Unfortunate Son
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:24:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  Unfortunate Son
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12
Author Topic: Unfortunate Son  (Read 59207 times)
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #250 on: June 30, 2016, 10:00:22 PM »

You-Know-Who would have probably shot himself already, rather than have a boring retirement.

Whoa, doggie. With one of his best friends in the race, he's still got a dog in this fight.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #251 on: July 02, 2016, 12:44:37 PM »

Lowell Palmer Weicker, Jr. (Democrat-Connecticut)
United States Senator from Connecticut 1989-Present
United States Senator from Connecticut 1971-1983
Member of the United States House of Representatives from CT-4 1969-1971
Member of the Connecticut House of Representatives 1962-1966
First Selectman of Greenwhich, CT

In yet another 1980's throwback, Lowell Weicker's second run for the Presidency would take place twenty years after his first. Since then, Weicker had been primaried from the right and ousted from the Senate as a Republican, had re-entered as a centrist/progressive-backed independent, and had been re-elected as a Democrat. Weicker's campaign would focus on opposition to American involvement int he Middle East, and would be bolstered with other issues such as environmental protections, public health legislation, infrastructure spending, and a controversial proposal to restructure Social Security. Weicker's support might have been demographically well-suited to the white, liberal, and anti-war states of Iowa and New Hampshire, but he was hampered by his immigration and gun control stances.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #252 on: July 16, 2016, 07:07:49 PM »
« Edited: July 16, 2016, 07:27:23 PM by Cathcon »


David F. MacKenzie (Republican-Vermont)
United States Senator from Vermont 1989-Present
Chair, Senate Republican Caucus 1993-1999
United States Ambassador to South Africa 1983-1985
Member of the Vermont State Senate 1977-1979

Jumping into the contest for the presidency in February of 1999, MacKenzie had been the first major candidate to seek the 2000 Republican nomination. This gave the largely-unknown Senator time to craft a public image in his favor. Pitching himself as the product of a "quintessentially American" upbringing in Battleboro, Vermont, MacKenzie appealed to what he referred in his memoirs as "a sense of progressive nostalgia- That we, as a country, had once boldly pursued progress in both the broader society and in the sciences, and that we had stumbled. Given that, I adopted as a campaign slogan 'For a New American Century'". In that sense, the MacKenzie campaign attempted to portray the candidate as that of "conservative compromise": reliable on abortion, on national defense, on crime, and intent on pursuing a balanced budget; yet at the same time in favor of civil unions, infrastructure spending, environmental protections, international cooperation, sensible gun control, and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The tea-totaling MacKenzie's political past, however, was not something that he would have preferred to discuss openly in front of a conservative crowd. While campaign commercials highlighted his 1960's associations with civil rights groups, they failed to mention his long-standing affiliation with liberal Republicans, including the Nelson Rockefeller, Thomas Meskill, and Lowell Weicker campaigns. What opposition researchers unearthed was that, aside from a number of vague preferences--uncomfortability with abortion, belief in capitalism, and distaste for the counter-culture--MacKenzie had expressed very few conservative sentiments, being willing to publicly affiliate with otherwise liberal, environmentalist, and feminist causes. Quotes reaped from his extensive involvement with the Weicker campaign revealed someone willing to support very progressive politicians so long as their name was followed by the label "Republican". The fact that Weicker at the time was running as a Republican and that MacKenzie had made public and favorable remarks about him was, decidedly, "dead weight" for the Senator.

In his first four years in the Senate, MacKenzie had clearly affiliated with the Holton administration, vocally backing all of its main initiatives and championing the President's Supreme Court nominations. Following 1992, MacKenzie had hopped into Senate leadership as one of the Republicans' younger and more enthusiastic members. In his re-election campaign, he had prevailed with a narrow plurality--48%--beating out independent Bernie Sanders and a third-placing Democrat. In some cases, Sanders had attacked MacKenzie from the right, including on immigration and gun control. Coming into his second term, he developed a mixed reputation among colleagues, being known both for his willingness to compromise on a number of issues, coupled with a strident opposition to the Democrats on "moral grounds".

Coming into the twentieth century, MacKenzie had pitched himself as both a return to the "normalcy" of the 1980's and the 1950's, but also the only candidate willing to forge ahead and establish the 2000's as one where American hegemony and moral righteousness would go unchallenged. Among his key points of emphasis would be the "innovation economy", expanding the role that the Internet and other information technologies played in both industry and the government, examining ways to democratize other parts of the former-Third World, and breaking down America's free trade barriers.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #253 on: July 16, 2016, 08:53:15 PM »


Christian Rocco Mattingly (Republican-Michigan)
46th Governor of Michigan, January 1st, 1991-January 1st, 1999
United States Secretary of Commerce, June 14th, 1988-January 20th, 1989
Emergency Manager of Detroit, MI, March 19th, 1987-June 7th, 1988
Vice President of the UAW Local 400, 1970-1971

The casual observer might make superficial comparisons between the MacKenzie and Mattingly campaigns. Indeed, both were grounded in a nostalgia for previous, Republican decades; both believed America had faltered in her quest to actualize the "American Dream"; both, at some level, associated the country's alleged decline with the rise of the counter-culture and the Democrats. Nevertheless, there were immense differences not only in tone, but in personality and policy between the two. While MacKenzie, who despite his Scottish and Presbyterian roots, hailed from a perfectly respectable, almost-WASP background, Mattingly had matriculated in blue-collar, white-ethnic suburbs in and around Detroit. MacKenzie had enjoyed a childhood surrounded by both parents while Mattingly's father had passed at an early age--what many attributed to both the candidate's hardscrabble persona and his private melancholy. While both were family men, they were of distinctly different character, Mattingly having preferred to raise "tough" young men, in contrast to MacKenzie's loving doting. Perhaps most significant to their personality differences was Mattingly's love for both obscenity--never profanity--as well as vices, having been a heavy smoker throughout the 1970's and 1980's and being known among friends and colleagues for his love of drink. MacKenzie, on the other hand, was not only a teetotaler, but never, ever swore.

Policy-wise, there was also a wide berth. While his Green Mountain State rival preferred to "make America great again" by bolstering the innovation aspects of capitalism and supporting "free movement of capital", Mattingly instead emphasized the numerical power of capitalism, and the need to direct it toward national aims- the use of infrastructure, both metaphorical and literal, in his campaign rhetoric and public biography, was significant in this. The Governor as well seemed to prefer national loyalty to a priori market principles, and occasionally spoke in softer tones on the need to "square the circle" between "capitalism's strength" and "the need to consider the fate of America's laborers and inner-cities." While some from the "Heritage crowd" would attempt to take Mattingly to task for "closet communism", he was quick to retort that he'd prefer to see the streets teeming with "employees, not criminals", and pointed to some claims that crime correlated with de-industrialization.

Ideology aside, Mattingly's record pointed toward two things: toughness and efficacy, and these were key points that he would attempt to drive home to undecided and moderate voters. "Some of our Congressmen--you may know them, they're running for President!--they're fantastic at this mantra of 'getting things done'. But- if you really look at what they've accomplished, their actions have been key contributions to the wholesale sellout of the American economy and the American way of life. Some of the worst policies in the past decade have been some of the greatest PR coups for legislators. However, if you look at my record, what I have poured my efforts into--both in business and in government--has been toward efforts that actually both improved people's lives and advanced this country, even at the smallest scale." While the Governor had high marks from conservative groups on a few key points including abortion, on a number of other issues, he had been willing to break form the "Washington-'Conservative' Orthodoxy", including not even publicly backing the last two nominees!--"They weren't going to win Michigan anyway." When it came to privatization of utilities, free trade, Wall Street deregulation, and even foreign policy, the Governor hid distanced himself from his ideological compatriots in Washington. "I support experimentation--but at the local level. I was able to participate in bringing Detroit back without handing the keys to the firehouse or the police precinct over to some sort of, y'know, 'law enforcement, inc.' Education, with that we still have a ways to go and I'm willing to partner with private enterprise, but I don't think things like roads, which have been a public god for millennia, ought to be sold out to the lowest bidder. That's bad government."

While Mattingly's tone was definitively to the right, it concealed a more nuanced vision of how he hoped to shape the nation. Privately, he would reflect that, "yes, a lot of us in this party, we have this nostalgia for the 1950's. What did it rely on? Chiefly: stability, not radical economic experiments run by the same libertarian asshats who criticize every other aspect of our governing style." From the perspective of a businessman that left the Democrats during the height of the collapse of the New Deal Coalition, this uneasiness with the Republican Party's laissez faire elements might seem strange, but Mattingly had perused enough science fiction to be wary of any campaign run with some hyper-efficient or super-innovative "future" in mind--he viewed the worlds of his opponents as dystopic. They did not want stability and security, they were the types who would place their sense of patriotism at the whims of the market--the market being something he had great familiarity with. With that in mind, Mattingly instead centered his campaign around "vague patriotism" and "fuzzy nostalgia", as his opponents called it. Nevertheless, the Governor, backed by his policy team, had a very specific idea of American in mind, one which he was rarely tempted to speak at length on.

The chief policy proposals that the Mattingly campaign would center on, thusly, would be the re-examination of America's trade agreements, with the assumption that revisions would come down in favor of protectionism; lowering of the corporate tax rate; efforts to, if not overturn Roe v. Wade, then disrupt as much as possible through the powerful machinations of the federal government; lowering of income taxes combined with the potential to "progressivize" inheritance taxes as a trade-off; a new wave of infrastructure spending to function both as an economic stimulus and a "national security measure"--hiring would target urban and rural areas alike struck by poverty; opposition to gun control legislation; restriction of trade to China and other regimes incurring (un-Christian) human rights violations; legislation to secure Social Security from "selfish bureaucrats"; efforts to restrict future illegal immigration whilst making sure to "Americanize" existing immigrants--special language instruction for high-immigrant areas of the country, as mandated by the federal government, would be implemented. While this would amount to what one might interpret as a moderate agenda, Mattingly cloaked his proposed policies in patriotic nationalism and an appeal to the past, realizing that there were many who voted based on attitudes, not legislation, and also realizing the need to appeal to "pocketbook" voters.

