Jump to content
270soft Forum

vcczar

Steering Council Member
  • Content Count

    10,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by vcczar

  1. I'd imagine 1984 as a Democrat would be near impossible.
  2. I think Sanders will endorse her before Super Tuesday if she has won states and he hasn’t. He would likely want her to beat Biden.
  3. @Reagan04 @Kingthero @WVProgressive @Conservative Elector 2 @SilentLiberty @Hestia11
  4. There's a lot of polls showing a bloc of Democrats who are said to be considering only Biden, similar to how there are voters considering only Sanders. I think as long as Biden is usually landsliding Trump, and as long as he's viewed by most Democrats as having the best shot at beating Trump, that he will be either the frontrunner or one of the frontrunners. Once another candidate starts polling better vs. Trump, the support will probably stay with him regardless of gaffes. I agree with your top 4. Buttigieg will be the back up to Biden for many. However, I think Warren will be hard to beat if Sanders drops out an supporters her or vice-versa. Considering Warren endorsed Clinton over Sanders, I think she's more likely to endorse Biden or Buttigieg, but not without a fight.
  5. I think Gabbard will increase in primaries that allow independents and Republicans to vote in Dem primaries, but she'll likely lose support otherwise, based on the post-debate favorability polls.
  6. According to FiveThirtyEight, the following won/lost the debate: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-november-poll/ Won -- Gained more favorability than unfavorability Bernie Sanders +2 Elizabeth Warren +3 (virtually tied as most favorable Democrat) Kamala Harris +2 (2nd least favorable Dem, however) Pete Buttigieg +3 (Least unfavorable Dem; gained most in ability to beat Trump, but still seen as likely losing) Cory Booker +2 Andrew Yang +4 (tie for most favorable gain) Amy Klobuchar +4 (tie for most favorable gain) Tom Steyer +1 Lost - Gained more unfavorability than favorability: Joe Biden -3 (still virtually tied as most favorable Democrat; still highest in ability to beat Trump) Tulsi Gabbard -5 (biggest loser by gaining most unfavorability post-debate; increases lead as most unfavorable Democrat. Also has lowest favorable score.) Overall: Steyer, Gabbard, Booker, Harris probably did nothing to help their chances into becoming competitive in the primaries. Biden might lose some support, while Sanders probably won't budge in the polls. Warren, Buttigieg, Yang, and Klobuchar seem most likely to get a bump in the polls.
  7. That was a very mediocre debate overall. No one stood out. I think Booker, Harris, and Gabbard were better than usual. The rest were about as good or bad as they usually are. Yang was invisible. I should note that my judgment on who did well in a the debate has nothing to do with if I agree with them or not. For instance, Gabbard is my least favorite on the stage, but if I were to judge a debate as an impartial judge, I'd say she did well.
  8. If you give him too much attention then he'll start selling his beans to Edmonton, Canada.
  9. This is the primary reason that Bernie Sanders is my favorite politician but I'm never that enthusiastic about him as a candidate. It is going to be impossible for him to get anything he proposes through a Congress unless it is composed of half Democratic Socialists. I've been basically neck and neck in support between him and Warren because I think Warren will be willing to compromise just enough to get some version of the progressive proposals passed. Getting some things passed is much preferred than being blocked at every point. Basically, if Sanders because president, and proves impotent, it's likely going to damage all future progressives from every getting nominated. He needs to work on getting Democratic Socialist Senators, US Reps, and Governors before he runs, even if he'll be 250 years old by then. Here's my list: 1a and 1b. Sanders and Warren tied. (The first is my ideal choice and the second is my practical choice) 3. Buttigieg. (He's not the warhawk that many of my fellow progressives make him out to be. He does believe in defense spending, but he's more opposed to intervention than about half of the Democrats here. He's almost the total opposite of Trump which is why he's this high up here. I wish he would work on gaining support among African-Americans. I'd trust him to make intelligent choices.) 4. Yang (I'm a little worried about him know how to be president, but I think he's got the best shot at modernizing the country for the 21st century and beyond.) 5. Booker (He's probably my preferred compromise choice if I have to have a government insider and someone that isn't in the Warren/Sanders wing.) 6. Biden (He ranks at 6 only because he crushes Trump in the polls. This factor is so important that he could sail to #1 if he's the only candidate beating Trump in polls.) 