2014 October Presidential elections, political loser

[windjammer]

This poll is for all registered voters and will run for 5 days.

[Senator Cris]

IMHO, there aren't losers.

Federalist Party: Lumine has won, kept the seat in IDS and made the Midwest Senate race competitive.
TPP: SJoyce is the new VP.
Labor: Marokai has lost, but the party has won the seat in Mideast and kept the seats in Midwest and Northeast.
D-R: Poirot has achieved a good result.

[Maxwell]

Lumine won, the Federalist Party lost. Lost a safe seat by an overwhelming margin. I wish my party had done slightly better in terms uniting conservative support in the Mideast, but Cassius was the incumbent. I also wish we had recruited more in other regions (I have some regrets about not giving Yankee a perennial challenge).

[Adam Griffin]

The Federalist Party has never won. It could be argued that the Right has never won, because the only times in which it has, it's been by electing people who play both sides of the aisle. The Federalist Party doesn't inherently play both sides of the aisle; only its successful presidential nominees do, and the party never has any control over them.

On the other hand, TPP didn't even field a candidate. If we buy into the whole "Lumine's a Manchurian People who infiltrated the Federalist Party to win for TPP", then maybe this isn't the case. Barring that, then we saw a good chunk of TPP members, including leadership, throw by the wayside their ideological principles in order to vote for a guy who was already going to win anyway. Oh, and this was the guy who left them while being their only Senator.

Hard for me to choose, but it definitely wasn't Labor or D-R, both of which had remarkably stronger showings than anyone predicted.

[sentinel]

Windjammer was elected so its a loss for Atlasia.

[Cranberry]

I guess no one will argue that D-Rs and Labor lost this election, but I have a hard time arguing for both a TPP or Federalist lose. Surely, TPP didn't even field a Presidental candidate, but still hold the same number of Senators that Labor and the Federalists (if we don't count Lumine) have, with me being (re)elected without a challenge; won the Northeast Governor race by an impressive margin and together with Federalists took over the Pacific.
Federalists on the one hand lost a race they should not have lost, in their heart region; yet they won the presidency.
Labor's candidate may have lost, but Windjammer's win and TNF and Bore's reelections surely make up for that, and for their loss in the Northeast. (I guess no one can argue that Fitzys little debacle is to be credited for the party at-large)
Poirot has massively exceeded any predictions, as such, D-Rs are surely not the losers of this election.
I would say there was no one single loser, rather a combination of parties doing well in one field and bad in another...

[Maxwell]

Fitzy's figurative loss is his own fault for acting like a real politician in an imaginary world.

[Cranberry]

Fitzy's figurative loss is his own fault for acting like a real politician in an imaginary world.

That was what I tried to say. Not Labor lost that race, Fitzy himself did.

By the way, why is no one suing him for certifying the results for him, saying he won when he didn't?

[Maxwell]

Fitzy's figurative loss is his own fault for acting like a real politician in an imaginary world.

That was what I tried to say. Not Labor lost that race, Fitzy himself did.

By the way, why is no one suing him for certifying the results for him, saying he won when he didn't?

It was based on something I said, but I forgot that Midwest elections were five days instead of three. That is a relic of my Administration and probably should be changed, but since Hash changed his name within time, a lawsuit should be made. I'm sure Hash or someone else is working on it.

[Flake]

Windjammer was elected so its a loss win for Atlasia.

[SWE]

Windjammer was elected so its a loss win for Atlasia.

[windjammer]

Windjammer was elected so its a loss for Atlasia.

[Marokai Backbeat]

There are no real winners or losers when it comes to the parties, really.

Labor may have defied expectations in this moment, with Windjammer in particular showing some savvy, but the long-term health of the party remains in question as far as I'm concerned. Lumine won, but the Federalists showed themselves as hopelessly disorganized yet again. The D-Rs showed impressive solidarity but remain a wedge. TPP has a Vice President, but it remains to be seen if they will just completely disintegrate the second they actually have to do any serious governing, as they did last year.

There is still plenty of uncertainty abound, and as Nix has pointed out, I'm not sure long-term trends favor any of the political organizations. But that may just be the pessimist in me.

[Maxwell]

The Federalist Party has never won. It could be argued that the Right has never won, because the only times in which it has, it's been by electing people who play both sides of the aisle. The Federalist Party doesn't inherently play both sides of the aisle; only its successful presidential nominees do, and the party never has any control over them.

Reading the later part makes sense, but that first part made me roll my eyes hard. Isn't the game supposed to be building coalitions of voters?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Federalist Party has never won. It could be argued that the Right has never won, because the only times in which it has, it's been by electing people who play both sides of the aisle. The Federalist Party doesn't inherently play both sides of the aisle; only its successful presidential nominees do, and the party never has any control over them.

Reading the later part makes sense, but that first part made me roll my eyes hard. Isn't the game supposed to be building coalitions of voters?

Adam has always set the terms of the game based on what is possible for the left to do and then pans the right for always failing to measure up. If the left is perpetually gurranteed to win every time, the right might as well just leave. At least half a dozen people on the right have left the game precisely on that motivation.