Tonally, he would markedly differ from MacKenzie, though appear in the same league as several other candidates in his anger at the Washington establishment. Nevertheless, he was perhaps best-positioned to appear to not be "of" that same establishment, being in a field populated by several current and past Senators. Notable too would be efforts by campaign divisions at mobilizing minority voters for Mattingly based on "jobs, safety, and religion". While such attempts would, facially, be a failure, it would be noted that far more had been done than by most other Republican campaigns and that, it could be argued, it did bring some minority voters into the Republican primaries.
Logged
#CriminalizeSobriety
Dallasfan65
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,859


Political Matrix
E: 5.48, S: -9.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #254 on: July 16, 2016, 11:46:30 PM »

The Mattingly campaign: a 21st century version of the Whig platform presented by demographically prototypical Jackson Democrat. Tongue
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #255 on: July 17, 2016, 12:20:16 PM »


Scott Ulysses Westman (Democrat-Montana)
United States Senator from Montana 1977-1991
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from MT-1 1975-1977

"Unreliable", "unstable", "dangerous", "libido-driven", "a political chameleon", they called him. As Iowa approached, Scott Westman had nevertheless pushed himself to the front of the "anti-establishment" pack in the Democratic primaries. While in his youth, the Montanan had been at the forefront of a line of libertarian- or libertarian-leaning anti-war Democrats that had emerged in opposition to the Johnson-Nixon years and in support of candidacies like Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and Robert F. Kennedy. Westman had been, by far, among the most radical of his contemporaries. His willingness to align with some Republican economic ideas had permitted him to win support in the traditionally Republican Montana. Westman's laissez-faire streak had been able to freely manifest in the wave of 1970's deregulation legislation passed by both Robert F. Kennedy and Albert Brewer and had reached its apex in his decision to break with both major parties in favor of the Libertarian Party in the 1980 election. During this time, he had formed alliances ranging from left-wing Democrats like Jefferson Dent, to "libertarian" Republicans including Senator Mark Hatfield and Congressman Thaddeus O'Connor.

It was in the 1980's, however, that Westman observed the results of that legislation which had previously championed. This, combined with the rediscovery of his latent ("non-existent", some said) Catholicism, would precipitate a notable shift in the Senator's ideology. "As the nation marched steadily toward liberalism as it did the end of the 20th Century, Westman retreated from both", remarked friend and later biographer Dr. Carl Herschelwitz of MIT. By 1990, Westman's stances on deregulation, private enterprise, trade, and abortion had all reversed, and some styled him a "Christian socialist", or, more tongue-in-cheek, a "conservative Marxist". He resigned the United States Senate in 1991 in reaction to the Gulf War Resolution. While many had predicted a Westman run for the Presidency as early as 1980 (1988 and 1992 seeming ideal years), after 1991, Westman had all but disappeared, but for his loss in the 1992 Montana Democratic Gubernatorial Primary. Still resolutely anti-war and in favor of drug decriminalization, Westman's 2000 candidacy sought to reverse the tide of recent decades, reigning in globalism and reversing "the march of capitalist rationalization".

To this extent, Westman's platform was built around the ending of "capital-favoring free trade deals"; withdrawal of American armed forces overseas and gutting of the Pentagon's budget; the implementation of community-oriented policing programs nationwide; the end of the War on Drugs, opposition to Roe v. Wade; opposition to gun control measures; abolition of the FCC and related "organizations dedicated to the stifling of free expression"; the bolstering of public media such as NPR and PBS; a nationwide version of his original "Green Montana" platform from his abortive 1992 run for the Governorship; public financing of campaigns; government compensation for the victims of green energy (miners, primarily) and mechanization; an end to affirmative action to be coupled with the replacement of a purely "class-based" system that would coincide with a vaguely-referred to "decimation of the Ivy League"; and, perhaps most importantly, workplace democracy.

Touting "the most radical platform of a major candidate for either party's nomination" earned the former Senator enemies in both camps. Ironically, Westman had received some approving remarks from what he derided as the "authoritarian right", including not only Pat Buchanan, but also Christian Mattingly. When asked in a November 1999 debate who he would most prefer to run against in the general election, Mattingly was among many who answered Westman, but for different reasons than his opponents: "I think it would result in the most honest exchange of ideas we've had in many years in a presidential election. Westman is not only honest about his agenda, but he has been most willing to publicly recognize the monstrosity that has been the Hart administration." Westman rejected this and other "far-right" approval, but nevertheless found himself at many times being conflated with populists on the right by the media.

While many among the Washington consensus in both parties had outright denounced Westman's campaign as one based on "hatred, envy, and a desire to disrupt the serious, tough business of government", the Senator was building steam. Some pessimistic strategists in the Ferraro, Romney, and Kerrey campaigns were beginning to see numbers stating that it was realistic the crazed Westman might take not only Iowa, but New Hampshire. "Lily-white states, primarily rural, but also those particularly affected by deindustrialization and economic contraction, have shown a vulnerability to the Westman message. We in the establishment he so despises may count the suburbs and the Black Belt as among the last strongholds that withstand a wave of racial and economic animus."
Logged
Mr. Jew
Roger Waters
Rookie
**
Posts: 57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #256 on: July 17, 2016, 02:11:34 PM »

The parties in this TL are barbaric.  Absolutely barbaric.

I like the Westmang dude.  He seems pretty chill.
Logged
Mike Thick
tedbessell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,085


Political Matrix
E: -6.65, S: -8.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #257 on: July 17, 2016, 02:48:15 PM »


Christian Rocco Mattingly (Republican-Michigan)
46th Governor of Michigan, January 1st, 1991-January 1st, 1999
United States Secretary of Commerce, June 14th, 1988-January 20th, 1989
Emergency Manager of Detroit, MI, March 19th, 1987-June 7th, 1988
Vice President of the UAW Local 400, 1970-1971

Is that Atticus Finch?

Yes, that is Gregory Peck.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #258 on: July 17, 2016, 08:21:08 PM »


Christian Rocco Mattingly (Republican-Michigan)
46th Governor of Michigan, January 1st, 1991-January 1st, 1999
United States Secretary of Commerce, June 14th, 1988-January 20th, 1989
Emergency Manager of Detroit, MI, March 19th, 1987-June 7th, 1988
Vice President of the UAW Local 400, 1970-1971

Is that Atticus Finch?

Eff if I know. He was suggested as a potential to play Mattingly, and I was like "Uh, okay?" Jon Hamm may be cast at any point when needed.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #259 on: September 05, 2016, 04:48:21 PM »


Thaddeus Gillespie O’Connor (Republican-Maine)
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from ME-2 1973-Present

Dubbed “the candidate of ‘Reason’ magazine”, O’Connor stood as the most high-profile “libertarian”-identified candidate to run for the Republican nomination since 1988, perhaps Beauregard D’Israeli himself in 1980. Things had not been kind for the “liberty Republican” movement since the collapse of D’Israeli’s career twenty years earlier. The Wyomingite, for all his flaws, possessed the charisma, drive, and self-efficacy that had carried him to victory in New Hampshire. Nevertheless, D’Israeli’s public outing as a Satanist had decimated attempts by Republican quasi-libertarians to gain a permanent foothold in the Republican primary. In the 1980’s, in a strategy pioneered by the then-out of office Areus Ho’kee of Nevada, a number had opted to cast their lot with their former adversaries, “Rockefeller Republicans” on the party’s left in order to levy weight against the Dole administration’s military buildup, but to little avail. In 1988, the eccentric Representative Ron Paul of Texas had been pushed forward as a candidate to unite various strains of “liberty-leaning” Republican primary voters and to draw an ideological line between the motley crew of Randians, anti-government pan-ideological populists, and outright paleoconservatives. This too, had failed. Despite running a strong third in Iowa, the race quickly narrowed down to a showdown between Holton’s establishment legions and Gordon Humphrey’s conservative insurgents.

As the twentieth century drew to a close, there were a number of self-styled libertarian Republican thinkers and intellectuals who opined that the libertarian movement’s apparent decision to throw in its lot with conservatism had been an abject failure. “Did Roger MacBride’s 1980 endorsement of Bob Dole yield anything? A de-escalated Drug War, a reduction in the bloated military establishment, the breakdown of restrictive trade barriers?” Some even posited that there was a future for “libertarianism-lite” within Democratic ranks, noting the recent triumphs of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” Democrats, including Paul Tsongas. The subsequent years seemed to confirm this as Presidnets Tsongas and Hart both pushed for deregulation and a balanced budget alongside traditionally liberal social goals. Areus Ho’kee, a “republitarian” strategist and former Nevada legislator who had once been profiled as “a Machiavellian who reads Hayek” chose to stay the course, helping to engineer a number of primary victories for the pro-choice Republican Pete Wilson in 1996. Nevertheless, Ho’kee’s more radical ideas would be met with failure when voted on by the general electorate. It would only be 1998 terror attacks and the ensuing, Democrat-led domestic “crackdown” on terror that restored some hopes that a libertarian foil might be found among Republican ranks. But by that year, one of the few men left to champion this was the ordinarily soft-spoken Thad O’Connor.