7. Patrick (Anyone that can govern Massachusetts--arguably currently and historically the most advanced state in the nation--has to be given some serious thought. Massachusetts is the perfect blend of capitalism and social democracy.) 8. Steyer (I'm a little hesitant to put a billionaire this high up, but he seems to have his heart in the right place.) 9. Harris (I have a lot of questions about her, but I do believe she'd be competent. It's a mistake to assume that a president is going to operate how they did when they weren't president. People adapt to their times, if they are intelligent. I'm giving her a benefit of the doubt here.) 10. Klobuchar (She'd probably do alright, but she's too moderate for my taste. I also have a hard time liking someone that yells at their staff and eats salad with their hair comb.) 11. Bloomberg (No centrist billionaires. That said, he's probably the only billionaire that could translate to the presidency without much of a learning curve. Trump's so dumb that he'll never get through the curve.) 12. Gabbard (I don't exactly understand what she is. Sometimes she says things that make me want to put her 3rd on this list, and there's a lot about her that makes me question her intentions, etc. I don't trust her, and I think she's a narcissist. I'm a little burned out on the untrustworthy and narcissistic. I would select her over Marianne Williamson and Steve Bullock.)
  10. What's also interesting is that Georgia was probably the least populated state at the time and it's had two presidents! In real life, it can only claim Jimmy Carter.
  11. 1. Where do you live? Philadelphia, PA. I was born and raised in Dallas, TX. I went to undergraduate and graduate schools in Austin, TX and in the Austin area. I lived in NYC for 5 years. I went back to Austin for a few years, and then moved to Philadelphia. I'm hoping to move to Boston/Cambridge, MA at some point. 2. What is your first name? Jonathan 3. How old are you? 40 4. What caused you to get interested in politics and the President Infinity games? I've been interested in history and geography before I could even read really. My interest in current politics didn't really develop until sometime in college (c. 2000). I loved history deeply, but at the time, I had little history in US or World history after 1945 at the time. By 2004, I was caught up, well-informed, etc. I think living on my own got me to think about the present and the future. As a kid, I was only interested in the past. I joined this forum about a year after buying the game in 2011. The new game was the 2012 US Election. I immediately started making historical scenarios as soon as the editor was created. 5. Name one thing interesting about yourself. It's going to be a little hard for me to narrow this down. Ok, looking at my desk right now, I am reading two books that kind of relate to me about an enclave in Germany comprised of ethnic Slavs known as Sorbs. The Sorbs are one of the only Slavic people in Europe to never have had their own country, despite having attempted autonomy under several countries, such as Saxony, Prussia, Bohemia, Poland, and Germany. Today, their numbers are few. Only about 30,000 people still speak Sorbian and few identify as Sorbian. Extinction seems possible by the end of this century. The Sorbian towns are in Germany but near the Southwestern border of Poland and Northwestern border of the Czech Republic. Genetically, they are most similar to the Poles, but nearly as related to the Czechs. This is also supported by linguistic similarities. Genetically, I am probably at least 25-30% Sorbian. All of my known ancestors from my paternal grandfather's side are Sorbian, and half of my maternal grandfather's side are Sorbian (rest of me is German, English, Czech). My immigrant Sorbs migrated to Texas between 1854-1881. Three of my ancestors died of cholera on the way to Texas. I'm happy to say that my pre-Civil War Texas ancestors joined the German Texas in being Pro-Union during the Civil War, even though they stayed in Texas. I usually read more about my English ancestry, mainly because there's more written about them and I can go back further on my family tree via my English ancestry (including royal descent). However, lately I've been trying to learn more about my German, Czech, and Sorbian ancestors.
  12. According to this, he isn't as hawkish as many of the Democrats. Under military it says, "bring the troops home." https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/pete-buttigieg/
  13. What's cool is that Pres. Jackson was able to really build a presence and influence that exceeded his natural ability. Washington is arguably the only strong natural executive in this alternate history. Peele is arguably the worst natural executive.
