Jump to content
270soft Forum

Cyril Washbrook

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Cyril Washbrook last won the day on September 21 2009

Cyril Washbrook had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Cyril Washbrook

  • Rank
    Political Geek
  1. Played the 2004 scenario as Colin Powell. Dispatched George Bush in the primaries, while the Democrats ended up nominating Al Sharpton after I snatched the endorsements of John Edwards and Dick Gephardt. (At the time of Edwards' endorsement, he was projected to win the Democratic nomination.) From then on, the only question was whether I would be able to get a popular vote of over 80 per cent. Was also pleased about defeating George Bush in the 1988 scenario with Patricia Schroeder.
  2. The reality is that it will never be released. Alternatively, if it is released, it'll be released pointlessly late and in a pointlessly error-ridden form. May as well stop trying to squeeze more blood out of the stone.
  3. Instead of a Socialist Party, wouldn't a populist-style party be more likely to garner support? The thing that would be likely to obtain support is not an explicitly socialist party, but one that takes a parochial line. "America first" rhetoric combined with economic populism - strongly anti-NAFTA, protectionist, strict penalties to prevent outsourcing - and that rural brand of social conservatism.
  4. My point is that if you just transplant UK parties over into the US, you'd find that the Conservatives as they currently exist in Britain would be in tune with Democrats in the North-East, while Labour would be hounded out as a bunch of communists or "Marxists". See my first post in this thread. Daniel Hannan's views are probably in line with a mainstream Republican; whereas someone like David Cameron has far more in common with Russ Feingold than with the average Republican. Hannan is in the fringe as far as the British political spectrum is concerned, so of course he's a marginal figure of whom most people haven't heard. But if you placed him on the US political spectrum, he'd be far more likely to gain traction with the Republican base than most of the Conservatives' current leadership. Again, it all depends on how realistic this scenario is meant to be.
  5. He'd be fringe in the UK, but this is a "United States 2008 - UK Parties" scenario. Based purely on ideology, he'd probably be one of the frontrunners for an election taking place in the United States.
  6. It's almost impossible to do an accurate comparison, and I don't think you've got it quite right there either. The Tories in Britain are probably in line with the Democrats in the US, and on social issues they're in line with the left wing of the Democrats. The Tories - as a party - are against the death penalty, place a heavy emphasis on civil liberties, support civil unions, and are strong supporters of the NHS (universal, government-provided health care). They support cuts to public spending and tax cuts, but oppose the idea of cutting off government programmes entirely or significantly changing long-term commitments to the government being firmly involved in social and economic policy. Naturally, there are tensions between different parts of the party, but the party is dominated by social libertarians (by US standards, anyway). Even Thatcher was an economic ideologue, not a cultural crusader. Any scenario like this would have to sacrifice a lot of realism, simply because it's not feasible to transplant one country's political landscape onto another country's ideological spectrum. It's an interesting idea in theory, though. To make it work you would have to create some sort of explanatory history in which: - the Thatcherite wing of the party becomes the most powerful in the Tories, sidelining the One Nation Conservatives and appeasing the traditionalists with conservative social policy; - New Labour's Third Way agenda morphs into a form of "conservative liberalism" with pro-globalisation views and an emphasis on being "tough" on crime and immigration; - the LibDems become a firmly left-wing party campaigning on civil liberties and on "fair" economic policy. Even taking into account ideological shifts within the party, the Thatcherite Tories would still only be mainstream Republicans rather than at the right-wing: after all, Thatcher pledged to preserve the NHS, increasing real spending on the NHS by 21% and seeking merely to encourage more internal competition among trusts. Obviously in a more receptive political environment, there might be more freedom to espouse a more explicitly free market position, but that should be kept within perspective. They would also still be quite moderate on social issues, even if they had to appease the traditionalists. Also, note that if you wanted to make ideological shifts to allow this scenario to be somewhat feasible, it would become inevitable that certain leadership figures in each party would either have had to modify their views, or wouldn't be as serious contenders. David Cameron's ascension was made possible by the fact that the One Nation Conservatives and other moderate groupings have become so integral to the leadership structure of the party. If he wanted to be a contender, he would either have to shift himself rightward or go for an insurgent candidacy.
  7. I'd question a couple of attributes. Obama's debating improved by the general election, but back in 2007 he was actually quite poor - causing a considerable amount of anxiety among his staffers - and made his fair share of gaffes. You've started the game at 1 December, so he had started to hone his debating technique, but I'd still give him a 3 at that stage. I'm also not sure why Clinton's integrity would be at 2 which is the same as, say, Romney. Romney flip-flopped on several issues between his time as MA governor and presidential candidate; Clinton was regarded as "divisive", but I'm not sure why that would harm her integrity score. Clinton also proved to be a robust campaigner over a long primaries race, which would suggest that she deserves a stamina rating of at least 4, and probably 5. That said, perhaps I'm being nitpicky: the scenario looks pretty good, so I'll take it for a spin.
  8. But that was because it was during his term; there was time for people to reconcile their low favourable rating for Clinton and a high job approval rating. If it emerged in the last week of a campaign, all hell would break loose and he probably would have lost badly. There'd be no time to reiterate the message that Clinton had been a successful president policy-wise.
  9. Nixon was never seen as a man of integrity. When he contested the presidency against Kennedy in 1960, Kennedy went on the attack numerous times against Nixon's character. But I agree with the general point made by dwkulcsar - that's not enough to make him 1 on Integrity. I'd put Nixon on 3, or maybe 2 if you really wanted to be critical of him.
  10. Even 18-22% would be too high, IMHO, although it should be possible to do that well (or maybe better). It's different if you've got, say, a Perot-style candidate who tries to appeal to both sides of politics. But with Palin taking votes exclusively from the Republicans, it strikes me that the average GOP voter would definitely side with Romney. Remember, Romney's not exactly unpopular with the Republicans - it's more a case of people having a couple of qualms. In real life, a Palin candidacy would probably garner 10-15% if Obama was on top, and about 3-4% if the contest was close (because the defection rate would decrease as the likelihood of a Republican victory increased). And if the GOP candidate were Jindal - well, he's very conservative, so I'm sure many Palin supporters would also take a liking to him. Of course, there has to be a balance between real life and actually making an entertaining game. So 15-20% might well make for a better game than only a tiny proportion.
  11. Perhaps Ralph Reed? He's had political ambitions over the last few years.
  12. Is "Former Acting President" a title you'd use? You'd call Dick Cheney "Vice President Cheney", not "Former Acting President Cheney", so I'm pretty sure in this case you'd give Walken the title of "Speaker".
  13. Patine already uploaded it, so you don't need to get it emailed:
  14. No, their polls rate Obama about 20 points above Bush. Either way, Franken's favourables and job approval ratings are mixed, so it's not implausible.
  15. I don't see how either of those facts supports your contention that Franken will be Senator in 2014. Moreover, the latest poll (Rasmussen) shows Franken with an approval rating of 41/54, not 45/41. If his stats are anywhere near that in 2014, he's vulnerable.
  • Create New...