O’Connor had come from a very poor and traditionally Democratic Irish-Catholic household anchored on the coast of Maine. Nevertheless, he had early on been attracted to the anti-government rhetoric of the time’s conservatives; chiefly, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Conservatism, for O’Connor, thus was libertarianism, and probably the greatest explanation as to why he had remained a Republican in succeeding decades. O’Connor’s experience in the Vietnam War had combined his laissez-faire worldview with the fervent belief in non-intervention on foreign matters and his first campaign would be for then-liberal, anti-war Republican Jefferson Dent in Alabama. While he had only been vaguely associated with D’Israeli’s run for office, he had come into office on his own in 1978 and had associated with the “mavericks” faction of his legislative colleagues, opposed to President Dole’s foreign policy vision. Meanwhile, he had made his name known for opposing “pork-barrel” spending, intervention in the Middle East and--to the chagrin of his constituents--protectionism.

Facing a populist atmosphere, O’Connor had nevertheless soldiered on, establishing constituencies in early primary and caucus states--particularly rural, northern, and white areas that had been in some ways receptive to republitarianism in the past. Among O’Connor’s major campaign issues would be the decriminalization of marijuana and all-around de-escalation of the war on drugs, sentence reform and the implementation of other community policing initiatives, ratification of a balanced budget amendment, the further breaking down of trade barriers, reduced payroll taxes, and, above all, withdrawal from the Middle East and repeal of the President's national security initiatives. Given the environment in which he found himself, O'Connor chose to most emphasize his domestic economic policies as well as his anti-war stance, while allowing The Economist, Reason, and certain strains of the liberal press to sell him to undecided moderates.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #260 on: October 15, 2016, 10:12:11 PM »

Jesus Christ... So I started this, four effing years ago? When I was a senior in high school? Eff.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #261 on: October 15, 2016, 10:50:56 PM »

January 24th: the Iowa Caucuses

Despite a good number of arguably qualified and energetic candidates on both sides, a combination of factors--the tumultuous last few years, the candidates' own personalities, the media, demographics, and of course the campaigns themselves--would manage to whittle the fields down to only a few particularly viable choices in each party. For the Democrats, Secretary Ferraro had managed, despite accusations of corruption and a bevy of skeletons in her closet, to maintain good polling numbers in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire due to the loyalty of Catholic voters and women, and to build up a solid lead in the South due to the machine support of black voters. The exception to this would be in Alabama, where Jefferson Dent's machine was working 'round the block to build up a solid base of support for Westman. To his credit, the Montanan, though not easily sold to minorities, was cobbling together a coalition made up of voters from America's breadbasket, working-class whites, and college students. This was proving to serve him well in polling of both Iowa and New Hampshire. Nevertheless, it was believed that even if he beat the establishment in "bumf#ck nowhere", he would be doomed in urban and affluent areas, as well as the South. Mitt Romney would find himself the rather unlikely "third wheel" in the pre-Iowa polling race. Romney, despite his recent past as an independent and Republican heritage, had managed to levy his credentials as Governor, his association with the late President Tsongas, and his status as a technocratic pragmatist acceptable to self-identified suburban moderates who otherwise might have voted for Ferraro. While lacking in foreign policy experience, he had greater grounding in domestic policies when it came to the environment and healthcare, and played very well with the media. Perhaps the biggest failing disappointment would be Bob Kerrey, whose extensive credentials and personal favorability ratings would prove meaningless when put up against a radical, a woman, and the picture of nominally liberal sensibility. This was especially true in the midst of a party that was attempting to convulse the pro-war members among its ranks.

For the GOP, meanwhile, Dick Cheney's lack of charisma and the abject rejection of the Holton years among those demographics he needed for victory would manage to render his immense fundraising lead irrelevant. The Republican party as a whole seemed to be in a state of exorcism regarding not only Holton's "milquetoast" persona, but also the principles that predicated his foreign policy. The self-described conservatives that might have supported a man like Cheney in the past had either become part of the human mass of 1980s nostalgia that was Liddy Dole's campaign, or signed on as members of Christian Mattingly's enraged horde. Meanwhile, for those that viewed themselves as "sensible moderates", David MacKenzie had, despite what many insiders derided as a shallow resume, risen to the top. Perhaps MacKenzie's greatest advantage was not his beltway support or his moderate image, so much as that he appeared as a genuinely nice, though perhaps strident, person. Outside of social conservatives and Dole-obsessees, Liddy appeared harsh, where as MacKenzie looked, to some weak, to others merely deferential and respectful. Meanwhile, as Pat Buchanan phrased it, Christian Mattingly was building a "peasant army" prepared to "burn Washington to the ground." Mattingly himself never phrased it like this, but the dissatisfaction felt by a large number of Republicans from various economic strata towards the current system--whatever that might be--was appearing to resonate. This was particularly evident in small towns throughout Appalachia, the Ohio River Valley, and the industrial Mid-West that had seen factories flee in the past thirty or so years, where, as rates of unemployment rose, so did heroin addiction.

This battle raging within both parties--between experts, activists, populists, and pragmatists--would see its first real battle in the Iowa Caucuses on January 24th, 2000.

In historical hindsight, Iowa would appear the picture of irony. For the Democrats, in a state with a party noted for its anti-war inclinations, marked by both a significant rural population and a relatively large amount of shut-down mines scattered across the state, and noted for its hunting culture, it should have come--demographically--as little surprise that Scott Westman would take a narrow first place. Coming up behind him would not be regional favorites, such as Dick Lamm, but instead the affable Governor Mitt Romney. Suburban and urban liberals, those in the middle to upper income stratas, had preferred him to Ferraro, due to a combination of his demeanor and his apparently scandal-free past. The incumbent Secretary of State and purported frontrunner was relegated to a third place finish, buoyed largely by an uneven gender distribution in voting patterns in Iowa's urban and suburban strongholds.

The Iowa Republican Party, in contrast, threw its lot with the "nice guy", David MacKenzie. To some, this appeared beyond strange. Iowa had voted for populist Tim Penny in 1996 and any polling statistician would have been able to detail the Iowa GOP's socially conservative leanings. Nevertheless, what many did not account for was the state's overall attitude. Penny had been a rural Mid-Westerner, and spoke their language to the extent that he was able to gain their support. Elizabeth Dole, who, by January 2000 had permanently eclipsed "rising star" Dan Quayle as the darling of the Religious Right, was nevertheless decidedly not a Mid-Westerner. Despite her marriage to a Kansan, she had spent several decades in Washington and, with her presumption that power was owed to her, she had a way of coming off as not merely preachy, but also particularly vengeful, to Iowans, who, attitudinally, preferred civility. While she had shown she could brawl in Washington, in America's heartland, she could not. Mattingly, meanwhile, was even more poorly suited to the area. While, despite his background in industry, he had developed an affinity for speaking to rural voters, he was at an absolute demographic disadvantage. Michigan's rural, arch-conservative west side had been one of his primary weak spots in the 1990 primary, and he had lost that region to Clark Durant. His impatience for questions regarding prayer in school, sexual education, and any "bumpkin" preoccupation with "ending gridlock" had been starting to show. His campaign had been predicated on his ability to portray himself as effective and reliable, not as nice. And this cost him.

Therefore, it would come to pass that the party in power--in Iowa--voted for an anti-incumbent, anti-Washington, anti-Hart populist firebrand while the party that had worked itself into conniptions for years over the Hart administration had voted in favor of a man whose primary advantage was civility. New Hampshire, however, would be a different story. Flying below the radar would be the Alaska beauty contest where Mattingly garnered over 40% of the vote.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #262 on: November 19, 2016, 02:35:21 PM »

February 1st: The Granite State

New Hampshire offered the come-from-behind winner of Iowa, David MacKenzie, a chance to cement his lead and restore "sanity" to the Grand Old Party. The two-term Senator from the neighboring Vermont, MacKenzie was deemed by every pundit under the sun to be the perfect fit for New Hampshire--bar one. A late January publication--from The Economist, of all places--titled "Mattingly's Granite Ace in the Hole" described the intimate relationship that campaign higher-up Dr. Richard James Hudson, had with New Hampshire going back to his undergraduate days and short tenure in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Hudson's work with the New Hampshire Republican Party--including on victorious Gubernatorial and Senate campaigns--combined with his remaining Beltway clout for his years with Republican thinktanks was a definite advantage to the Mattingly campaign. Perhaps most significantly--and something the national media paid little attention to--Mattingly received the much sought-after endorsement for former Vice President Gordon Humphrey, as well as the endorsement of Senator Bob Smith. The conservative, protectionist mood of the Granite State--a feature going back to the days of the founding, supplemented with a populist air, was front and center on the night of February 1st. Despite this, pundits across the spectrum were surprised when the "candidate of rage" came roaring into first place with nearly 40% of the vote and MacKenzie trailing with less than a third of the total electorate's support. Thaddeus O'Connor managed to eek into third place following his second place finish in Alaska.

