December 2014 At-Large Senate Election: Winner/Loser

[Maxwell]

I think the Feds and D-R's are different parties for a reason, because a general "right-wing" party doesn't really work. There will always be that split. That being said, I believe the right person can unite both of those parties in a Presidential election, a fiscal conservative who doesn't offend socons or libertarian types (aka someone who is silent on those marriage issues while at the same time pro-gay marriage and maybe pro choice). There are few like that, but someone exists, for sure.

For example, I would try to rally D-R's behind a Hagrid for President candidacy if he became an active member of the game again.

[ZuWo]

I think the Feds and D-R's are different parties for a reason, because a general "right-wing" party doesn't really work. There will always be that split. That being said, I believe the right person can unite both of those parties in a Presidential election, a fiscal conservative who doesn't offend socons or libertarian types (aka someone who is silent on those marriage issues while at the same time pro-gay marriage and maybe pro choice). There are few like that, but someone exists, for sure.

For example, I would try to rally D-R's behind a Hagrid for President candidacy if he became an active member of the game again.

Hagrid would seem like an excellent candidate to unite D-R's and Federalists indeed. But reading his comments on the previous page ('right-wing extremists','bigoted imbeciles') I am not sure he's still interested in being a candidate of the right.

[Maxwell]

I think the Feds and D-R's are different parties for a reason, because a general "right-wing" party doesn't really work. There will always be that split. That being said, I believe the right person can unite both of those parties in a Presidential election, a fiscal conservative who doesn't offend socons or libertarian types (aka someone who is silent on those marriage issues while at the same time pro-gay marriage and maybe pro choice). There are few like that, but someone exists, for sure.

For example, I would try to rally D-R's behind a Hagrid for President candidacy if he became an active member of the game again.

Hagrid would seem like an excellent candidate to unite D-R's and Federalists indeed. But reading his comments on the previous page ('right-wing extremists','bigoted imbeciles') I am not sure he's still interested in being a candidate of the right.

That does seem to be the case, I did not read that page.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

There was a time when I wanted to be president, but obviously that ship has sailed.

Re: my comments on the last page, I do want to clarify that my charged language was not directed to social conservatives in general, but to the two real nutbars who always had some issue I needed to dance around. One being Ben Kenobi, who is fortunately no longer with us.

[Oakvale]

The issue Windjammer is touching on is another major reason why the Right has problems outside the fact that the main right-wing party is a literal joke - organising libertarians is like herding cats. You could be comfortably winning an election with the generic Right candidate and then a bunch of the libertarians will go off en masse and vote for Poirot or something. You can see this clearly in the Mideast Senate race, when the libertarians refused (er, understandably enough but you know) to vote for Cassius, meaning that Windjammer would have won even without his zombie armada. That says shocking things about the state of the right.

(Oh, and I'd vote for Hagrid too, if he ever came back. RIP, FF. )

[windjammer]

The issue Windjammer is touching on is another major reason why the Right has problems outside the fact that the main right-wing party is a literal joke - organising libertarians is like herding cats. You could be comfortably winning an election with the generic Right candidate and then a bunch of the libertarians will go off en masse and vote for Poirot or something. You can see this clearly in the Mideast Senate race, when the libertarians refused (er, understandably enough but you know) to vote for Cassius, meaning that Windjammer would have won even without his zombie armada. That says shocking things about the state of the right.

(Oh, and I'd vote for Hagrid too, if he ever came back. RIP, FF. )

Oh and oakvale, I would have never tried to make this region a Labor region if the great member of your party, Simfan, didn't have moved so many rightwingers from the Midwest and the Mideast to the Pacific.
I know everyone knows that Simfan not only made TNF safe, he as well created an opportunity for the left to win in the most socially conservative region. I would have never tried to turn this region if Keaton, Zuwo, enderman and some others hadn't moved.

I cannot thank him enough, especially at the same time you wanted absolutely Labor to collapse, finally they gained a seat .

[windjammer]

TPP and Labor won, the Federalists and the D-Rs clearly lost.

In my view the two right-of-center parties are obviously disorganized. The Federalist Party is a mere one-man show. If no one else besides Yankee is willing to lift a finger the party won't be able to survive in the long run.
The level of disorganization among the D-Rs appears even worse but I'm not sure that party ever had a clear power structure in the first place.

That's probably because the D-Rs have less than a quarter of the membership of the Federalist Party...

