Jump to content
270soft Forum

Scenario Idea - California Secession


terrellk

Recommended Posts

With the discussion recently about whether California is going to try to secede from the United States (probably not, but still), I was thinking that it would be neat to do a California Presidential Race for 2020 after the state seceded. Here's sort of what I have in mind for a scenario:

"After months of political wrangling, the unthinkable has happened: California has seceded from the United States, and President Donald Trump has accepted the result. Now, with the first California Presidential election kicking off, several prominent Californians are eying the executive mansion. With Interim President Barbara Boxer's announcement that she will not seek the office for her own term, the race is wide open. The pragmatic progressive California Nationalists are widely expected to win, but face a challenge from their left from the California People's Party. Meanwhile, the former Republican Party has divided into three groups. The Frémont Coalition represents the center to center-right of the political spectrum, and is hoping to build a lasting conservative/moderate alliance to counter the Nationalists' advantage. But its chances of success are threatened by the Reunification Party, which hopes to undo the results of the secession movement and bring California back to the Union, and the Jefferson Secessionist Party which seeks to form a new nation consisting only of the northern conservative areas of the California Republic. There are also rumors that a certain silicon-valley billionaire may throw his hat in the race as an independent. The stakes are high as whoever wins will certainly shape the future of the new nation."

Parties and candidates:

Jefferson Secessionist Party

Mr. Mark Baird

Reunification Party

Fmr. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

??? (Nancy Pelosi, maybe? Maybe someone more right-wing than Condi. No clue who.)

Fremont Coalition

Ms. Carly Fiorina

Fmr. U.S. Rep Kevin McCarthy

Fmr. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Mr. Peter Thiel

Fmr. U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (A self-described Blue Dog Democrat who sees more opportunity for advancement in the FC than in the crowded Nationalists.)

Fmr. Assemblyman Rocky Chavez

??? (Other candidates, not sure. Maybe Darrell Issa?)

California National Party

Fmr. Gov. Gavin Newsome

Fmr. U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris

Fmr. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

Fmr. CA Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra

Mayor Libby Schaff

Fmr. Rep. Mark Takano

California People's Party

Fmr. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich

Mr. Kal Penn

Mr. Harold Meyerson

Independent

Mr. Mark Zuckerberg

------------------------------------------------------

That's as far as I am in my notes right now. Any suggestions on more candidates or why I should cut someone out are welcome, as are ideas for issues, endorsers, and events that would affect the election. Thank you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just going to suggest that maybe the reunification party could be some kind of coalition of former Democrats and Republicans that favor the union. Either that or have some kind of pro-union sympathy on the left since I'm sure it wouldn't just be a right-wing only position. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phonexia said:

I'm just going to suggest that maybe the reunification party could be some kind of coalition of former Democrats and Republicans that favor the union. Either that or have some kind of pro-union sympathy on the left since I'm sure it wouldn't just be a right-wing only position. 

First, I had had a secession of California as an independent republic as part of my chain of alternate future scenarios I had in the planning as the "New Dawn" series (there's a couple of threads on it somewhere), though I had Nevada becoming part of it, if not right at the time of the original Californian secession, but at some point not long thereafter. So this idea is somewhat of interest to me.

 

Second, what is the "Fremont Coalition?"

 

And third, Mark Zuckerberg as a head-of-state anywhere is a scary thought to me. I don't touch Facebook at all because it seems like a pretty-package for an Orwellian engine of tyranny, and that Zuckerberg seems to be quietly and subtly setting himself up to be a Big Brother figure, as in the novel 1984 (which also happens to be his birth year).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phonexia said:

I'm just going to suggest that maybe the reunification party could be some kind of coalition of former Democrats and Republicans that favor the union. Either that or have some kind of pro-union sympathy on the left since I'm sure it wouldn't just be a right-wing only position. 

My only reasoning behind making it a right-wing or right-leaning movement was that in order for California to secede, the left would have to have been pretty unified behind the independence movement. But as I mentioned in the notes I was thinking about expanding its potential candidates to include Nancy Pelosi who seems like she would be pretty in favor of maintaining the union. The more I think about it, though, the more I'm thinking your way might work out better.

44 minutes ago, Patine said:

First, I had had a secession of California as an independent republic as part of my chain of alternate future scenarios I had in the planning as the "New Dawn" series (there's a couple of threads on it somewhere), though I had Nevada becoming part of it, if not right at the time of the original Californian secession, but at some point not long thereafter. So this idea is somewhat of interest to me.

 

Second, what is the "Fremont Coalition?"

 

And third, Mark Zuckerberg as a head-of-state anywhere is a scary thought to me. I don't touch Facebook at all because it seems like a pretty-package for an Orwellian engine of tyranny, and that Zuckerberg seems to be quietly and subtly setting himself up to be a Big Brother figure, as in the novel 1984 (which also happens to be his birth year).

To your points:

1) As I mentioned in the OP, this idea is still sort of percolating a bit so any ideas you have (that you aren't planning on using, obviously) are appreciated. Maybe we could include Nevada in a future election?

2) The Fremont Coalition would essentially be what remains of the California Republican Party (who ditched the Republican brand because of its deep unpopularity in California) plus some centrist Democrats. Essentially, if the California Nationalist Party is going to be the mainstream progressive Democrats (with the People's Party being the former Bernie Bros), then the Fremont Coalition is everyone to their right who want to maintain independence.

