AMPU Updates

[vcczar]

AMPU plans for today:

• Finish plugging in historic relocation dates for politicians. 
• Tagging which antebellum Southerners stay with the Union during the Civil War.
• Plugging in historic obscure trait removal dates.
• If I have time, tagging which politicians are members of dynasties

@MrPotatoTed @ConservativeElector2 @Hestia @Rezi @WVProgressive @Rodja @Cal and anyone else interested in updates. 

[MrPotatoTed]

18 hours ago, vcczar said:

Also need to set a way to have ratings progress historically. 

This would be awesome!  

[MrPotatoTed]

5 hours ago, vcczar said:

 

• If I have time, tagging which politicians are members of dynasties

@MrPotatoTed @ConservativeElector2 @Hestia @Rezi @WVProgressive @Rodja @Cal and anyone else interested in updates. 

This is really interesting to me.  Given that politicians can die at any time...if Prescott Bush drops dead at 25, that should wipe out the rest of the Bush descendants for example.  Previously, that wasn't a realistic thing that could be modeled...but maybe now it could be?

[vcczar]

Update: About 90% done with historic relocation dates. Definitely won't get started on the other 4 things I thought I'd finish today. 

[vcczar]

7 hours ago, vcczar said:

AMPU plans for today:

• Finish plugging in historic relocation dates for politicians. 
• Tagging which antebellum Southerners stay with the Union during the Civil War.
• Plugging in historic obscure trait removal dates.
• If I have time, tagging which politicians are members of dynasties

@MrPotatoTed @ConservativeElector2 @Hestia @Rezi @WVProgressive @Rodja @Cal and anyone else interested in updates. 

Of this, I finished the historic relocation dates. I'm also finished the historic obscure removal dates. Tomorrow, I'll do the dynasties, and if I have time, tag which Southerners stay with the Union. 

[vcczar]

I've started putting together dynasties. The game could allow an Adams dynasty to rule almost to the 21st century.  

J Adams, president from 1788-1826

JQ Adams, 1826-1848

CF Adams Sr, 1848-1886

JQ Adams II, 1886-1894

CF Adams III, 1894-1954

CF Adams IV, 1954-1999

[vcczar]

Update: 

I'm about 1/8th done with applying dynasty labels. There's just a lot of dynasties and it also involves adding a new person occasionally. I've finished surnames starting with the letter A and B, which shockingly is about 1/8th of all the politicians! 

Here are the dynasties with 5 or more politicians in the game from the letter A and B:

• 14 Breckinridges 
• 14 Adamses of Massachusetts
• 8 Bayards
• 7 Biddles of Pennsylvania, mostly military and administrative
• 5 Bushes, including 2 presidents
• 5 Butlers of South Carolina -- this state has a lot of unattached Butlers too
• 5 Bryans, most notably William Jennings Bryan. I added his father (state politician) and his wife (would have been a politician had she been allowed to be one). 
• 5 Bowies of Maryland
• 5 Bells of New Hampshire
• 5 Barbours of Virginia
• 5 Bankheads of Alabama, this includes the actress Tallulah Bankhead who is a what-if celebrity candidate
• 5 Baches, which is technically part of Benjamin Franklin's dynasty. One Bache is the son-in-law and all other Baches are descendants of Benjamin Franklin. 
• Honorable Mention: The two unrelated Ames dynasties. At one point they marry into each other, leading to Blanche Ames Ames as one of the children. The Ames dynasties combine 6 politicians. 

@MrPotatoTed @ConservativeElector2 @Hestia @Rezi @WVProgressive @Rodja @Cal @SilentLiberty @DakotaHale and anyone else that might be interested.

[DakotaHale]

I can’t wait to run a Ben Franklin presidency. Coolidges policies with Bill Clintons character. 

On a similar note would also be a fun idea to have an experimental option to shuffle the characters timelines. (Imagine Trump and Andrew Jackson running for President in 1940 lmao). Though might be hard to implement considering I’m sure a lot of the timelines and events are scripted on whether certain characters are prominent at that point in history etc. 

[vcczar]

5 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

I can’t wait to run a Ben Franklin presidency. Coolidges policies with Bill Clintons character. 

On a similar note would also be a fun idea to have an experimental option to shuffle the characters timelines. (Imagine Trump and Andrew Jackson running for President in 1940 lmao). Though might be hard to implement considering I’m sure a lot of the timelines and events are scripted on whether certain characters are prominent at that point in history etc. 

I thought about the shuffling too. 

I don't think Franklin would have been like Coolidge. I think he would have been more like JQ Adams with Bill Clinton's personality. He wasn't conservative or liberal. He was a self-declared "extreme moderate." His civic energy and civic actions suggest he would have been far more active than Coolidge. Despite having owned slaves earlier in his life, he was an early abolitionist. Despite having been anti-immigrant early in live, he was very pro-immigrant later. Using the US Left-Right scale, he would have come off as "liberal" for his time. Few politicians were "liberal," "progressive," or "lw progressive" when Franklin lived. Surprisingly, most of those that would qualify as such lived in Philadelphia then, then the intellectual center of the US.  

