AHC: Have a President switch terms between terms.

[JimmyCarter1980]

Doesn't have to be someone who was elected in say 1960, as a Democrat, lost re-election in 1964, and then re-entered politics as Republican in 1968 and won. It can be also simply a President changing political party affiliation, between two consecutive terms.

 

[Wendell]

TR tried this.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Post-WWII, it would probably be related to the Southern Democrats joining the Republicans so maybe Strom Thurmond wins as a Democrat, doesn't get re-elected, then comes back as a Republican, maybe because the GOP doesn't have any other strong candidates?

John Tyler and Martin van Buren would be good candidates pre-1900.

 

[Wendell]

Though it's current politics, this is totally something in Donald Trump's wheelhouse. Let's say he runs in 2004 as a Democrat, and wins the general election but is then defeated for reelection by McCain, whose health deteriorates faster than OTL seeing his TTL running mate, anti-Trump Democrat Joe Liberman elevated. Then, Trump switches parties, secures the GOP nomination, and wins a second term in 2016.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Post-WWII, it would probably be related to the Southern Democrats joining the Republicans so maybe Strom Thurmond wins as a Democrat, doesn't get re-elected, then comes back as a Republican, maybe because the GOP doesn't have any other strong candidates?

John Tyler and Martin van Buren would be good candidates pre-1900.

I don't think it would be to the South going to Republicans prior to the Republicans playing directly to them. The Southern Democratic politicians were kind of wobbly on what they believed other than Segregation. A couple basic things lead the South to the Republicans: One, the increase in White Collar jobs after WW2 in the South. Two, Segregation and Racial Issues. Three, the Northern Democrats doing things they didn't like and the Republicans playing to them with Goldwater, Nixon, etc. Possibly Four is Pax Americana realignments based on relatively prosperous and/or "return to normalcy" eras with Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan, and even Warren G. Harding and the 1920s.

Alternatively, the Southern Democrats could have kept in the main party in an era of continued Big Tent parties. Or they could have kept the third party Dixiecrats thing going.

More specific to the scenario, if a hardline Dixiecrat won the nomination let alone the presidency, I think you're more likely to end up with them taking over the entire party. Not because of a top down thing but because there would have been bottom up changes that would have happened to allow that possibility. Top down just solidifies changes that were already part of the entity into the status quo. From there, it's the Northern Democrats bolting to the Republicans in a realignment.

 

[Onslow123]

More specific to the scenario, if a hardline Dixiecrat won the nomination let alone the presidency, I think you're more likely to end up with them taking over the entire party. Not because of a top down thing but because there would have been bottom up changes that would have happened to allow that possibility. From there, it's the Northern Democrats bolting to the Republicans in a realignment.

In the case of the President-elect, yes, but in the case of the VP, it is possible that Dixiecrat was a last-ditch lure to draw southern votes to the Democratic Party. And if the president is replaced by a VP for some reason, this Dixiecrat won't stand a chance in the new elections, but maybe after a while as a Republican.

 

[JimmyCarter1980]

In the case of the President-elect, yes, but in the case of the VP, it is possible that Dixiecrat was a last-ditch lure to draw southern votes to the Democratic Party. And if the president is replaced by a VP for some reason, this Dixiecrat won't stand a chance in the new elections, but maybe after a while as a Republican.

a sort of modern day andrew johnson