For Westman, New Hampshire presented a golden opportunity. A white, rural state with a heavy hunting presence and a protectionist streak, for Westman, a New Hampshire victory would outset the doubtlessly huge losses he was bound to take in the South and risked taking in larger, more diverse states. Nevertheless, facing two North-Eastern candidates with far more extensive roots in the region and far greater funding, he had significant disadvantages. Having barely expected to win Iowa, his New Hampshire organization was functioning at a sub-optimal level. Nevertheless, the Democrats in the state's northern, rural frontier were just his type of people. For Ferraro and Romney, they were both counting on a win. While Ferraro had built up a significant garrison below Mason-Dixon that would buoy her beyond any immediate loss--"Romney, Westman, and all the rest have never had to so much as talk to a minority voter, or to a Southern voter"--New Hampshire meant everything to the Romney campaign. Situated as the Governor of a geographically small, New England state with little experience dealing with national Democratic voters, he needed to secure his home region if he had any hope of competing against Ferraro in the suburbs of New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, or California. "Outside of here and the Mormon states, we have no natural base of support," one campaign member commented. Well-acquainted with the Boston media market and with the local Democratic establishment, Romney had built a solid organization early on despite Ferraro's fierce fight in the suburbs. While Republican turns came in early, it would take until well after midnight to call the state for Romney in a tight three-way race over Ferraro and Westman. Many would point out the irony that, while the Republicans had voted for the "consensus" candidate in Iowa and the populist candidate in New Hampshire, the exact opposite had happened on the Democratic side. Four days later, Ferraro would finally claim victory in the Democratic "beauty contest" primary in Delaware--thanks largely to the support of Senator Joe Biden.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #263 on: December 04, 2016, 10:48:29 AM »
« Edited: December 04, 2016, 01:23:05 PM by Cathcon »

Prior to Super Tuesday, there were few other Democratic contests, focusing public attention on the Republican nomination race until March. On February 8th, shortly after Ferraro's own victory in the Blue Hen State, MacKenzie would claim a narrow plurality with the support of Mike Castle and the local credit card industry. The run-up to the February 19th South Carolina Primary saw Dan Quayle's withdrawal from the race. Having already failed to catch fire in Iowa, South Carolina was intended to be his last hope. Nevertheless, with two Southerners on the ballot--Liddy Dole, who had been endowed with a significant war chest, and Lamar Alexander, whose 1996 campaign had given him an extensive ground game in the state--it was clear that the Indiana Senator faced better career prospects refocusing on his legislative work. The state's military vote was offering Quayle no favors either when offered a veteran and a former Secretary of Defense. The Senator's endorsement went to his colleague and the former First Lady, Elizabeth Dole, a significant coup considering her tight numbers against Alexander. On February 19th, 2000, Dole claimed victory in the Palmetto State. Pundits were already discussing a "Dole/Quayle" ticket to reclaim the heartland for the GOP.

Nevertheless, three days later, Dole's momentum would be stopped cold. On February 22nd, MacKenzie's attempts to peel away moderate voters in Michigan would be met with defeat as Mattingly walked away with 63% of the vote and a plurality or greater in every county in the state. In Arizona, the Michigan Governor had secured the support of fellow Vietnam veteran Senator John McCain and former Governor Evan Mecham. And, while former Senator Barry Goldwater's power had faded in the past decade and a half, his vocal support for O'Connor was a notable snub to those who had lobbied for his endorsement, including MacKenzie. Mattingly's Arizona and Michigan victories were supplemented by a win in the North Dakota Caucus. Dole could console herself with victory in Virginia, meanwhile. After South Carolina, both Alexander and Cheney dropped out, endorsing Dole.

On the Democratic side, the idea of "Westmentum" was building, as the former Senator walked away with easy victory in Washington State, the "capitol of granola liberalism" as Westman himself called it. Despite the state's status as a beauty contest, it contributed to a narrative that the Montanan was leading a youth-and-peasant horde against the political and economic elites. This was especially important as Super Tuesday approached and Westman's opponents possessed significant advantages in upcoming states.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #264 on: December 27, 2016, 11:40:01 AM »

Republican Primaries, February 23rd-March 7th, 2000

February 23rd, 2000
Nevada Republican Caucus
Elizabeth Dole: 32%
Christian Mattingly: 30%
David MacKenzie: 19%
Thaddeus O'Connor: 17%
Others: 2%

In an upset, thanks in part to Dole's well-funded ground game, connections with the business community, and a timely campaign appearance by the aging former President Dole, the former First Lady was able to maintain relevance with her victory in Nevada. The O'Connor campaign, having almost resigned itself to complete irrelevance, felt nevertheless boosted by the Congressman's good showing in Arizona and pressed on, with the introverted politician beginning to focus more on rural areas as well as affluent voters.

February 29th, 2000
Virginia Primary
Elizabeth Dole: 43%
Christian Mattingly: 27%
David MacKenzie: 23%
Others: 7%

Washington Primary
David MacKenzie: 38%
Christian Mattingly: 30%
Thaddeus O'Connor: 22%
Elizabeth Dole: 22%

In the runup to Super Tuesday, a final Republican Primary Debate was held, with only MacKenzie, Mattingly, and Dole invited--perceived to be the three relevant candidates left. With each hoping to score points with the audience, the debate ran increasingly negative. In his closing argument, MacKenzie, thinking himself sly, asserted "Of those candidates on this stage today, I am the only lifelong Republican-" before being cut-off by Mattingly's interjection "Yeah, and you act the most like a lifelong Democrat!" The Governor capitalized on that observation in his own closing statement by harking back to his own background, proclaiming "Some of my opponents on this stage are from an era where the word 'Republican' was synonymous with wealthy. He, or they, are uncomfortable with, and around, this nation's working class, the men and women that built this country. They are focused not on getting this country back to work, or making sure that our economy is one where every person has an opportunity to succeed, but instead on making sure it keeps working for those for whom it has always worked. These are the politicians bankrolled by Wall Street and Washington D.C. Instead of supporting them, help me ensure that this is a new Republican Party, one that is here for all of you watching this at home tonight. Thank you."

March 7th, 2000
California Republican Primary
David MacKenzie: 36%
Elizabeth Dole: 30%
Christian Mattingly: 24%
Thaddeus O'Connor: 9%
Others: 1%

Connecticut Republican Primary
David MacKenzie: 38%
Christian Mattingly: 35%
Elizabeth Dole: 18%
Thaddeus O'Connor: 9%
Others: <1%

Georgia Republican Primary
Elizabeth Dole: 45%
Christian Mattingly: 28%
David MacKenzie: 24%
Others: 3%

Maine Republican Primary
Christian Mattingly: 35%
Thaddeus O'Connor: 32%
David MacKenzie: 19%
Elizabeth Dole: 12%
Others: 2%

In O'Connor's last ditch effort to throw a wrench in the race and perhaps even pick up a state, he came three points shy of his home state Maine which, while a disappointment, was a marked improvement over his numbers anywhere else in the nation and proved that, to an extent, O'Connor's long history in the state had meant something. Nevertheless, while his Aroostook constituents had shown up for him, logging, ship-building, and the military had gone for Mattingly.

Maryland Republican Primary
David MacKenzie: 41%
Christian Mattingly: 32%
Elizabeth Dole: 26%
Others: 2%

Massachusetts Republican Primary
Christian Mattingly: 42%
David MacKenzie: 39%
Elizabeth Dole: 15%
Thaddeus O'Connor: 4%
Others: <1%

Minnesota Republican Caucuses
David MacKenzie: 37%
Christian Mattingly: 32%
Elizabeth Dole: 30%
Others: 1%

Missouri Republican Primary
Elizabeth Dole: 38%
Christian Mattingly: 33%
David MacKenzie: 29%
Others: <1%

New York Republican Primary
Christian Mattingly: 38%
David MacKenzie: 37%
Elizabeth Dole: 23%
Others: 2%

New York had been probably the biggest battleground of the campaign, even moreso than California. With New York City Mayor and "hero of the August 7th attacks" Rudy Giuliani opting to stay out of the endorsement game, most of the "Battle of Manhattan" would be fought by surrogates who were former officeholders. Among MacKenzie's supporters were former Secretary of the Navy Benson Rockefeller, former Governor Malcolm Wilson, and former Secretary . Mattingly's campaign in New York was run largely by former NYC Mayor Chalres LeBoutillier, and Buffalo Mayor James D. Griffin upstate. The endorsement of former three-term Senator James L. Buckley was a huge boon to the Governor and a snub to Liddy Dole's campaign. Mattingly's narrow win, called around 3 AM, was icing on the cake, as the Governor also took other North-Eastern states that had been favored for MacKenzie--Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Ohio Republican Primary
Christian Mattingly: 47%
David MacKenzie: 28%
Elizabeth Dole: 24%
Others: 1%

Rhode Island Republican Primary
Christian Mattingly: 43%
David MacKenzie: 35%
Elizabeth Dole: 19%
Others: 3%

A surprise to local Republican establishment, Mattingly's strong victory did not bode well for Lincoln Chafee, the two-term Republican Senator who was facing a primary challenge from the right on September 12th. His Senate seat had been in his family's hands since 1977.

Vermont Republican Primary
David MacKenzie: 49%
Christian Mattingly: 24%
Thaddeus O'Connor: 18%
Elizabeth Dole: 7%
Others: 2%

"Uh... Well, as you might have guessed, Super Tuesday did not go for us as planned. The initial scheme that the campaign had been riding on was one where David would take what we thought would be a loss in Iowa, bounce back in New Hampshire. After that, we would rely, number one, on Northeastern states, number two on coastal states, and then on a sort of hodge-podge of Mid-Western and metropolitan states, like Florida and Illinois. Essentially, we were intending to replicate completely Pete Wilson's 1996 primary campaign. It turned out that the North-East had undergone a seismic shift in that time--combined with vote splitting--and this took us by surprise."
-Ari Fleischer, former MacKenzie communications manager, 2007 interview

The primary message of Super Tuesday was that Dole had lost. With a slew of Southern primaries coming up, many wondered whether she would drop out. She had won one of nineteen non-Southern races and, while she would likely do fairly well on the 14th should she stay in, there was serious question if she could win outside the South again. The interior West was up for grabs, assuredly, but was it available to Liddy Dole? The North Carolina Senator delayed any announcement. Meanwhile, both MacKenzie and Mattingly were proclaiming some degree of victory, as the former had won the most populous state in the nation while also taking states in the Mid-West and North-East, and the latter had not only encroached on MacKenzie's own New England with victories in Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, but had also won New York and Ohio. Behind the scenes, however, both the Vermont Senator and the former Governor were unhappy with the results; Mattingly had been hoping for a knockout punch on Super Tuesday, and MacKenzie's persistence frightened him. MacKenzie, to his credit, was beyond upset at what he saw as his home region's betrayal.