The TPP is also quite a small party but yet they managed to get two people elected by running their best guys (that wasn't always the case, see the most recent NE Senate election) and due to excellent GOTV efforts.
I may be wrong, but the fact that no one ran to replace Deus until the announcement of two last-minute write-in-campaigns gave off the impression of a party in disarray. It's an uphill battle to win an at-large Senate seat for a small party like yours but I believe it could have been possible considering the bench of qualified candidates you have to offer.

And I almost forgot,
The last NE senate race was indeed hilarious. Oakvale basically recruited a joke candidate whereas it was definitely for them, a candidate who basically imploded during the campaign after having been expelled from the NE assembly, forcing him to sink his campaign at the end of the campaign, you know, the last TPP voter voting for bore .

[Oakvale]

The issue Windjammer is touching on is another major reason why the Right has problems outside the fact that the main right-wing party is a literal joke - organising libertarians is like herding cats. You could be comfortably winning an election with the generic Right candidate and then a bunch of the libertarians will go off en masse and vote for Poirot or something. You can see this clearly in the Mideast Senate race, when the libertarians refused (er, understandably enough but you know) to vote for Cassius, meaning that Windjammer would have won even without his zombie armada. That says shocking things about the state of the right.

(Oh, and I'd vote for Hagrid too, if he ever came back. RIP, FF. )

Oh and oakvale, I would have never tried to make this region a Labor region if the great member of your party, Simfan, didn't have moved so many rightwingers from the Midwest and the Mideast to the Pacific.
I know everyone knows that Simfan not only made TNF safe, he as well created an opportunity for the left to win in the most socially conservative region. I would have never tried to turn this region if Keaton, Zuwo, enderman and some others hadn't moved.

Yes, that's absolutely true and I've said so on many occasions.

e: No one 'recruited' Matt to do anything. The less said about the substance of the post the better.

[ZuWo]

The issue Windjammer is touching on is another major reason why the Right has problems outside the fact that the main right-wing party is a literal joke - organising libertarians is like herding cats. You could be comfortably winning an election with the generic Right candidate and then a bunch of the libertarians will go off en masse and vote for Poirot or something. You can see this clearly in the Mideast Senate race, when the libertarians refused (er, understandably enough but you know) to vote for Cassius, meaning that Windjammer would have won even without his zombie armada. That says shocking things about the state of the right.

(Oh, and I'd vote for Hagrid too, if he ever came back. RIP, FF. )

Oh and oakvale, I would have never tried to make this region a Labor region if the great member of your party, Simfan, didn't have moved so many rightwingers from the Midwest and the Mideast to the Pacific.
I know everyone knows that Simfan not only made TNF safe, he as well created an opportunity for the left to win in the most socially conservative region. I would have never tried to turn this region if Keaton, Zuwo, enderman and some others hadn't moved.

I cannot thank him enough, especially at the same time you wanted absolutely Labor to collapse, finally they gained a seat .

I can't speak for the other guys you mentioned but Simfan had nothing to do with my decision to move to the Pacific. Ever since I became an independent I have been completely out of the loop regarding party politics, partisan schemes and ploys and I enjoy that a lot.
I moved to the Pacific simply because it's fun to try something new every once in a while.

[windjammer]

The issue Windjammer is touching on is another major reason why the Right has problems outside the fact that the main right-wing party is a literal joke - organising libertarians is like herding cats. You could be comfortably winning an election with the generic Right candidate and then a bunch of the libertarians will go off en masse and vote for Poirot or something. You can see this clearly in the Mideast Senate race, when the libertarians refused (er, understandably enough but you know) to vote for Cassius, meaning that Windjammer would have won even without his zombie armada. That says shocking things about the state of the right.

(Oh, and I'd vote for Hagrid too, if he ever came back. RIP, FF. )

Oh and oakvale, I would have never tried to make this region a Labor region if the great member of your party, Simfan, didn't have moved so many rightwingers from the Midwest and the Mideast to the Pacific.
I know everyone knows that Simfan not only made TNF safe, he as well created an opportunity for the left to win in the most socially conservative region. I would have never tried to turn this region if Keaton, Zuwo, enderman and some others hadn't moved.

I cannot thank him enough, especially at the same time you wanted absolutely Labor to collapse, finally they gained a seat .

