Cris Survey - October Presidential Elections. Political winner. (Results in HQ)

[Senator Cris]

This poll is for all registered voters and will run for 4 days.

[tmthforu94]

Federalist Party - Though Duke technically isn't a Federalist, this was clearly the center-right ticket, and it was the first victory for the center-right since February 2011. Additionally, the Federalists ran strong races in 4/5 regions.

Progressive Union - Despite being newly formed, the Progressive's nearly placed second in the Presidential election, despite only have a dozen or so members, and are beginning to be seen as a legitimate force in Atlasian politics. Next step: win a Senate race.

[Maxwell]

I want to see who votes Labor solely on holding the Senate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The Labor Party lost. Maybe it was a win for the Federalist Party as a cause (time will tell), but it wasn't really a win for the Federalist Party as an institution. I like Duke, but we basically had a deus ex machina half-party-ticket win with scattered Federalist support. It doesn't bode well for next time when Duke doesn't run and Labor puts up a strong team. Just my opinion.

[Gass3268]

I want to see who votes Labor solely on holding the Senate.

Holding? We gained a seat in Pacific.

[Maxwell]

I want to see who votes Labor solely on holding the Senate.

Holding? We gained a seat in Pacific.

That's what I meant.

[Gass3268]

I want to see who votes Labor solely on holding the Senate.

Holding? We gained a seat in Pacific.

That's what I meant.

Ah, okay.

[Donerail]

Winner: Federalist Party, for running strong races in 4 regions, winning 2 Senate seats (including one where the Fed nominee was so strong Labor didn't even challenge), and an overwhelming triumph of their endorsed ticket/a ticket containing a Federalist/a center-right ticket/a ticket of two blue avatars.

Runner-up: Labor Party, for emerging from a fractured convention to run a competent electoral bid, while defending vulnerable incumbents in two regions, picking up a third, and running a very strong and credible challenger in a fourth, while continuing to advocate a broad, detailed, agenda of reform.

Loser: Federalist Party, for lacking the party discipline to prevent one of its members from attacking the official ticket and launching a write-in bid, endorsing an independent instead of their own candidate (32% of Federalists voted for someone else in the first round), and failing to pickup two Senate seats that were clearly within their grasp (especially if Presidential votes translated to the regional level - Duke won all regions over the Labor candidate).

Runner-up: Labor Party, for failing to put forwards a credible candidate for President (no offense to the Dr, but his campaign was rather seat-of-the-pants and only came to be after the convention), in its absence failing to even get a left-winger elected, whatever the hell went on in that convention (were the choices at one point really Snowstalker and drj?), and failing to win the turnout battle despite an extremely experienced and solid candidate in the Mideast.

[Maxwell]

Loser: Federalist Party, for lacking the party discipline to preent one of its members from attacking the official ticket and launching a write-in bid, endorsing an independent instead of their own candidate (32% of Federalists voted for someone else in the first round), and failing to pickup two Senate seats that were clearly within their grasp (especially if Presidential votes translated to the regional level - Duke won all regions over the Labor candidate).

Those are two conflicting points. Should we have had the discipline to fight the insurgent ticket? Or should we have just endorsed the insurgent ticket over the independent leading out party? Duke won the nomination!

The Senate campaign I agree, I wish we did better.

And yes, TNF could've been vulnerable under the right circumstances, though I don't think a rightist can win the Midwest in anything other than a special election and if they're super pragmatist, but bore had very strong approvals, so I'm not sure how vulnerable he was.

[Gass3268]

Winner: Federalist Party, for running strong races in 4 regions, winning 2 Senate seats (including one where the Fed nominee was so strong Labor didn't even challenge), and an overwhelming triumph of their endorsed ticket/a ticket containing a Federalist/a center-right ticket/a ticket of two blue avatars.

Runner-up: Labor Party, for emerging from a fractured convention to run a competent electoral bid, while defending vulnerable incumbents in two regions, picking up a third, and running a very strong and credible challenger in a fourth, while continuing to advocate a broad, detailed, agenda of reform.

Loser: Federalist Party, for lacking the party discipline to prevent one of its members from attacking the official ticket and launching a write-in bid, endorsing an independent instead of their own candidate (32% of Federalists voted for someone else in the first round), and failing to pickup two Senate seats that were clearly within their grasp (especially if Presidential votes translated to the regional level - Duke won all regions over the Labor candidate).

Runner-up: Labor Party, for failing to put forwards a credible candidate for President (no offense to the Dr, but his campaign was rather seat-of-the-pants and only came to be after the convention), in its absence failing to even get a left-winger elected, whatever the hell went on in that convention (were the choices at one point really Snowstalker and drj?), and failing to win the turnout battle despite an extremely experienced and solid candidate in the Mideast.

This is some great analysis on the elections.