The primary calendar in the days to come lay conspicuously bare: After Southern Tuesday on March 14th, the only other contest that month was Illinois. April had only two contests total. May and June, meanwhile, featured a string of smaller contests that seemed reminiscent of America's "island-hopping" campaign in the Pacific. While the two frontrunners could afford losses in the coming weeks, march 10th and 14th would make or break the Dole campaign, if she chose to continue that far.


Green - Senator David MacKenzie of Vermont
Blue - Former Governor Christian R. Mattingly of Michigan
Red - Senator Elizabeth "Liddy" Dole of North Carolina
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #265 on: December 27, 2016, 12:44:07 PM »

Democratic Primaries, March 7th, 2000

The Democratic primaries were far more spaced-out than those on the Republican side, with only three races--Iowa, New Hampshire, and Washington--preceding Super Tuesday. As such, much of the narrative preceding the fateful day would be based on public statements, campaign appearances, national events, and mud-slinging between candidates. Ferraro, without a victory to her name at that point, took the opportunity to retreat to areas she knew she could count on, hoping that a silent coalition would deliver a strong blow to the "Lenin wannabe" Westman and the candidate of "yuppie suburbanites" Romney. By contrast, Ferraro was finding strong support not only among women, but among minorities, especially in the South, and was fighting hard for white ethnic, working-class communities across the Rust Belt. Such wasn't as easy as it had first appeared, as Westmans was gaining, and gaining fast, with families in the communities surrounding shutdown steel mills and empty coal mines in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The strong time lapse between New Hampshire and Super Tuesday also gave many smaller candidates an opportunity to drop out, an opportunity taken only by Lowell Weicker, who saw the writing on the wall. Weicker endorsed no one, but vowed that he would provide a "progressive, committed voice" in the party in their upcoming selection. Bob Kerrey, hoping for victories in the heartland, opted to stay in, as did the two Coloradans, Dick Lamm and Pat Schroeder, who were both hoping to deliver some sort of wound to the establishment in the coming days. Of the "oddball" candidates, one columnist wrote that "Lamm does not seem to grasp that some sort of 'fiscally conservative, socially liberal' candidate already exists in Mitt Romney, and that a populist candidate already exists in Scott Westman. His market is saturated. Meanwhile, Schroeder seems under the impression that she will score big for women by tearing down the first female Attorney General, and the first female Secretary of State, in American history." Indeed, it seems the former Governor was resigned to speaking engagements with fringe conspiracy theory-motivated groups, while Schroeder's key audience was environmental activists.

California Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 37%
Scott Westman: 32%
Geraldine Ferraro: 27%
Richard Lamm: 7%
Patricia Schroeder: 5%
Others: 2%

Connecticut Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 42%
Gerald Ferraro: 29%
Scott Westman: 19%
Lowell Weicker: 7%
Others: 3%

Georgia Democratic Primary
Gerladine Ferraro: 43%
Scott Westman: 27%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 14%
J. "Bob" Kerrey: 10%
Others: 6%

Hawaii Democratic Caucuses
W. "Mitt" Romney: 35%
Scott Westman: 34%
Geraldine Ferraro: 21%
Patricia Schroeder: 5%
Richard Lamm: 4%
Others: 1%

Idaho Democratic Caucuses
Scott Westman: 47%
J. "Bob" Kerrey: 22%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 19%
Richard Lamm: 8%
Others: 4%

Maine Democratic Primary
Scott Westman: 34%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 32%
Geraldine Ferraro: 26%
Richard Lamm: 3%
Patricia Schroeder: 2%
Others: 1%

Maryland Democratic Primary
Geraldine Ferraro: 41%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 32%
Scott Westman: 24%
Others: 3%

Massachusetts Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 43%
Scott Westman: 28%
Geraldine Ferraro: 27%
Others: 2%

Missouri Democratic Primary
Geraldine Ferraro: 37%
Scott Westman: 35%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 25%
Others: 3%

New York Democratic Primary
Geraldine Ferraro: 37%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 31%
Scott Westman: 28%
Others: 2%

North Dakota Democratic Caucuses
Scott Westman: 42%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 26%
J. "Bob" Kerrey: 19%
Geraldine Ferraro: 12%
Others: 1%

Ohio Democratic Primary
Scott Westman: 35%
Geraldine Ferraro: 34%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 27%
Others: 4%

Rhode Island Democratic Primary
Scott Westman: 35%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 32%
Gerladine Ferraro: 27%
Others: 6%

Vermont Democratic Primary
Scott Westman: 47%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 35%
Geraldine Ferraro: 12%
Patricia Schroeder: 4%
Others: 2%

The primary takeaway from Super Tuesday was that "establishment" Democrats were by no means safe. New England, Ohio, and the Interior West had all fallen at the hands of Scott Westman's "revolution". The Ferraro and Romney campaigns were in close contact shortly after the results came in. The campaigns had collaborated, to some extent, both expecting that Ferraro might take Ohio while Romney solidified New England. Both soon came to the conclusion that attempting to ensure Westman's defeat while battling each other had been a waste of time and resources. Bob Kerrey, to his credit, dropped out Wednesday morning. Schroeder was soon to follow, and Lamm formally quit the party. None of them offered an endorsement.


Green - Former Senator Scott Westman of Montana
Blue - Governor Willard M. "Mitt" Romney of Massachusetts
Red - Former Secretary of State Geraldine Ferraro of New York

In the days after Super Tuesday, pundits quickly came to drawn parallels between the Republican and Democratic campaigns. Ferraro and Dole were the two female fighters, representing the administrations of past president and some level of political "tradition" within their parties. Romney and MacKenzie were "establishment pragmatists who like to brand themselves as mavericks". Mattingly and Westman were, of course, "populist firebrands".
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #266 on: December 30, 2016, 05:22:20 PM »
« Edited: December 30, 2016, 07:19:59 PM by Cathcon »

Democratic Primaries: March 9th-March 12th, 2000

In the days between March 7th, and the 14th, with neither Romney nor Ferraro willing to drop out, both agreed to scale back their operations and regionalize the campaign. The Massachusetts Governor, ironically, was best suited for the West Coast and the Interior West, with his ties to moderate Governors, Silicon Valley, and members of the limited Mormon establishment in some states. Meanwhile, despite Romney's roots in Michigan, Secretary Ferraro was agreed best suited to compete in the Rust Belt. Her popularity among African-Americans and her ties to "traditional Democrats" had, after all, been part of her initial campaign strategy. This tentative agreement between the two establishment candidates was intended to last at least up to the 14th. Romney, for his part, did not intend to honor it at that time- if Ferraro did well in the coming days, she would have momentum Romney needed to battle. If not, well, she would be in retreat.

March 9th, 2000

South Carolina Democratic Caucuses
Geraldine Ferraro: 57%
Scott Westman: 27%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 16%
Others: <1%

March 10th, 2000

Colorado Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 41%
Scott Westman: 39%
Geraldine Ferraro: 11%
Others: 9%

Westman would blame the heavy Coloradan presence--Lamm and Schroeder had both garnered non-negligible percentages of the vote--on his close loss in Colorado. This had, in his mind, been combined with "collusion" both between Ferraro and Romney, and at the state level. Romney had benefited from the support of Tim Wirth, Mark Udall, and what Westman believed to be the President's residual support in his home state.

Utah Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 62%
Scott Westman: 31%
Others: 9%

March 11th, 2000

Arizona Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 39%
Scott Westman: 38%
Geraldine Ferraro: 19%
Others: 4%

Michigan Democratic Primary
Scott Westman: 42%
Geraldine Ferraro: 40%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 17%
Others: 1%

Minnesota Democratic Primary
Scott Westman: 45%
Geraldine Ferraro: 37%
Mitt Romney: 15%
Others: 3%

March 12th, 2000

Nevada Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 41%
Scott Westman: 38%
Geraldine Ferraro: 20%
Others: 1%

Leading up to the 14th, by far the biggest surprise had been Michigan, where it had been expected that black and UAW voters would carry the day for Ferraro. Yet, outside of Wayne and Macomb, her support was weak. People voting based on guns and NAFTA fell heavily in the Westman camp. Meanwhile, the strong African-American support that Ferraro was exhibiting in the South appeared weaker in the North.


Green - Former Senator Scott Westman of Montana
Blue - Governor Willard Millard "Mitt" Romney of Massachusetts
Red - Former Secretary of State Geraldine Ann Ferraro of New York
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #267 on: December 30, 2016, 07:42:44 PM »

Republican Primaries: March 10th, 2000

Colorado Republican Primary
Elizabeth Dole: 36%
Christian Mattingly: 35%
David MacKenzie: 29%
Others: <1%

Utah Republican Primary
Elizabeth Dole: 43%
David MacKenzie: 34%
Christian Mattingly: 28%
Others: <1%

Wyoming Republican Caucuses
Christian Mattingly: 40%
Elizabeth Dole: 32%
David MacKenzie: 28%
Others: <1%

"No... We weren't worried with Dole's 'surprising' results before Southern Tuesday. While the media was portraying the former First Lady as down-and-out, we knew she retained residual support across the country. Don't forget that states like Colorado had been among her husband's original constituency, and that she'd honed her rhetoric to conservative, Republican audiences for over twenty years by that point. Of course, of course, the Mormons in Utah, without an obvious candidate, went for that which was perceived as most conservative. I don't think they would have ever gone for Christian, in all honesty, if due only to his demeanor- the same reason we lost Iowa. In the primaries at least, the state wasn't a good fit for him. No, we were actually surprised by Wyoming, but, I'll concede, it was a state of ranchers, not wheat or corn growers. Different demeanor, and a relatively irreligious state. They too more easily to Christian's rhetoric. Well, in any case, we had paid barely any attention at all. They were small states and not in our natural constituency. By that point, we were deciding to go right for Liddy's throat--figuratively speaking. Having beaten back MacKenzie in the north, it was time to go for a litany of states around the south's edge- places where she was less entrenched."
-Dr. Richard Hudson, 2001 interview
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #268 on: December 30, 2016, 08:26:17 PM »

Primaries: March 14th, 2000

The Ferraro and Romney camps were up well past midnight and going into the thirteenth. The candidates--or at least Romney--themselves didn't allow this to interrupt their campaign schedules, but by 8:00 AM March 13th, 2000, former Secretary of State Geraldine Ferraro was preparing to publicly drop out of the race for the nomination, endorsing and pledging her delegates to Massachusetts Governor "Mitt" Romney of Massachusetts. Westman was more than happy at the announcement, boldly proclaiming that the Democratic, "capitalist" establishment had coalesced into a single man, and what a man! Romney, a former Republican, scion of "vulture capitalism", independent until 1993, practically a WASP-via-osmosis, and the perfect symbol of Rockefeller Republican-turned-Democrat gentility, seemed the perfect opponent to the former Montana Senator. With that, it was predicted Romney would sweep "Southern Tuesday".

