OrangeP47

Faction Leaders Traditionalist Democrats are fine with Leader James H Berry, though he's been downgraded to Whip. He's more conservative than traditionalist, though, so they will rebrand as the Bourbon Democrats. Justice Democrats still quite like famed blowhard Admiral George Dewey, and keep the name. There's no one quite like Thomas J Walsh as well, and the Moderate Democrats keep him and the name. (While overall this is a good, long lasting combo, I just want to point out he's hanging on here by having 'theocrat' do a lot of the heavy lifting for a mod-left faction which is a bit strange, one could argue he's the true heir to WJB) Vice President Lucius F C Garvin is also quite the fit for the Tariff Democrats, and some think he's still got places to go. They keep the name as well.

Mr Beat did a good video on the line just a few weeks ago.

PA Treasurer is probably a little high profile for this to apply, but living in a house district that's like R+30 and voting in the dem primary often watching the returns is just an exercise in seeing if the primary voters even did their research this year into who is a legitimate politician and who just wants attention.

Happens surprisingly often with people in this sub-forum.

I'd love to play again, not GM though.

Since we've gone so far off topic, ran a quick sim in President Elect with historical values for 1988 with only change being myself as the Dem. The result was oddly similar to our 2024 here:

Senate Chairs (rest in progress) Domestic: Pablo Zapato (Matt, DU, 4) Econ: Furnifold Simmons (Trad Dem, NC, 5) Foreign: Charles L Scott (Trad Dem, LC, 5) Justice: Joseph L Rawlins (Mod Dem, PPT!, UT, 4)

Honestly I haven't played it in awhile, but the game never really knew what to make of me considering I often hold seeming contradictory positions.

Honestly, after remembering this right now, it's like we really have reinvented the wheel. I mean, not really, seeing as it only had 1980, 84, and 88, but damn, I swear President Elect is better than any of Anthony's games.

The population ratios, I'd imagine, but as I'm busy conquering Tamriel I'm not gonna run the numbers, but I trust them.

In this way it reminds me a lot of this game, which I had on a 1000 dos game CD back in the day. It was a really good game and I played it endlessly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Elect:_1988_Edition I'm pretty sure there's some website you can play it in your browser.

I guess to elaborate, if you wanted to talk about from an actual mechanical standpoint, it's the fact that a lot of the time when you get a +1 you also get a -1 at the exact same time. Boosting a demo pisses off the rival demo. I like that, it makes sense, but it means this game is a zero-sum game. You can't sweep the board. You have a set number of pieces. The challenge is not to get more pieces, but find what combo of pieces will get you more EV.

Honestly I think it's fine. I think it's more a representation of today's polarization and the fact that *you can't be everywhere at once*. I don't meant physically, ironically, because with the US lengthy campaign season you certainly can campaign everywhere, but I mean metaphorically if you're going to focus your message, you're also going to lose some people.

MN somehow mattered.

The fact that Eric is now winning some states makes the loss in MN even more embarrasing.

He almost seems good, but seems a bit too wishy-washy, for lack of a better term. He does it in a way that isn't stance-evolution per se, but just, I don't know, seems to be more about his own power, which is rubbing me the wrong way.

Trad Dem: Full Justice Dem: No moves Mod Dems: James O'Gorman -> Robert F Wagner (+1 Jud, Media) Tariff Dems: James B Weaver -> Edwin T Meredith (+1 Leg, Business, LW Activist, Debater) All got their +1 election bonus, off course

Clearly it was the media's doing. The media represented by the dice.

I do want to say while in general I'm favorable of him, the fact that he didn't take over the Presidency from Wilson almost ruins it for me. That said, I understand his reasoning, and his reasoning was probably more attractive without the benefit of hindsight. Sometimes I think politicians should know better, but I think this is one of the rare cases where perhaps it can be said that caution was warranted, even if I think it was the wrong decision.

I'd say you're more or less aligned with Electoral Vote "at this moment", allowing for the fact that some of their states haven't updated yet and the fact that they do ties if they project 50/50. Even someone as pedantic as me though couldn't really find fault if someone wanted to call them the same picture and not have an analysis, so I think this is a good weekly forecast.

Modern politics aside, while I understand the argument for creating Israel in the first place, it also seems, before the fact, kind of like a crazy idea that nobody knew would work or not. It's kind of a "I understand all the words you said as what they mean in the dictionary, but strung together in that order I'm confused" sort of situation if someone was proposing it to me.

Sorry, internet was down yesterday. Just wanted to give a shoutout that he became pres in our 1840 playtest.

Sorry for the slow reply, my internet has been down for 48 hours (maybe more like 36). I tend to see things more stemming from John Locke, believe it or not, if we can take a step back for a moment. There's the state of nature, then there are governments/states, which I would ascribe as basically any agreement between people not to kill each other. One could argue 'traditional' communism uses the power of the state, violence, to enforce communal ownership of a great many things, but I would argue other states simply use that same state power, violence, to enforce the will of one individual over another. Both are equally unjust. Many property rights have no natural basis, other than the individual being 'first', or inheriting from those that were 'first', or were acquired because they already had more. That's unjust as well. Keep in mind I'm referring to things in the Georgian sense here, natural goods, land, resources like iron, etc. I think there's a fairly strong argument that 'no one man can own' any of that. Enforcement of property rights of those items/goods etc is just as tyrannical as the opposite approaches as seen in the Soviet Union, et al, in my view. Now, when it comes to things like the clothes on your back, your actual right to a dwelling, an actual manmade object (the resource improved, if you were), sure, you can own that. Somebody took something, made it better, it's no longer 'in nature'.

I was expecting this to be a good year for the Whigs, but in retrospect, the map was friendlier to the Dems. A lot of dem defenses were states they were very good in, so unlikely to lose. Maybe the house will be a different story.

Unfortunately it is too late at night to launch into a new, serious discussion. I can certainly understand being adverse to the concept with those circumstances, to put it mildly. That said, I feel as if we're limited by the nature of discourse. Though we descended into memery, I feel as if I've given a good idea of a specific niche I was getting at. I don't support authoritarian communism. I could continue on at a later date, when I don't have work in the morning.