[ZuWo]

The Progressive Union is both a winner and loser of the elections. While the result of its presidential ticket is very respectable, the Pacific Senate race, where the PU had an excellent shot at winning their first Senate seat, turned out to be more than unfortunate.

[Adam Griffin]

Labor - and I'll sperg as to why.

Being in possession of the Presidency is a stressful and difficult task - thankfully for the Federalists, they still will not know that feeling. When we first took the White House in February, Labor had to begin making considerations that previously were not a part of its MO. Until that point, we were the loud, rapidly-growing and raucous minority, but we had to drive the policy and dialogue in this game once that all changed.

As many have heard me bitch about for quite some time, Labor has been the only actual party that in recent months has articulated clear policy initiatives and stances, and saw that they were enacted. It's certainly a larger responsibility when your party controls the Presidency. Because we no longer control the Presidency, we are no longer tasked with the total responsibility of driving this debate. This will leave us with more time to focus on other endeavors. Personally, I believe there is a clear correlation between Labor's slight decline and its increasing involvement in driving Senate affairs.

In terms of net, we hold just as many seats as we did in the last session - and the seats that we do hold are more unified in terms of ideology and party loyalty than ever before. We won three regional Senate seats against the Federalists' 2 seats - that 3/2 split is something that has not been done since the last great hoorah of the JCP/RPP in October 2011. We came within 4 votes of winning 4 regional Senate seats, something that has never been done. This is f[inks] phenomenal, especially when you consider that a heavily anti-Labor crusade has been led by many outside forces for the past four months (since Rimjob). Obviously, the people spoke as to the caliber of our candidates and - despite picking an independent for President - clearly spoke as to who they want to see in power in the Senate.

Labor's presidential debacles for the most part were expected, if not somewhat engineered. I told Duke quite some time ago that I would be perfectly fine with him being President and was planning on even first preferencing him in between the time that Bacon King dropped out and Dr Cynic entered the race. The first goal in this presidential election was to ensure that only a loyal Laborite received the nomination - if we were to lose, then we were to lose with someone who genuinely cared about the party at the top of the ticket. That was first done with the BK/AG ticket, followed by the Cynic ticket (though the primary vote's outcome was not pushed via PM by either ticket seeking the nomination). In the end, the party spoke.

So in conclusion: Labor started a pro-consolidation dialogue four months ago. Since then, the idea's popularity has skyrocketed from 35% to 65%. We expanded our effective Senate clout and held our overall number of seats. Our party also contributed to the election of a independent conservative - the same conservative who backs similar proposals of consolidation and federal expansion that the Labor Party has been advocating all this time. It's also reassuring to see that in terms of track record and past cooperation, the first conservative elected in more than two years may very well be the most pro-Labor conservative in the game. The People and The Party make a great pair.

A conservative President - bolstered to victory by the Federalists - was just elected with more than 65% of the vote and he broadly shares the Labor Party's mindset on regional consolidation.

Thanks, Atlasia, for rewarding Labor yet again!

(See, Duke: I told you everyone would try to claim your victory as theirs )

[Maxwell]

I love Griffin's rationalization of any move in the game as a plus for Labor. That is all before I get sperged at

[HagridOfTheDeep]

[Adam Griffin]

I love Griffin's rationalization of any move in the game as a plus for Labor.

It pretty much is at this point. Only the factors that none of us can control seem to hurt in any substantive way.

I knew you'd love it.

[sentinel]

Winner: Me

[Adam Griffin]

Winner: Me

Well, you are God now.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Actually, The People's Party won 3 seats in the February elections when Nix, Ben and Oakvale were all reelected. So touché, Adam.

[Donerail]

Loser: Federalist Party, for lacking the party discipline to preent one of its members from attacking the official ticket and launching a write-in bid, endorsing an independent instead of their own candidate (32% of Federalists voted for someone else in the first round), and failing to pickup two Senate seats that were clearly within their grasp (especially if Presidential votes translated to the regional level - Duke won all regions over the Labor candidate).

Those are two conflicting points. Should we have had the discipline to fight the insurgent ticket? Or should we have just endorsed the insurgent ticket over the independent leading out party? Duke won the nomination!

And yes, TNF could've been vulnerable under the right circumstances, though I don't think a rightist can win the Midwest in anything other than a special election and if they're super pragmatist, but bore had very strong approvals, so I'm not sure how vulnerable he was.

The points aren't conflicting because they're for different time points. Step one, Feds should've secured their own strong candidate to lead the party. In the absence of such a candidate, they should've rallied around their endorsed candidate and prevented breakaways. And in both elections the Federalist candidates weren't crushed by any means - just a few more votes could've swung it.

[Adam Griffin]

Actually, The People's Party won 3 seats in the February elections when Nix, Ben and Oakvale were all reelected. So touché, Adam.

Whoops! I got so carried away there. What I meant to say was that the 3/2 split (3 LAB/2 FED) was the first time in two years. Silly me.