Florida Republican Primary
David MacKenzie: 33%
Elizabeth Dole: 32%
Christian Mattingly: 32%
Others: 1%

Florida came as one of the big surprises of the night, as MacKenzie claimed his first victory in Dixie. Winning the endorsement of former Florida Governor John Ellis Bush and already in possession of a heavy amount of Dade County-area funding, the Senator had earned a hard-fought win. He was advantaged by the fact that both Dole and Mattingly were fighting in several states at once that night, while he had confined himself largely to Florida, with token appearances in Tennessee and Texas.

Florida Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 52%
Scott Westman: 37%
Geraldine Ferraro: 8%
Others: 3%

Louisiana Republican Primary
Elizabeth Dole: 47%
Christian Mattingly: 28%
David MacKenzie: 25%
Others: 2%

Louisiana Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 48%
Scott Westman: 37%
Geraldine Ferraro: 13%
Others: 2%

Mississippi Republican Primary
Elizabeth Dole: 55%
Christian Mattingly: 35%
David MacKenzie: 19%
Others: 1%

Mississippi Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 44%
Scott Westman: 29%
Geraldine Ferraro: 25%
Others: 2%

Oklahoma Republican Primary
Christian Mattingly: 46%
Elizabeth Dole: 41%
David MacKenzie: 23%
Others: <1%

Oklahoma Democratic Primary
Scott Westman: 52%
W. "Mitt" Romney: 26%
Geraldine Ferraro: 23%
Others: 1%

Oklahoma proved a surprise for both parties. For Elizabeth Dole, the loss hit close to home, as the wheat-heavy state was expected to go for the wife of Bob Dole. Nevertheless, her campaign had neglected it, and meanwhile the economy had moved more towards resource extraction--a variable found to be a high correlate with Mattingly support in all regions of the country. On the Democratic side, the general assumption was that Westman couldn't win anywhere near Dixie and, while Oklahoma was his only win that night, it played into a growing narrative of conservative, white Democrats voting for the hard-left Westman. Some attributed this to the desire to spite the system, some to class politics, some to racism, and some to the fact that Westman was culturally closer to them than the wealthy Bay Stater.

Tennessee Republican Primary
Elizabeth Dole: 36%
Christian Mattingly: 32%
David MacKenzie: 30%
Lamar Alexander: 2%
Others: <1%

Tennessee Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 56%
Scott Westman: 40%
Geraldine Ferraro: 4%
Others: <1%

Texas Republican Primary
Christian Mattingly: 38%
Elizabeth Dole: 33%
David MacKenzie: 29%
Others: <1%

Texas Democratic Primary
W. "Mitt" Romney: 57%
Scott Westman: 32%
Geraldine Ferraro: 11%
Others: <1%

Mattingly's victory in Texas was the other big surprise of the night. While Dole had not hoped to walk away with everything on Southern Tuesday, she had formally been denied a "big state" win, losing three states total--Florida, Oklahoma, Texas--and coming surprisingly close to loss in Tennessee despite the support of Lamar Alexander, her former opponent, along with a slew of other elected Republicans in the state. The former First Lady saw the writing on the wall, dropping out the next morning, but refusing to offer up any endorsement--yet. Mattingly and MacKenzie had both weathered the storm, coming out looking stronger. They now fixed their sights solely on each other. On the Democratic side, the night was an astounding success for Romney, firmly positioning him as the frontrunner and giving him multitude of delegates. Critics were by that point calling on Westman to drop out "for the sake of party unity", but the fire-haired radical vowed to fight on. Regardless, for both parties, it was now a two-man race.

Republican Primary Map

Green - Senator David F. MacKenzie of Vermont
Blue - Former Governor Christian R. Mattingly of Michigan
Red - Senator Elizabeth "Liddy" Dole of North Carolina


Green - Former Senator Scott Westman of Montana
Blue - Governor Willard M. "Mitt" Romney of Massachusetts
Red - Former Secretary of State Geraldine Ann Ferraro of New York
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #269 on: January 01, 2017, 09:38:51 PM »

The 2000 Democratic Primaries: Resolution

Despite the fact that states were contested up until the end of the primaries, it became clear shortly after Ferraro's exit that Romney would soon have the delegates to claim the nomination. Taking Illinois on March 21st, Westman nevertheless put up a tough fight in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on April 4th. Had he won both, he might have put up a serious fight at the convention for the nomination. Nevertheless, Romney's narrow victory in Pennsylvania essentially sealed the deal for the Massachusetts Governor. Romney actually won a minority of contests after that point, owing to the high amount of rural and "backwater" states on the slate--Westman scored victories on the backs of "hicks, white trash, college students, and the unemployed," in Wyoming, Alaska, Indiana, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, and South Dakota. In Alabama, the careful maneuvering of Jefferson Dent, the Westman campaign's Southern director, produced narrow victory. It was also the state where Westman received the highest percentage of the black vote.


Blue - Governor Willard Milton "Mitt" Romney of Massachusetts
Green - Former Senator Scott Augustus Westman of Montana
Red - Former Secretary of State Geraldine Ann Ferraro of New York

Despite the decision by Westman to contest the nomination on the convention floor, the Romney team had been working on a Vice Presidential selection for the Governor. His team noted that he had suffered from a number of weak points. Some Democrats questioned his loyalty, others his stances on fiscal issues, and others his lack of foreign policy experience. With this in mind, it was decided that his team search out a list of potentials that covered at least a few of these bases. Some even suggested former Secretary of State Jefferson Dent, who had won the nomination twelve years prior and could conceivably secure Romney from all directions. This was out of the question, however.  Geraldine Ferraro had removed herself from selection early on, having agreed to hand over her support to Romney instead with the hope of being reappointed Secretary of State. "I don't want to feel compelled to ever seek the nomination again," she'd commented. "If Mitt loses this year, my only hope for any sort of comeback would be in 2004, with all the commitments it implies. And if he wins, I would be a useless appendage for four or eight years." That wasn't the role Geraldine had signed up for.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The team was aware that it was taking a gamble; Romney, while lacking significant foreign policy experience, was nevertheless still seen by many as an "insider"--though one far less blemished than Ferraro. As such, were he to choose a real "heavy" such as Kerrey, it might reassure policy-minded voters, but at the same time carry certain implications among less-informed and more affect-based voters. These were the type that Romney had lost in large numbers in the primary.

Above: Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney (left) was introduced to the 2000 Democratic National Convention by his state's senior senator and "liberal lion" Ted Kennedy (right). Since 1978, the Kennedy family had undergone some rehabilitation and Ted, with little association with Robert's administration, was at that point a hero to many Democrats.

While all, in the mind of the candidate, were qualified, the Governor was looking for a good foil; a candidate that could excite and stir the base, appear down to earth, and reach beyond Romney's largely middle-of-the-road, affluent, and Mormon constituency. While some on the list could be cited as experts or even policy wonks, many in the Governor's team had started to come to the realization that he didn't need to be paired with someone seen as calculating or removed. To match Romney's perceived coolness, the Bay Stater would need a fighter. As such, against other advice, John Edwards, having only begun serving in the Senate the previous January, was selected for Vice President. Young, charismatic, Southern, attached to anti-poverty issues, and sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Edwards seemed to possess the list of traits that would make for an ideal balance to Romney.

In the buildup to the convention, Westman, well aware that he had little to no chance of success, persisted in also acting as a general election candidate. While Jefferson Dent, who had run his campaign in the South, had in no way assented to the Montana Senator's claim, Westman persisted in stating that he intended running on a ticket with his former colleague. In an interview the weekend preceding the DNC, Westman had stated, "Yes, I think Dent is perhaps the most qualified choice for the job. He has served twice as Secretary of State- the first time at a crucial juncture in the Middle East Peace Process, and the second time to withdraw us from our stupid misadventure in Iraq. Jeff also has been fighting for important, working-class issues for decades. It's more than telling that Romney, a former Republican, decided to select as his Vice President a supporter of our disastrous policy in the Middle East." In the floor vote, Westman's delegates insisted on themselves naming Dent as Westman's Vice President, but to little avail. Both Romney and Edwards were nominated without incident. Edwards delivered a rousing and unifying acceptance speech that in many ways overshadowed Romney's, and laid out a color-blind, egalitarian agenda.

Above: John Edwards, who was selected by Mitt Romney as the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, delivered a rousing acceptance speech that served as an impressive entry onto the national stage. His presence on the ticket was intended to serve as a good counterweight to the detached Romney.

