Nevermore shall we hear the plaintive call of 'Reluctant Nay'

[Adam Griffin]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

[Adam Griffin]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

[Adam Griffin]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

[Adam Griffin]

I think it's funny Simfan is pulling the card of "Yankee doesn't stand up for our principles" when Simfan likely votes more often for candidates outside of his own ideological background than he does for those within it.

How many candidates are there that come from my "ideological background" in the first place?

You can dress it up in nuance all you like, but you're a right-winger: there are plenty.

Of course I'm a right-winger. That doesn't obligate me to vote for JCL.

Uh, in this game and in this dynamic, it kind of does. Of course, that's the true problem with the Right in terms of internal structure and order. It's not Yankee that's the problem with respect to how he votes in the Senate: it's individuals such as yourself that comprise the half-dozen special snowflake factions among the Right that all feel entitled to unique treatment and platforms, or else they take their ball and go home. I remember the far left having this problem a couple of years ago, until my glorious reign bashed some skulls and ended most of that (no one can ever truly please the softcocks nor the purist of loons, unfortunately).

I'm sure that most voters on the left would have just as much trouble voting for someone comparable to JCL from their own side of the aisle. There isn't one, though, because JCL is sui generis. This is someone who managed to serve through an entire session of the Senate while remaining completely oblivious to its rules. Of course, with better organization, the Federalists might have found  a more competent candidate - not necessarily a less radical one, but someone who is, errr, more with it - to run in the first place.

     Any issues that most people have with JCL (not necessarily yourself) pertain to his views, as these issues well predate his stint in the Senate. In terms of somebody's ideological views, there is most definitely a high-profile member of the Labor Party who is analogous to him. Yes, this person has enjoyed significant electoral success, unlike JCL.

I feel like if this person had put themselves out as well as JCL has, I don't think they would enjoy nearly the success they have. The fact is JCL had a chance to govern, and chose to embrace something I suspect he knew would not pass, and that's all.

     JCL was lucky to even have an opportunity to hold federal office. This other person gained office fairly easily. While we can discuss how well each of them did once there, I think it is important to note the difference in electoral success between them, going back to Nix's claim that a left-wing JCL would not fare well with the Labor base.

JCL by and large has never struck me as someone who should be as controversial as he is on this board. He's relatively well-mannered and while may be a goofball at times, he expresses his (potentially offensive) views in a non-offensive fashion, at the very least. It's arguable that whomever you're referring to is actually positioned further to the left than JCL is to the right, and arguably much more vocal and aggressive in his behavior. I (at least think?) I agree with PiT in that JCL equivalents on our side do not find it as difficult to gain electoral traction within our ranks, in part because we as a force usually stick together, and the elements among us that choose not to are either those who use the brand for personal gain or those who haven't accepted the brand for what it is at its core (which is a close-knit group that sticks together no matter what).