I can't speak for the other guys you mentioned but Simfan had nothing to do with my decision to move to the Pacific. Ever since I became an independent I have been completely out of the loop regarding party politics, partisan schemes and ploys and I enjoy that a lot.
I moved to the Pacific simply because it's fun to try something new every once in a while.

Oooops, so not you. But I know he moved some people here, making TNF safe and the Mideast competitive .

[Maxwell]

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

[Talleyrand]

Based on my understanding of Northeast politics, there's only one person who would have certainly ousted Bore, and that individual ended up voting for him. Matt, who is very popular personally, was actually one of the strongest challengers available.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Based on my understanding of Northeast politics, there's only one person who would have certainly ousted Bore, and that individual ended up voting for him. Matt, who is very popular personally, was actually one of the strongest challengers available.

Yes, except the right has more reason to trust bore than Matt at this point.

[Adam Griffin]

I think the Feds and D-R's are different parties for a reason, because a general "right-wing" party doesn't really work. There will always be that split. That being said, I believe the right person can unite both of those parties in a Presidential election, a fiscal conservative who doesn't offend socons or libertarian types (aka someone who is silent on those marriage issues while at the same time pro-gay marriage and maybe pro choice). There are few like that, but someone exists, for sure.

See: June 2013. And before anyone says "well sirnick wasn't a right-winger" or "dallasfan is disliked by a key contingent on the right" or "they both supported legalized pornography for kids and incest", remember that this was the ticket that the bulk of the right did prematurely decide to rally around, as well as forgoing their own attempt at running a ticket. Windjammer had a field day with that decision - no wonder sirnick is still so bitter about things! Of course, this decision by the Right was likely made due to the same dynamic as many others: just to try to stick it to Labor. Unfortunately for them and as I've always said, making the game about that dynamic usually rewards the Left and hurts the Right in the long-run.


Though it'd help if the Right would actually run someone who fits the mold of what you describe. Between Duke, Sirnick and Lumine, it's no wonder that the broader group can't stick together. If anything, it seems like the "Right" in recent elections has pandered more to the libertarian elements (if only based on those three choices listed prior), and has taken the socon element for granted. I think it's hilarious that in this game, the DLC-types and the communists can stick together more so than the libertarians and the socons; the opposite of the real world (thought this isn't always true, as a lot of the fake leftists have sided with ridiculous right-wing candidates in the past if only to spite Labor). It also wasn't necessarily true when I arrived or during the Lib-Lab struggle of 2013.

The Right is bitter about years upon years of losing, and has failed to embrace the fact that we've been in a post-JCP dynamic for going on three years now. As such, they seem to keep buying into the premise of running candidates that aren't effectively loyal to their core constituents, and in the process, create new divisions that otherwise shouldn't be there. By trying to sell-out and create a pathway to victory, they create as many net losses for themselves as they have patched up. Sometimes, you just have to say "fyck all" to the folks who are causing trouble; in a lot of cases, they ultimately fall into line when shunned, anyway.

The left-right-center dynamic in terms of registration seems to be at or near record-highs in terms of the percentage of people who are right-wingers in the game ("Left" outnumbers "Right" by 10 voters, with 25 or so real "Centrist" voters). A victory for the Right involves holding their base and winning 70% or so of the centrists, which isn't so difficult-sounding when you consider the electoral situations they've been in in the past. As I've said for the longest, however, I'm fully confident that the Right will just continue to play the victim card and keep on losing, though.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Griffin, you seem to subscribe to the idea that the core constituency of the right is social conservatives. It's just not true. That way of thinking may work for the left where, in fact, most people do believe in all the same things and the tent can be smaller, but the thing is, the right doesn't have just one base. A winning right-wing candidate needs the so-cons, the libertarians, the ruthless free-market capitalists, the soft conservatives, the centrists, and a number of left-leaning moderates. That's hard to do, and frankly the only reason it's been able to happen is either because we've run unique candidates who have a personality cult around them (sorry Duke) or because Labor has made itself unelectable.