On most every issue in the second term, Duke and the Federalist Party were on the same page. In the first term there were problems and both you as then chair and myself as practically the liason, all three of us are to blame for the lapse in the first two months as well as the confused nature of the February situation thus. But as for control, what kind of control is to be expected? I didn't see Marokai, Nix and DemPGH being "controlled". Sounds rather ominious, rather man behind the curtain if you ask me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lumine won, the Federalist Party lost. Lost a safe seat by an overwhelming margin. I wish my party had done slightly better in terms uniting conservative support in the Mideast, but Cassius was the incumbent. I also wish we had recruited more in other regions (I have some regrets about not giving Yankee a perennial challenge).

Two people went inactive between the September Regional election and October and one more since August, some of our people moved as did Zuwo and that whole Hifly-LGBT education thing was a severe blow (in more ways then one). A bunch of lefties moved in and Cassius is not a good fit for many libertarians, though arguably Windjammer struggles in that dept as well. Cassius also has a forum reputation weighing him down and was an appointed/confirmed incumbent, not an elected one to begin with.

You actually probably would have defeated me this time as I had little ability to campaign and contacted not a single IDS voter at any point in the election except Duke and Jbrase who I texted a few times on a relative's phone when I lacked access. 

[TNF]

The Federalists can't really lose because they're a joke party at this point.

[Napoleon]

The Federalist Party has never won. It could be argued that the Right has never won, because the only times in which it has, it's been by electing people who play both sides of the aisle. The Federalist Party doesn't inherently play both sides of the aisle; only its successful presidential nominees do, and the party never has any control over them.

Reading the later part makes sense, but that first part made me roll my eyes hard. Isn't the game supposed to be building coalitions of voters?

Adam has always set the terms of the game based on what is possible for the left to do and then pans the right for always failing to measure up. If the left is perpetually gurranteed to win every time, the right might as well just leave. At least half a dozen people on the right have left the game precisely on that motivation.

On most every issue in the second term, Duke and the Federalist Party were on the same page. In the first term there were problems and both you as then chair and myself as practically the liason, all three of us are to blame for the lapse in the first two months as well as the confused nature of the February situation thus. But as for control, what kind of control is to be expected? I didn't see Marokai, Nix and DemPGH being "controlled". Sounds rather ominious, rather man behind the curtain if you ask me.

nix and dempgh administrations were product of the labor party

[HagridOfTheDeep]

When Labor controls presidents, the game goes to hell. So I don't think that's anything the other parties should emulate.

[free my dawg]

I don't think there were any losers.

Labor wound up picking up a Senate seat due to windjammer being the best, the Federalists won the Presidency, Poirot completely outperformed his expectations, and we would have probably swept the Northeast if we ran someone like Cincinnatus against bore.

[Adam Griffin]

When Labor controls presidents, the game goes to hell. So I don't think that's anything the other parties should emulate.

I see you're becoming increasingly hackish in your old age. Obviously the game didn't go to hell when both Marokai and Nix were Presidents; in fact, in many respects, the game was never better in the post-dissolution era than during this time.

[Adam Griffin]

Lumine won, the Federalist Party lost. Lost a safe seat by an overwhelming margin. I wish my party had done slightly better in terms uniting conservative support in the Mideast, but Cassius was the incumbent. I also wish we had recruited more in other regions (I have some regrets about not giving Yankee a perennial challenge).

Two people went inactive between the September Regional election and October and one more since August, some of our people moved as did Zuwo and that whole Hifly-LGBT education thing was a severe blow (in more ways then one). A bunch of lefties moved in and Cassius is not a good fit for many libertarians, though arguably Windjammer struggles in that dept as well. Cassius also has a forum reputation weighing him down and was an appointed/confirmed incumbent, not an elected one to begin with.

You actually probably would have defeated me this time as I had little ability to campaign and contacted not a single IDS voter at any point in the election except Duke and Jbrase who I texted a few times on a relative's phone when I lacked access. 

You guys elect people who either don't share your values, or at least don't care to stand up for them when in office. I know, I know, "uneven playing field" and all that. It's not as if Labor ever had the entire game united against it.

That's what I mean by having no control. Duke basically signed off on every major piece of Labor legislation during his tenure (save for a few of the most extreme, and in most cases, only modest modifications were needed). Despite the fact that all three of "my Presidents" will tell you that I never coerced them into acting against their will on any significant element, I would have publicly disavowed any of them had they given in as much as the Right does any time it holds the White House (of course, we don't have much of a track record to go on here, and I only personally recall one President "from the Right", but I've heard enough about Tmth's tenure to draw the same conclusion).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

When Labor controls presidents, the game goes to hell. So I don't think that's anything the other parties should emulate.

I see you're becoming increasingly hackish in your old age. Obviously the game didn't go to hell when both Marokai and Nix were Presidents; in fact, in many respects, the game was never better in the post-dissolution era than during this time.

Labor didn't control Marokai. It started to control Nix, and things got nasty when it did.

[Adam Griffin]

When Labor controls presidents, the game goes to hell. So I don't think that's anything the other parties should emulate.

I see you're becoming increasingly hackish in your old age. Obviously the game didn't go to hell when both Marokai and Nix were Presidents; in fact, in many respects, the game was never better in the post-dissolution era than during this time.

Labor didn't control Marokai. It started to control Nix, and things got nasty when it did.

As I've already said, Labor never "controlled" anyone in the sense you're implying, so just stop. As I'm sure you're very aware, a President can't be forced to do much of anything

[HagridOfTheDeep]

No, but some presidents are more impressionable than others. I think the electorate understands what it means to elect a Laborite to the White House now, though. Y'all kind of did the work for me. Not that I think the Federalists will ever be able to capitalize on it...