Is there a scenario out there where the Labor can't win, Griffin?

I'm sure there is. I'm waiting. I mean, we've certainly lost some recruits lately and all due to lack of effort, but these are not long-term strategic issues.

[tmthforu94]

Labor has been the only actual party that in recent months has articulated clear policy initiatives and stances, and saw that they were enacted.

It's too bad more of this push wasn't done by Labor Senators.

And Griffin, is there a scenario where the Labor can't lose?!?

[Maxwell]

Loser: Federalist Party, for lacking the party discipline to preent one of its members from attacking the official ticket and launching a write-in bid, endorsing an independent instead of their own candidate (32% of Federalists voted for someone else in the first round), and failing to pickup two Senate seats that were clearly within their grasp (especially if Presidential votes translated to the regional level - Duke won all regions over the Labor candidate).

Those are two conflicting points. Should we have had the discipline to fight the insurgent ticket? Or should we have just endorsed the insurgent ticket over the independent leading out party? Duke won the nomination!

And yes, TNF could've been vulnerable under the right circumstances, though I don't think a rightist can win the Midwest in anything other than a special election and if they're super pragmatist, but bore had very strong approvals, so I'm not sure how vulnerable he was.

The points aren't conflicting because they're for different time points. Step one, Feds should've secured their own strong candidate to lead the party. In the absence of such a candidate, they should've rallied around their endorsed candidate and prevented breakaways. And in both elections the Federalist candidates weren't crushed by any means - just a few more votes could've swung it.

Okay fair enough, however the only candidate who opted to enter besides Duke was Spamage, who left the race due to his own personal concerns. When Duke came in, Spamage left, and most of the other people who were thinking about a run in the dark decided against so once he entered. And look, maybe we should've done more to prevent mutiny within our ranks, but I don't want to dictate every single thing to members of my party.

[Adam Griffin]

And Griffin, is there a scenario where the Labor can't lose?!?

Of course I'm being hyperbolic, mainly because I know how much you guys can't stand it. Still, I just like to emphasize at times that the so-called victories against Labor really aren't as black and white as they might appear. People have been saying that Labor was dead in the water since late 2012, that our partisan tactics and my asshole behavior would imminently destroy it all and that a national backlash was just around the corner. If anything, we've been the most stable and consistently influential post-dissolution party. Just saying.

In short, though: I really don't feel like we "lost" anything as a result of these past elections, and genuinely feel that the case I made above is justification enough for the contrary to be considered.

[Dr. Cynic]

I want to say that I'm actually happy to have done as well as I did even though I lost. I think Progressive Union overall probably had the best showing, mainly because the Federalists simply smelled blood in the left vote split and took advantage by supporting a candidate who was the closest to them.

Was the Labor Party wrong to nominate me for President as opposed to the other candidates? Could we have done as well and actually made it into the final balloting round with Snowstalker or Kitteh? When I entered the primary it was because I was concerned about who the party was going to nominate.

If I was going to go back and do things differently, I probably wouldn't have entered the primary. I didn't really campaign to win the primary but when I did win, I was obligated to fight the election. All I can say really is that I tried my best when Labor nominated me and the failure isn't with the party. I have been in Atlasia a long time. I was a Senator, I was a VP, I've been President and I was in the cabinet and I am a NE Rep. Was Labor wrong to nominate me based on that? I don't feel that is the case. The primary failure was with me and me alone. I won't see the Labor Party blamed for losing the Presidency. The fault was not with the party, but with me. I entered late, people were probably justifiably skeptical that I should have even been considered a serious candidate and I clearly did not do enough to convince the voters.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I want to say that I'm actually happy to have done as well as I did even though I lost. I think Progressive Union overall probably had the best showing, mainly because the Federalists simply smelled blood in the left vote split and took advantage by supporting a candidate who was the closest to them.

Was the Labor Party wrong to nominate me for President as opposed to the other candidates? Could we have done as well and actually made it into the final balloting round with Snowstalker or Kitteh? When I entered the primary it was because I was concerned about who the party was going to nominate.

If I was going to go back and do things differently, I probably wouldn't have entered the primary. I didn't really campaign to win the primary but when I did win, I was obligated to fight the election. All I can say really is that I tried my best when Labor nominated me and the failure isn't with the party. I have been in Atlasia a long time. I was a Senator, I was a VP, I've been President and I was in the cabinet and I am a NE Rep. Was Labor wrong to nominate me based on that? I don't feel that is the case. The primary failure was with me and me alone. I won't see the Labor Party blamed for losing the Presidency. The fault was not with the party, but with me. I entered late, people were probably justifiably skeptical that I should have even been considered a serious candidate and I clearly did not do enough to convince the voters.

You're being too hard on yourself. I think the issue was more that you just hadn't really been part of the national conversation for a while. I don't know that Griffin set himself up to be the best running mate either, but that's a whole 'nuther conversation I don't want to get into.