Westman, for his part, walked out of the convention. "Doubling the size and sheen of hair on the Democratic ticket won't do a damn thing to battle income inequality or the tireless advance of capital." He vowed to fight on and, days afterwards, announced his endorsement of third party candidate Lenora Fulani. He did not join the Peace & Freedom ticket, as he had done with the Libertarians twenty years earlier, but he became firmly associated with the Fulani's candidacy. A consistent gimmick of Westman's speaking style would be his insistence on referring to both major party candidates as "the Republican nominee".
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #270 on: January 02, 2017, 04:03:32 PM »

The 2000 Republican Primaries: Resolution

Elizabeth Dole made the fateful decision to exit the race shortly after "Southern Tuesday". Beaten back in Florida and Texas, and upstaged in the provincial skirmish of Oklahoma, the former First Lady appeared ot not even have the whole of Dixie on her side. Her last place finish in Illinois was the final straw. Only a few days later, Mattingly and MacKenzie split victories, as Mattingly took Pennsylvania while his rival claimed Wisconsin. Despite punditry predicting that the Governor should have won both there and Minnesota several weeks earlier, Mattingly's team had noted early on that he struggled, in some ways, to communicate to rural voters, and his demeanor was not exactly the type to win him the suburbs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, or in Illinois. Mattingly instead scored big victories among "white trash" demographics and in the same types of post-industrial "Hellscapes" that had driven Westman's Rust Belt victories in the Democratic primaries. Washington D.C. and Hawaii would be MacKenzie's last victories, as Dole's exit provided Mattingly with the necessary support on the right to overpower the Vermont Senator in every other confrontation.

Blue - Former Governor Christian Rocco Mattingly of Michigan
Green - Senator David MacKenzie of Vermont
Red - Senator Elizabeth Hanford Dole of North Carolina

MacKenzie was naturally upset at his loss, but there was never any plan to contest the convention; nay, now it was time to bargain for his endorsement. Surely, Mattingly would highly prize an enthusiastic display of support from his primary rival. Nevertheless, while Mattingly welcomed MacKenzie's exit from the race and was more than happy to hear his support, it won the Vermont Senator no favors. While many spouted the conventional wisdom that the two-term Senator served as an ideal Vice Presidential pick for the Governor--many imagined a Republican ticket that would peel vast sections of the North away from the embattled Democrats, as they had done with the West the two elections previous--such was the farthest thing from Mattingly's mind.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Mattingly and his campaign had already been in the process of looking for such a person. Mattingly's greatest pushback in the primary had not necessarily been liberal Republicans, but instead many of the strident conservatives in the House and Senate that insisted that the Governor, whose own views went against conservative economic orthodoxy on a number of issues, tone down his rhetoric. Mattingly wanted a Vice President who, regardless of their stance, would be willing to stand with him, and who, secondly, would realign the party hierarchy behind his ticket and, hopefully, his administration. That was why he had offered the spot to Tom Ridge who was a personal friend of his, a former House member, and, regardless of that, someone to his left on social issues.

Above: Former Governor Christian Mattingly, rarely recognized as coming off particularly 'well put-together', was the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party by the end of May, 2000.

Given the Governor's priorities in regards to the Vice Presidential selection, a number of potentially "big" picks--former politicians, generals, etc.--from the motley crowd of support he'd gathered in the primary were ignored. Instead, the search was for the "unbearably conventional". It would be Ohio Congressman John Boehner who chaired the search committee.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Mattingly personally liked McCain, who had endorsed him during the primaries, and deeply wanted him "on [his] team". Nevertheless, McCain's quirks, including his intense desire to tackle "pork barrel spending", as well as his previous history of extramarital affairs, made him a questionable choice. Mattingly, personally, saw little problem with "pork" and intended to use it whenever necessary to get what he wanted done. The Senator's temper was known to lose him friends, and Mattingly needed a relationship with Congress. Several were surprised to see a woman, much less one of the Senate liberals, on Mattingly's list. Mattingly nevertheless liked Snowe's protectionism and viewed her as a way to "fool" the liberal ranks into accepting him. Branstad was seen by many as Mattingly's personal favorite for the job. A convert to Catholicism who, while in the military, had experienced a run-in with Jane Fonda, Branstad was, like Mattingly, the Governor of a Mid-Western state and actually an early supporter of his campaign.

Nevertheless, Mattingly eventually settled on John Kasich. Chair of the House Budget Committee, he displayed the proper commitment to "bland, orthodox Washington 'principles'" that would herd the conventional GOP establishment back into his ranks. Kasich was nevertheless from a Rust Belt state and could--at least somewhat--understand the voters of those states. And, despite his boring appearance, Kasich had a cutthroat mentality when needed. Mattingly fondly remembered an anecdote he had heard from Kasich's colleague, Boehner, that the Croatian-American had stubbornly once announced to a group of reporters and Representatives that "you're either on the bus, or under it." In him, Mattingly saw someone who knew how to do his job, but had a mean streak that the Governor identified with. Moreover, Kasich had displayed presidential ambitions. To Mattingly, he was bulldog and conciliator in one.

Above: John Kasich (right), Congressman from Ohio and Chair of the House Budget Committee, was selected by Christian Mattingly as the 2000 Republican nominee for Vice President. The team shared the distinction of having both met the nation's 37th President (left) in 1970.

Demographically, Mattingly liked having "a Czech and a Croat" on the ticket. Having been driven to the right during the 1970's and 1980's over staunch opposition to international communism, Kasich's family's story was one that the Governor took heart in. While he did find distaste in the Ohioan's divorce and in his abandonment of Catholicism, such were minor workplace details. In any case, Kasich belonged to a conservative "high church", which was more than acceptable.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #271 on: January 02, 2017, 04:04:42 PM »

Well, that's the 2000 primaries.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #272 on: January 02, 2017, 05:35:48 PM »

Mattingly and the 2000 General Election

Years later, only after he had exited the public spotlight, did Mattingly allow for the whole of his past to be unveiled. In various campaign biographies, his description of his time overseas in Vietnam was vague, with the purposeful impression of painting Mattingly's as a bland, wholesome, all-American tale. Likewise, his description of his childhood after his father's passing remained similarly draped in shadow. A 2015 biography would posit that "Christian Mattingly was a man forever fleeing from himself. Exceptionally intelligent, his instinct was almost to reject it out of hand, or to embrace it only as a dirty habit. He portrayed himself as a friendly, down-to-earth, American folk hero. A kind businessman who fought for the interests of those he identified with, and nothing but. Political allies and opponents alike, however, remarked at his extensive vocabulary, his analytic ability, and, perhaps most, how sarcastically he took his own role in the public sphere; almost as if he were playing a character. He remains a man deeply divided by intense passion and intense despondence, masked by a person constructed to hide both.

"Few public references to Mattingly's background would refer to the lanky high schooler who carted around history and philosophy books, or regularly sparred, knuckles bare, with schoolmates in Warren. The quaint, romantic tale of the boy who worked nights to make ends meet and substitute for his late father overshadows the struggles of a youth who almost dropped out of school multiple times. The decision to serve his country in Vietnam serves as a convenience to explain away the fact that he had been routinely recommended to attend college and that he despised that fact. The same would also serve to alleviate the intense survivor's guilt he possessed and the ever-growing sense of nihilism he had adopted. It would only take his own brushes with death to confer on him a sense of order and duty, and it would only be well after Vietnam that he came to embrace this, not only spiritually through a return to the Church, but publicly and politically. The Christian Mattingly that left for Vietnam likely would have never decided to found his own business or to seek public office. He would have been perfectly happy slaving away in the place of his father at the Ford plant, shirking any sense of destiny for the alleviation of an intense sense of alienation.

"If there was ever a time in his life where he was, in some sense, at peace, it would have been the nineteen eighties. Despite distaste for the changing social attitudes and "unnecessary" fashions, that was when Mattingly had a chance to live out both of his ideals. In one world, he was a raging crusader, convincing what seemed the very laws of physics, economics, and organizational psychology in his favor, forging a path in an industry once marked by monopolistic competition. It was a decade of dedication and expansion. In another world, he was the patriarch of a young and growing family that, despite financial struggles, continued to push ahead. He entertained both his ambitions and his desire for insularity and belonging. Nevertheless, as private service turned public, he felt his family separate. His eldest son, Bryan, persisted in turning against him. In many ways, the introverted, reclusive Bryan was a representation of Mattingly's own id, a creature he would never dare confront. Bryan despised his father's respectability politics and opted for a life of the mind. In the midst of the 2000 campaign, Mattingly would be forced to answer to inquiring minds in the national media why his son had received a drinking citation within his first two months of college.

"In any case,  for him politics had been 'the next challenge'. What he was instead confronted with was a life of unbearable security, and the comfort associated with such a lifestyle he would later credit with allowing the dissolution of his precious family unit. It would be a wonder as to why he opted to continue to pursue political ambitions at all, but for an unquenchable need to 'win'. He had finally let himself entertain his ambitions and he would be damned if he'd let himself be stopped. As well, the nineteen nineties had seen the dissolution of his 'way of life' on the macro scale. The types of communities he hailed from, and those he romanticized, had become endangered by what he would sarcastically call 'a cabal of policy eggheads in both parties'. All across the rust belt, communities that had either been revived, or had barely hung on, during the 1980's at last breathed their last gasp. Jobs shifted away from the country, owing both to globalization and to mechanization. Suddenly, an engineering degree was almost necessary to work at many levels of manufacturing. Agriculture had not gotten easier either, as the family farm--itself the reflection of the Republican ideal since the 1850's--continued to whither. And, while Democrats were bragging about innovations in technology and record-breaking economic numbers, danger loomed abroad, at last personified in deadly terrorist attacks on August 7th, 1998. Mattingly's eventual bid for the presidency was a bid to restore the America he called home.

...

