's basically it.

Click to shrink...

I think the west coast would find Humphrey acceptable, right?

 

[HaydenS222]

After doing some digging, I found a document of Hubert Humphrey's campaign that says he was at the Democratic State Convention in Detroit on June 1. AS IOTL, Hubert Humphrey will likely be the Democratic nominee.

Others have pointed out LBJ isn't in a strong position and RFK and McCarthy are both gone, so he's basically it.

Click to shrink...

It is most likely that Humphrey gets the nomination, there's no one else really in a position for it. An uptime running mate is almost certain. I would guess Inslee as he was already a presidential candidate, is a white male (unlike Harris), is broadly popular on the west coast, and his policy positions (largely focused on Climate Change) are not unacceptable to downtime America. He is further to the left on social issues (mostly women's and LGBT issues rather than race) though that mostly helps them with minorities and the youth.

I think the west coast would find Humphrey acceptable, right?

Click to shrink...

Humphrey had an acceptable platform by modern dem standards, though it is nothing exceptional in either way. Here is his platform.

 

[AYC]

It is most likely that Humphrey gets the nomination, there's no one else really in a position for it. An uptime running mate is almost certain. I would guess Inslee as he was already a presidential candidate, is a white male (unlike Harris), is broadly popular on the west coast, and his policy positions (largely focused on Climate Change) are not unacceptable to downtime America. He is further to the left on social issues (mostly women's and LGBT issues rather than race) though that mostly helps them with minorities and the youth.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. Barring something unexpected HHH will pick an uptime running mate, but that running mate will be a white male. 1968 America won't accept anything further. I agree Inslee is a good choice, or maybe even Gavin Newsom given his very transparent POTUS ambitions.

 

[Nyvis]

Agreed. Barring something unexpected HHH will pick an uptime running mate, but that running mate will be a white male. 1968 America won't accepted anything further. I agree Inslee is a good choice, or maybe even Gavin Newsom given his very transparent POTUS ambitions.

Click to shrink...

I think Newsom is smart enough to know that abandoning California when it's in the midst of getting used to the ISOT wouldn't be received well. Between cementing his legacy as the man who oversaw it's adaptation to the new circumstances and trying to run the downtime US, I think he'll pick the former.

 

[HaydenS222]

Other important things that happen are an immediate phase out of leaded gasoline, CFCs other similar chemicals and just a greater focus of the environment. Especially if Inslee gets the VP. No Three Mile Island or Chernobyl accidents either so maybe more nuclear power. The US might see a greater focus away from cars, though I suspect its too late to really make America as a whole super public transport friendly. All that could have a massive effect on climate change as a whole. The world has a multi-decade head start and better knowledge and technology to stop it.

 

[Usili 2.0]

As an aside in terms of the PoD, but to focus on two bits that I feel are usually not as talked about in terms of ISOTs, but there's also the implications in terms of the uh, public health impacts besides COVID-19. Like for example for the uptimers, they have to contend with smallpox again and this would uh, pose a significant public health issue especially at least in the US of nearly 52 million Americans who haven't been vaccinated for Smallpox (that would be about a quarter of the US population pre-ISOT). Then there's also the whole variety of flu strains and how that would cause impacts both to uptimers and downtimers.

And there is also with any kind of limited ISOT like this, in my view, be the personal disaster from it. How many millions of people will have suddenly lost friends, family, or loved ones who have been displaced from the ISOT? For those in CA, OR, WA, and BC from 2020 having lost them outside the ISOT, while for the rest of the world in 1968, those who were present in CA, OR, WA, and BC now gone.

 

[AYC]

And there is also with any kind of limited ISOT like this, in my view, be the personal disaster from it. How many millions of people will have suddenly lost friends, family, or loved ones who have been displaced from the ISOT? For those in CA, OR, WA, and BC from 2020 having lost them outside the ISOT, while for the rest of the world in 1968, those who were present in CA, OR, WA, and BC now gone.

Click to shrink...

While this is true and a reality for any limited ISOT, it is also a very bizarre situation given the fact that it's "only" half a century.

To use me as an example: after this ISOT, I would have grandparents who are about 5-6 years older than me, and my mom, uncle, and aunt are all toddlers children. ITTL mom and I would probably be wrestling with whether or not to travel to Illinois to meet our downtime relatives (and in her case, self).

 

[Antix_Shadows]

Weirdly in this scenario, my mom would be two and my father would have been taken out by new California as he was 12 in downtime California at the time.

 

[firefossil]

Going by the 1970s Census, the effect on electoral votes and additional representatives from historic to ISOT would be:

CA=45->77 (+32)
WA=9->16 (+7) {this would punt them from 22nd largest state to 8th largest}
OR=6->10 (+4) {this would punt them from 31st largest state to 17th largest}

Also for reference, while Ford won the entire west coast and thus would take the greater net loss assuming they voted 3rd party instead, Carter states lose about 23 electoral votes, which would put him down to 273, putting the results very close to being thrown to the House. But keep in mind that such a scenario does so by delegations with each state getting one vote, so the west coast gains little benefit from such a dynamic. Having 97 representatives would easily give them the balance of power in the House proper though.