Now, in a way, I appreciate that Labor has done that, because it means the game is more competitive. They can pander to their most extreme elements and still have 50/50 odds to win. But let's not pretend the same strategy can translate to the right. Labor has a lot more wiggle room to flirt with that line of unelectability. I know Griffin thinks it's more admirable to "win with purpose," but you must understand that just winning for the right is a big enough challenge on its own. And because all of the groups I mentioned are vital to a winning right-wing candidacy, I strongly disagree that catering to the social conservatives will get the party anywhere. The right does that, and it loses all the moderates it worked hard to win over. Unfortunately for the people on the far right, they occupy a fringe position. They know it. If they want to win election to the senate or anything else, they need support from conservatives to their left. And the only way they're going to get it is if they support the larger agenda of the "Atlasian right." So that's what happens: Moderates represent the right and win, with the support of all the core groups they need, including so-cons. Social conservatives run for president and they lose, because the moderates are not as stuck for support and can afford to go shopping for other candidates; they'll always be safe.

And that's just the game.

[windjammer]

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Dude,
When you were all in the federalist party: you managed to have: an almost successful libertarian ticket, a Mideast Senator (Spiral), at large senators (Matt, Goldwater, Maxwell, and tmthforu in some extent), candidates for the NE senate race (Matt) etc etc.
Now, after the split, what do you have? N-O-T-H-I-N-G


You speak like if the fed party was the atlasian version of the republican party. That's not the case, even the socons (DC, JCL) are quite libertarian.

[Simfan34]

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Well then we will all keep on losing, until that changes.

[Potus]

Another aspect of the difficulty of uniting the Roght is the fundamental "tone" of the ideology. Conservatism is about the preservation and defense of the best of our current society. Conservatives are fighting not to give ground on the best and will accept reform of the worst. It is an ideology that operates within the confines of existing institutions.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, has this overriding belief that they are waging a war of epic proportion to end an unjust system. The ideology, while still calling for free markets, is by and large an attack on existing institutions. The great, monolithic war being waged by libertarians is the same reason Ron Paul does so well while never winning. They don't have a problem "throwing away" a ballot,

The dysfunction on the Right, to me, displays the irrelevance of game reform. This game works well when there are strong ideological counterweights. Can you imagine 10 or so social conservatives registering in the Northeast? That would be extremely fun. American Conservativism seems to be dramatically underrepresented, which I think causes a lot of the breakdown we see across the whole game.

[Maxwell]

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Well then we will all keep on losing, until that changes.

Aren't you in "The People's Party"? the "great centrists"? Why do you care what happens to "The Right"?

[Maxwell]

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Dude,
When you were all in the federalist party: you managed to have: an almost successful libertarian ticket, a Mideast Senator (Spiral), at large senators (Matt, Goldwater, Maxwell, and tmthforu in some extent), candidates for the NE senate race (Matt) etc etc.
Now, after the split, what do you have? N-O-T-H-I-N-G


You speak like if the fed party was the atlasian version of the republican party. That's not the case, even the socons (DC, JCL) are quite libertarian.

And that was an awful period of time, and ended up destroying the Federalist Party as we knew it then. That coalition of votes wasn't going to last whether i had continued at the helm or not.

And the Federalist Party isn't like the Republican Party now. Quite the opposite - It doesn't really stand for anything. I saw one of the people in the party creating a "Main Street Project" and my thoughts were really "Besides JCL, who really is a conservative that needs distancing from?". The game is much more fun with hard ideological components, and I think the game is better with a right wing that CAN come together but doesn't necessarily HAVE to.

[windjammer]

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Dude,
When you were all in the federalist party: you managed to have: an almost successful libertarian ticket, a Mideast Senator (Spiral), at large senators (Matt, Goldwater, Maxwell, and tmthforu in some extent), candidates for the NE senate race (Matt) etc etc.
Now, after the split, what do you have? N-O-T-H-I-N-G


You speak like if the fed party was the atlasian version of the republican party. That's not the case, even the socons (DC, JCL) are quite libertarian.

And that was an awful period of time, and ended up destroying the Federalist Party as we knew it then. That coalition of votes wasn't going to last whether i had continued at the helm or not.

And the Federalist Party isn't like the Republican Party now. Quite the opposite - It doesn't really stand for anything. I saw one of the people in the party creating a "Main Street Project" and my thoughts were really "Besides JCL, who really is a conservative that needs distancing from?". The game is much more fun with hard ideological components, and I think the game is better with a right wing that CAN come together but doesn't necessarily HAVE to.

How can you describe that as "awful"?