"Mattingly, perhaps more than any other campaign, loved 2000. It represented his bid for the support of the men and women he identified with, the people in the professions and the neighborhoods he'd seen as brothers and sisters in class and nationality, that had given him a sense of nationhood well before his first march in Army boots. That this had been threatened by elites in either party who took pictures with computer terminals and discussed the future's limitless ability to alleviate social problems was unconscionable. Liddy Dole, a woman who Mattingly believed felt entitled to the presidency owing to her husband, and David MacKenzie, a man who felt entitled to the presidency owing to his class and background, represented to Mattingly ideal primary opponents. This was nothing compared to the general election, however." Mitt Romney was an effete, teetotalling elite from New England whose personal fortune had been made through 'business consulting'. His campaign had been run on progressive triumphs in Massachusetts, including gun control, environmental regulations, gay marriage, and universal healthcare. His campaign did not cater to class antagonisms or grievances, but instead to those Democrats that wanted an inoffensive champion who would manage the country well. He had triumphed owing to significant support among high turnout groups in the suburbs, a geographic calendar that had favored him early on, and the Democratic establishment's decision to coalesce around him in order to stop the left-wing vanguard represented by Scott Westman. In a year that seemed marked by change and discontent, the Democrats were nevertheless still in the throes of Hartism and opted for the technocrat who would safeguard the gains of the last eight years over the incendiary who might gamble it all. In that same vein, he represented exactly the type of Democrat that Mattingly had set out to defeat.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #273 on: January 02, 2017, 06:09:08 PM »

wow so now 2000 is an alternate universe 2016 - with two better candidates.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #274 on: January 05, 2017, 06:34:08 PM »

2000: On The Issues

The free-wheeling nineties, which had, four years ago, permitted a national campaign centered on, among other issues farm subsidies, were over. Instead, the seemingly minute disappeared in the rear view mirror. Instead, the 2000 Presidential election centered primarily on issues of basic material security: employment, defense, and the like. Outside of that, some otherwise minor recurrent social issues did come up. It was remarked that, all around, both candidates positioned themselves as "moderates", but of very different stripes and radically different demeanor. While Romney was a "pragmatic progressive", the Mattingly campaign was self-consciously retrograde.

Trade & Employment
Both candidates ran on relatively moderate economic platforms that would nevertheless draw very sharp battle lines.
Romney: “All around, free trade has helped more than it has hurt. Consumer goods once restricted to only the wealthy have been made available at the mass level. That said, we would be remiss if we presumed that every trade agreement is, by default, good.” Romney, essentially, ran as the candidate of The Economist, to the opinion of many. In order to offset unemployment, the Massachusetts Governor campaigned on extending unemployment benefits, reduced interest rates, and a tax reimbursement for every American family. By contrast, Romney tried to paint Mattingly as “out of touch”--”he hasn’t been involved in job creation since the 1980’s!”--and a “big government Republican,”; “Mattingly’s plan will constitute a tax giveaway to contractors and billionaires while endangering the safety net this country has cherished since FDR. He still hasn’t explained how to pay for the Mattingly deficits!”
Mattingly: The Republican asserted that Romney’s plans for growth were insincere and “half-hearted at best.” The agenda of Mitt Romney is, and this isn’t an insult, not one for you and me. I have no doubt he could accomplish his picture of America doing well- an improved stock market, record profits, and so on. That does not mean he will accomplish anything for you or your families.” In an ironic twist for a Republican nominee, Mattingly asserted that he was the man for labor to trust. “The Democrats are not at all interested in getting you ‘off your feet’. Their programs have shown a remarkable amount of complacency towards growing welfare rolls and a decreased quality of life. Meanwhile, it has gotten harder and harder to earn a living wage in this country!” Mattingly’s essential take was that, with him at the helm, you wouldn’t be able to count on an expansion in welfare- instead, finding, keeping, and living off a job would be made easier. This would be done through the repatriation of capital and labor, attacking multi-national corporations and “economic traitors”. Any inflation resulting from wage increased--”a sure deal,” he asserted--would be offset through monetary policy. Beyond that, he also promised a stimulus package "to rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure."

Foreign Policy, Counter-Terrorism, & Defense
With both candidates being “domestic policy candidates”, it would be up to the campaign apparatuses to craft coherent platforms for them to recite lines from.
Romney: “The President, since the 8/7 attacks, has pursued a smart and aggressive strategy in the Middle East that will pay off in the end.” Romney proposed keeping the Middle East effort a multi-national process and to ensure that “the whole civilized world has a stake in terrorism’s pacification.”
Mattingly: “The disarming that America went through starting in 1991 was utterly unconscionable.” Mattingly believed that the invasion of Iraq had been a mistake; an attempt by a President weak at home to secure himself abroad through red meat that would reinforce an image of “strength”. In Mattingly’s view, he could accomplish as much by sporting beard stubble and pointing to his own political record. “Of course,” he said in private conversation, “Iraq was going to be a clusterf#ck. And of course that would give us two f#cked up options: surrender or keep getting shot at. Option three, gun down the bastards at every opportunity, was tried in ‘Nam. It resulted in option one anyway.” Despite styling himself a hawk, Mattingly had a cynical view of war, owing to his own experience in Vietnam. In choosing not to confront the “war question” head on, Mattingly offered that “the fight against terrorism has to begin at home,” proposing the granting of new powers to the U.S. intelligence apparatus while “cultivating our friends in the region.” Among friends, Mattingly also remarked “If we’re being entirely honest, broadcasting the image of the West as this progressive place that would offend any good Muslim’s sensibilities probably has not paid off in the region. Our figurehead the last six years was best known for standing next to pride flags and swimsuit models. Well, ya can’t please everybody.” Mattingly, promising in public “better and more thorough defense policies,” intended fully on leaving this up to the Central Intelligence Agency to make a “secret, and unauthorized foreign policy.” “We did this in the 80’s, and by God we can do it again!”

Education
Romney: Promising “a twenty-first century educational system for a twenty-first century economy,” Romney vowed to double-down on math and science education. In order to add populist appeal to his “Wall Street Journal-endorsed” (Westman’s words) economic platform, the Governor was proposing a college education program that promised to severely mitigate costs of a college education, especially in STEM fields.
Mattingly: “I believe American students can do anything if given the proper conditions; the first among these is going to be ensuring that there is a stable home life, the foundations of which are employment and a whole family.” That said, “what this nation has to do is to educate good citizens, and this extends beyond the family. This civic duty can be realized through our educational system.” The Republican wanted greater focus on civics and ethics classes in primary and secondary education. Beyond that, he attacked Romney’s college plan: “In the last thirty years, the government has committed more and more money to seeing citizens enter college. In response, we’ve seen absurd increases in costs! Not only are colleges simply responding to government-created demand, they are forced to bloat their administrative departments to handle the increased paperwork and red tape. This has resulted, more than anything, in increased college debt and the increased meaninglessness of a college education. I hear routinely that it has become simply a more expensive high school.” As an alternative, Mattingly endorsed a plan, then pending in the U.S. Senate, to provide quality assurance in education through standardized testing. “Our children deserve the best teachers.”

Abortion
Romney: Stated simply, he thought “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare,” and had few qualms with Roe v. Wade. “I am personally against it, but this is a country founded on freedom of conscience and freedom of faith.”
Mattingly: “Mr. Romney likes to tote out his Mormon faith whenever it serves to demonstrate some civic merit of his; he has little problem, however, when sidelining it in favor of the Democratic platform.” Mattingly stated firmly that he sought to return abortion to the states, and that he would seek to do so through the appointment of judges. “That said, we in the right-to-life movement have seen significant setbacks since the early 1970’s. In order to further mitigate abortion, we need to be willing to reduce its likelihood of seeming like the best option to many frightened mothers-to-be.”

Gay Rights
Romney: The Democratic nominee vowed to uphold the Tsongas administration’s policies on gay service in the military and endorsed the idea of civil unions.
Mattingly: The Republican nominee admitted he had not considered gay rights as a whole as a political issue. “I know what history says, and believe me, it’s something that concerns me.” Personally, Mattingly was torn between his faith and sense of straightlaced sexual morality and his own life experiences; he had served alongside a host of demographics, including men that, by 2000 were openly homosexual. As far as the candidate was concerned, status quo would be maintained. “We have enough divorces in this country, I wouldn’t want to expose the gay community to that,” he joked.

The Environment
Romney: One of his most prominent liberal bona fides, Romney had received good marks from environmental groups for his tenure as Governor. In taking this to the nation as a whole, he proposed a series of reforms, including compliance with the Kyoto protocols and other international environmental agreements. “We can never afford to forget the inalienable rights to clean water, clean soil, and clean air.” He also proposed an increase in “superfund” cleanup capital.
Mattingly: “Our national parks are perhaps our greatest treasure.” Beyond that, Mattingly was wholly opposed to “the policies that have destroyed the ability to do business in this country.”

Crime
Nationwide crime numbers had been trending downward since the early 1990’s. Nevertheless, the media narrative prompted both candidates to respond.
Romney: Unwilling to fully come out against the death penalty, the Democratic nominee stated it should be used “sparingly,” and “in cases of overwhelming evidence and utter necessity.”
Mattingly: “Obviously, we’ve got to be tough on crime, and I have. Mitty, uh, well he hasn’t been tasked with handling much crime; I have.” The Governor supported the death penalty, and enjoyed touting his record of tackling drug networks across his state. Regarding any further action, Mattingly was blunt, “The massive increase in crime over the last half of the century, was, in my mind, no doubt, due to two reasons: deindustrialization, and the lack of faith in government. Things flow from the top, and when our civic leaders stopped being trustworthy, so did others. Secondly, we’re going to see employment and factories return to these cities. No citizen is going to be asked to choose between the duties of citizenship and the duties of survival. They will be one and the same. We’re going to restore moral government and we’re going to restore a moral economy. Any crime that’s left after that is going to be struck down by police agencies equipped with what they need to do our jobs. Our policies should not be based on court cases decided by activist judges, but instead on what works.”
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.312 seconds with 12 queries.