3) The reason I included Zuckerberg was because there was a some speculation floating around in the past couple of weeks that he maybe gearing up for a presidential campaign in 2020. He denied it, but some of his allies said that he is looking at running, just not until 2024. I figured that the shift in political landscape might accelerate those ambitions a little bit. Plus it's always fun to have a well-funded independent candidate in these scenarios, doubly so when it's a terrifying candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, terrellk said:

My only reasoning behind making it a right-wing or right-leaning movement was that in order for California to secede, the left would have to have been pretty unified behind the independence movement. But as I mentioned in the notes I was thinking about expanding its potential candidates to include Nancy Pelosi who seems like she would be pretty in favor of maintaining the union. The more I think about it, though, the more I'm thinking your way might work out better.

To your points:

1) As I mentioned in the OP, this idea is still sort of percolating a bit so any ideas you have (that you aren't planning on using, obviously) are appreciated. Maybe we could include Nevada in a future election?

2) The Fremont Coalition would essentially be what remains of the California Republican Party (who ditched the Republican brand because of its deep unpopularity in California) plus some centrist Democrats. Essentially, if the California Nationalist Party is going to be the mainstream progressive Democrats (with the People's Party being the former Bernie Bros), then the Fremont Coalition is everyone to their right who want to maintain independence.

3) The reason I included Zuckerberg was because there was a some speculation floating around in the past couple of weeks that he maybe gearing up for a presidential campaign in 2020. He denied it, but some of his allies said that he is looking at running, just not until 2024. I figured that the shift in political landscape might accelerate those ambitions a little bit. Plus it's always fun to have a well-funded independent candidate in these scenarios, doubly so when it's a terrifying candidate.

I do definitely think this has promise. My point of view on Zuckerberg is more semantic than a criticism - I'm perfectly alright with scary candidates - I did make a Russia 2012 Presidential Scenario a while back which had Zhirinovsky, who is admittedly even scarier than Putin if he's not in a position of just being his junior supporter in the Duma and was in fact actually President. I also had a 1936 US Presidential (with the Alternate History of Huey Long having survived his assassination attempt and running for President to spice it up), and that had both Earl Browder of the Communist Party of the USA and William Pelley of the Christian Party (a Nazi-Fascist admiring party of the day), and, while both polled very marginally in that, they were both also scary candidates. But I do look forward to hearing about the progress of this scenario. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@terrellk

 

And, just another note, though the party label "National Party" or "<nation name> National Party" has not been formally attached to any significantly-sized or success US political party, that label in a general, broad global usage in electoral politics is almost always attached to a hard-right-wing political party (National Party of South Africa - the all-White, mostly Afrikaaner architects and enactors of the Apartheid policy, the National German People's Party of the Weimar Republic (often just called the National in their day) - a hard-right party that wanted to restore the monarchy of the Kaiser that was deposed at the end of WW1, and ended up propping Hitler by their latter-day vote in the Reichstag, the National Party of China, or the Kuomintang - the hard-right, anti Communist party in China under Chiang Kai-shek that held authority over many parts of China and was the recognized government of the country by all but the USSR until the end of the Chinese Revolution when they fled and took authority in Taiwan and remain the principle right-wing party, and one of the two biggest there to this day, and the British National Party - a far-right-wing, anti-immigrant, Euroskeptic, socially and economically conservative in the UK to the right of the Conservative and Unionist Party there, as some good examples). The very short-lived Canadian National Party back in 1993, which had an odd mix of left-wing and right-wing policies and failed to get any traction, and the African National Congress and Indian National Congress, which are definitely left-wing, are exceptions to this phenomenon, not really the rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

@terrellk

 

And, just another note, though the party label "National Party" or "<nation name> National Party" has not been formally attached to any significantly-sized or success US political party, that label in a general, broad global usage in electoral politics is almost always attached to a hard-right-wing political party (National Party of South Africa - the all-White, mostly Afrikaaner architects and enactors of the Apartheid policy, the National German People's Party of the Weimar Republic (often just called the National in their day) - a hard-right party that wanted to restore the monarchy of the Kaiser that was deposed at the end of WW1, and ended up propping Hitler by their latter-day vote in the Reichstag, the National Party of China, or the Kuomintang - the hard-right, anti Communist party in China under Chiang Kai-shek that held authority over many parts of China and was the recognized government of the country by all but the USSR until the end of the Chinese Revolution when they fled and took authority in Taiwan and remain the principle right-wing party, and one of the two biggest there to this day, and the British National Party - a far-right-wing, anti-immigrant, Euroskeptic, socially and economically conservative in the UK to the right of the Conservative and Unionist Party there, as some good examples). The very short-lived Canadian National Party back in 1993, which had an odd mix of left-wing and right-wing policies and failed to get any traction, and the African National Congress and Indian National Congress, which are definitely left-wing, are exceptions to this phenomenon, not really the rule.

I'm actually basing it on the real-life California National Party the platform of which is surprisingly progressive, despite the name. But I was similarly struck by the same thing you were in that it's very odd that they chose to wrap themselves in the language of reactionaries the world over. Maybe I should nickname them "Californians" instead of "Nationalists?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...