[Maxwell]

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Dude,
When you were all in the federalist party: you managed to have: an almost successful libertarian ticket, a Mideast Senator (Spiral), at large senators (Matt, Goldwater, Maxwell, and tmthforu in some extent), candidates for the NE senate race (Matt) etc etc.
Now, after the split, what do you have? N-O-T-H-I-N-G


You speak like if the fed party was the atlasian version of the republican party. That's not the case, even the socons (DC, JCL) are quite libertarian.

And that was an awful period of time, and ended up destroying the Federalist Party as we knew it then. That coalition of votes wasn't going to last whether i had continued at the helm or not.

And the Federalist Party isn't like the Republican Party now. Quite the opposite - It doesn't really stand for anything. I saw one of the people in the party creating a "Main Street Project" and my thoughts were really "Besides JCL, who really is a conservative that needs distancing from?". The game is much more fun with hard ideological components, and I think the game is better with a right wing that CAN come together but doesn't necessarily HAVE to.

How can you describe that as "awful"?

Well, I mean, the Matt/Maxwell ticket was a massive success, no doubt, but the Party we ran didn't really get anything accomplished despite electoral success.

[windjammer]

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Dude,
When you were all in the federalist party: you managed to have: an almost successful libertarian ticket, a Mideast Senator (Spiral), at large senators (Matt, Goldwater, Maxwell, and tmthforu in some extent), candidates for the NE senate race (Matt) etc etc.
Now, after the split, what do you have? N-O-T-H-I-N-G


You speak like if the fed party was the atlasian version of the republican party. That's not the case, even the socons (DC, JCL) are quite libertarian.

And that was an awful period of time, and ended up destroying the Federalist Party as we knew it then. That coalition of votes wasn't going to last whether i had continued at the helm or not.

And the Federalist Party isn't like the Republican Party now. Quite the opposite - It doesn't really stand for anything. I saw one of the people in the party creating a "Main Street Project" and my thoughts were really "Besides JCL, who really is a conservative that needs distancing from?". The game is much more fun with hard ideological components, and I think the game is better with a right wing that CAN come together but doesn't necessarily HAVE to.

How can you describe that as "awful"?

Well, I mean, the Matt/Maxwell ticket was a massive success, no doubt, but the Party we ran didn't really get anything accomplished despite electoral success.

I wouldn't say that was your fault, or the fault of the fed party. Labor did have 6 seats during this period, that would be like blaming lumine for not signing conservative bills, he doesn't have a majority, so he can't do nothing.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Now, after the split, what do you have? N-O-T-H-I-N-G

You're being willfully ignorant here. After the Democratic-Republican Party began in earnest (circa October or so) we managed to elect: a Governor in the Northeast, a Governor in the Mideast, headed the bottom half of a presidential ticket that nearly won, won an At-Large Special Election (!), and elected a Governor of the IDS - all while never exceeding 15 members (somebody correct me of I'm wrong here.) Admittedly the Democatic-Republican Party has had a bit of a slump then but this has more to do with a dearth of activity than anything else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reported for trolling. Theocratic revanchism and revoking the right to abortion is far more anti-libertarian than whatever social program Labor might concoct.

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Well then we will all keep on losing, until that changes.

Aren't you in "The People's Party"? the "great centrists"? Why do you care what happens to "The Right"?

Simfan.mp3: http://youtu.be/SSCzDykng4g?t=52s

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Now, after the split, what do you have? N-O-T-H-I-N-G

You're being willfully ignorant here. After the Democratic-Republican Party began in earnest (circa October or so) we managed to elect: a Governor in the Northeast, a Governor in the Mideast, headed the bottom half of a presidential ticket that nearly won, won an At-Large Special Election (!), and elected a Governor of the IDS - all while never exceeding 15 members (somebody correct me of I'm wrong here.) Admittedly the Democatic-Republican Party has had a bit of a slump then but this has more to do with a dearth of activity than anything else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reported for trolling. Theocratic revanchism and revoking the right to abortion is far more anti-libertarian than whatever social program Labor might concoct.

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Well then we will all keep on losing, until that changes.

Aren't you in "The People's Party"? the "great centrists"? Why do you care what happens to "The Right"?

Simfan.mp3: http://youtu.be/SSCzDykng4g?t=52s

The Pro-Life position is a very libertarian thing. How can you say denying abortion is an anti-libertarian belief? Life is the greatest right we all have and the taking of the life of the "most innocent" among us is a great injustice. Theocratic revanchist I am not. The non-aggression axiom most definitely applies.