[vcczar]

Jimmy Carter's dynasty is pretty interesting: 

• His dad, a state rep
• himself, president and gov
• His brother, a drunk local politician
• his son, ran for US senator in NV
• his grandson, ran for gov of GA

[vcczar]

Update: Finished the Letter C and D for Dynasty tagging. I'm about 1/4th finished with this process. That is, 25% of the surnames in the game are the first 4 letters of the alphabet! 

[vcczar]

The Fish Dynasty is one of few dynasties that could rule from 1788 to the present. You would have this line of descent:

• Nicholas Fish
• Hamilton Fish
• Hamilton Fish II
• Hamilton Fish III
• Hamilton Fish IV
• Hamilton Fish V

There's also a few more family members. 

[vcczar]

Update: I'm about 40% done with the dynasties. Done for today. 

Ulysses S Grant's family is pretty numerous. 

[themiddlepolitical]

I probably missed it somewhere, do the dynasty tags give any bonuses? 

[vcczar]

30 minutes ago, themiddlepolitical said:

I probably missed it somewhere, do the dynasty tags give any bonuses? 

 

12 minutes ago, Patine said:

They shouldn't. But my opinions aside, we'll hear what @vcczar says.

No bonuses planned. It will have a non-points effect though in some way. 

[themiddlepolitical]

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

They shouldn't. But my opinions aside, we'll hear what @vcczar says.

perhaps if there's a some stat that relates to exposure. Apparently in the 2010 SC Senate race, a random person beat out a State Rep. because he had the same name as a famous person, and people thought it was that famous person, and the SC Democratic Party tried to have him kicked off the ballot, he still was on in the GE. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Carolina

 

I'm sure @vcczar has heard of this 

[MrPotatoTed]

10 hours ago, Patine said:

 

I remember this election. I also just followed the link for the Heritage Foundation (mentioned as DeMint retiring to it in 2013) on a whim, and noticed, "Trumpism," as been added to their ideologies, along with, "the Republican Party, Reaganism, Thatcherism, and American Conservativism." It's quite astounding how many people, both among his supporters, opponents, and even among those who are able to view his movement ambivalently or in a balanced way, are utterly hoodwinked into believing that, "Trumpism," has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with American Conservativism or Heritage, Christianity, Reaganism, Libertarianism, Fiscal Conservatism, or any other aspect of the U.S. Republican policy bandwidth other than Protectionism (which normally ended after WW2), Anti-Immigration, and vapid, incendiary, but ineloquent Nationalism. The man, and his movement are iconoclasts and vitriolic, irreverent fire-spitters, NOT Conservatives in ANY sense of the word. The hoodwink is astounding and gobsmacking, to be honest.

You know, of course, that I hate all things Trump.  (Except the board game version of his reality show -- that's exactly kind of fun).  However, the adoption of "Trumpism" -- terrible though it is for our country -- does support my ongoing argument that we don't need more parties because the existing parties are fluid and constantly changing.  "Democrat" and "Republican" ideals are constantly changing -- there's no real consistent theme to either of the parties if you look back more than a couple decades at any given moment.

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

You know, of course, that I hate all things Trump.  (Except the board game version of his reality show -- that's exactly kind of fun).  However, the adoption of "Trumpism" -- terrible though it is for our country -- does support my ongoing argument that we don't need more parties because the existing parties are fluid and constantly changing.  "Democrat" and "Republican" ideals are constantly changing -- there's no real consistent theme to either of the parties if you look back more than a couple decades at any given moment.

The only things that have been arguably consistent about the two parties are this: 

• GOP has always been more "pro-big business" than the Democrats, with some regional exceptions.
• Democrats have always been the more "pro-labor" and "pro-immigrant" party, with some regional exceptions.

One book I read argues that the GOP has always been the party of those that considered themselves "Real Americans," while the Democrats have always been the party of those that were in some way marginalized and seeking greater social mobility. The biggest argument against this is that this wouldn't apply to the Deep South at all for almost its entire history. Additionally, many of those that probably saw themselves as "Real Americans" were aligned with New Deal era Democrats from 1932-1994 when Democrats dominated Congress. Overall, I think the business/labor consistency is probably clearest consistency. Bourbon Democrats were Big Business, but they only held power over the party briefly and they were just one half of the party. The GOP briefly took up pro-labor with Roosevelt and pro-immigration with Lincoln. The latter was to inspire volunteers for the war. Roosevelt's pro-labor turn was basically only confined to himself among GOP presidents. Similarly for Bourbon Democrats, only two Bourbons had any chance of winning the nomination: Cleveland (who did three times), and Thomas F Bayard. 

The two parties actually parallel each other often. From 1876-1980; 1988-2000, the two parties were often mirroring each other in most ways, conforming to the party that made certain policies popular. 

[Dobs]

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

pro-immigration with Lincoln

And the Reagan-Bush years of course. That's certainly the GOP I fondly remember. Reagan's amnesty and Bush's reforms. I think the GOP was very pro-immigrant, even moreso than the Democrats really up until the Tea Party movement. I think this was fueled by the often diametric opposition between Labor interests and Immigration proponents. For many years the GOP recognized that immigration was a boon for our economy. At the same time, folks like Bernie Sanders and other old Blue Collar Democrats were fighting tooth and nail against immigration because of the incorrect notion that immigrants stole jobs.

[vcczar]

6 minutes ago, Dobs said:

And the Reagan-Bush years of course. That's certainly the GOP I fondly remember. Reagan's amnesty and Bush's reforms. I think the GOP was very pro-immigrant, even moreso than the Democrats really up until the Tea Party movement. I think this was fueled by the often diametric opposition between Labor interests and Immigration proponents. For many years the GOP recognized that immigration was a boon for our economy. At the same time, folks like Bernie Sanders and other old Blue Collar Democrats were fighting tooth and nail against immigration because of the incorrect notion that immigrants stole jobs.

I wouldn't call them "pro-immigrant" in the sense that they were the "pro-immigrant" party. They were just immigrant-friendly, primarily because Democrats dominated Congress. Immigrants were still primarily voting Democrats, partially because immigrants tend to flock to the cities, which are Democrat. I don't think there's evidence to say the GOP was more pro-immigrant than the Democrats in the Reagan-Bush eras. You'd have to provide strong evidence to support that minority opinion. 

Sanders isn't a Democrat. 

Generally, the anti-immigrant Democrats are traditionally very local. National Democrats are rarely anti-immigrant and are a distinct minority. Democrats rely on immigrant families with US Citizenship (and other Demographics) to get elected. 

I do think the Tea Party was a turning point in making the GOP "anti-immigrant."

[Dobs]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I wouldn't call them "pro-immigrant" in the sense that they were the "pro-immigrant" party. They were just immigrant-friendly, primarily because Democrats dominated Congress. Immigrants were still primarily voting Democrats, partially because immigrants tend to flock to the cities, which are Democrat. I don't think there's evidence to say the GOP was more pro-immigrant than the Democrats in the Reagan-Bush eras. You'd have to provide strong evidence to support that minority opinion. 

Sanders isn't a Democrat. 

Generally, the anti-immigrant Democrats are traditionally very local. National Democrats are rarely anti-immigrant and are a distinct minority. Democrats rely on immigrant families with US Citizenship (and other Demographics) to get elected. 

I do think the Tea Party was a turning point in making the GOP "anti-immigrant."

I certainly would call them pro-immigrant. As would the millions of Americans from Eastern Europe and Central America naturalized under Reagan and Bush who still attribute their place in America after fleeing tyranny (of its many stripes) to those administrations.

I'm not saying Democrats were completely anti-immigrant, but they did support policies we now (rightfully) consider to be anti-immigrant. The wall began under Clinton, Obama broke deportation records. I think you're painting a false dichotomy here as to make the Democrats out to be the friend of the immigrant and Republicans only tolerant when convenient at best. That simply wasn't the case.

Countless immigrant families voted Republican from the 80s well into the 2010s and many continue to do so today. Be it Cuban, Polish, or Vietnamese immigrants, there remains a healthy chunk of Republican immigrants. Sadly, of course, due to Trump, this number is not nearly the strength it was during its hey day.

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, Dobs said:

I certainly would call them pro-immigrant. As would the millions of Americans from Eastern Europe and Central America naturalized under Reagan and Bush who still attribute their place in America after fleeing tyranny (of its many stripes) to those administrations.

I'm not saying Democrats were completely anti-immigrant, but they did support policies we now (rightfully) consider to be anti-immigrant. The wall began under Clinton, Obama broke deportation records. I think you're painting a false dichotomy here as to make the Democrats out to be the friend of the immigrant and Republicans only tolerant when convenient at best. That simply wasn't the case.

Countless immigrant families voted Republican from the 80s well into the 2010s and many continue to do so today. Be it Cuban, Polish, or Vietnamese immigrants, there remains a healthy chunk of Republican immigrants. Sadly, of course, due to Trump, this number is not nearly the strength it was during its hey day.

That’s a minority of immigrant support. I’d like to see the figures to support your minority opinion. Democrats have always been the pro-immigrant party. 

[Cenzonico]

This happened at the very least.

[vcczar]

I'm about 50% done with the dynasties. 

One of the more large, obscure dynasties I worked on today is the Ingersoll dynasty, which has 9 members. They were prominent in CT and PA from Revolution up to about the Civil War. 

 

[vcczar]

Just now, Patine said:

Didn't the main character of, "Sleepy Hollow," have Ingersoll as either a first or last name?

Ichabod Crane was his name, I think.