  14. A new president can replace the entire cabinet. There's historical precedence for this, although really it was the cabinet resigning in protest over Tyler's break with Harrison's policies. Fillmore also accepted a few resignations. A Johnson kept Lincoln's cabinet for awhile. Roosevelt kept McKinley's cabinet. Coolidge kept Harding's until he fired the scandalous ones. Truman kept Roosevelt's briefly. LBJ kept JFK's for the rest of JFK's term. Ford replaced some of Nixon's cabinet.
  15. I think both parties focus on things that aren't really universally important. I think Democrats are way too sensitive about, as @Herbert Hoover said, "cancel culture." I think they're also going a little overboard on political correctness. The label doesn't matter as much as the intent. If someone says, "I've volunteered for years to provide meaningful work for retarded people." Then the focus shouldn't be on their out-of-date terminology, but on their intent. I think Democrats, and probably Republicans, focus on a lot of little things, probably just to vilify the other party or to gain points among their base. This might sound unusual for someone with very progressive views (Sanders/Warren/Kucinich/La Follette progressive), but I see myself as a practical progressive that seeks bipartisanship and wants to avoid any needless drama and just get down to essential business to improve the lives of US citizens.
  16. I don’t know. I haven’t really thought about the forum version issues in awhile. The pc version issues are different. I’d like to say it does but I could have forgotten to add it.
  17. Very good questions. Can you do this for me, if you are on a PC. I can't for many hours. Can you make copies of the retaliatory tariff and embargos, and name one for Britain, France, Spain, and the other countries? Then just add that it decreases relations by 1 in the appropriate later columns. I'm glad you brought this up. Alternatively, you could just type in the tab under administration that it was passed under "Presidents name---vs. Britain." That way you don't have to make copies.
  18. According to TheHill.com, Buttigieg polled zero among a panel of African-Americans. While he is surging, he is surging in states with almost no diversity, such as IA and NH. Considering that AA turnout is going to be essential for winning MI, PA, VA, NC, FL, and possibly WI, I'd argue that Buttigieg may be less electable than he may seem. Choose your poison: Door 1 - Nominate the youthful and somewhat charismatic openly gay Buttigieg who has zero support among the essential African-American demographic? Door 2 - Nominate the arguably physically declining Joe Biden who may or may not be involved in a scandal, may likely face some sexual harassment accusers, and is unlikely to inspire some progressives or college students, both voters who often need inspiration to vote. Door 3 - Nominate the enthusiastically inspiring but somewhat awkward professor, Elizabeth Warren, who has recently touted ideas that don't poll well in the battleground states. On top of this, misogyny is still, unfortunately, a factor when electing a president. She will inspire progressives and college students, but can she win non-progressive independents, centrist Democrats, and Regret-a-Trumps? Door 4 - Nominate post-heart attack Bernie Sanders who isn't really a Democrat. He will certainly bring his loyal base, but he may be more divisive for some voters than Warren. On top of this, he's older than Biden and everyone knows that the chances of a repeat heart attack increase as one ages. Door 5 - The rest of the candidates that can't inspire enough people to even get 10% of the vote. Can they inspire people to vote on Election Day? Door 6 - Donald Trump. Do you--or America--really want 4 more years of this guy? Pick another door.
  19. Adams, Snyder, and Randolph would be the most controversial of these presidents. The first only because he'd be so old by the time he served. Snyder would be the first German-American during a time when German-Americans weren't always considered "Americans." Randolph was the original Ron Paul and had a controversially eccentric personality.
  20. Yeah he’ll probably be the most talked about figure in US history, similar to how there are a lot of books on Napoleon or Lincoln. However, there’s still a lot of US History left.
  21. I would very much like to join this, but I have too many time commitments right now. Have fun!
  22. I would probably be the last person one would want to seek as an investment guru, economically speaking. I think I'd be good at know what might sell, however, from a demand and desirability perspective.
  23. Mine is a username that was created by merging two old email addresses that I used in the 90s. The VC stands for Vladimyr Chicovsky, a comic book character I created in 5th grade, as the Soviet Union was falling apart in real life. My comic dealt with him trying to live with a 5th grader’s understanding of capitalism. The Czar part is also based on this character. After returning to Russia, he attempts to overthrow the new Russian government to become the first Czar of Russia since 1917. I created this comic from 5th grade through about Sophomore year in High School. I still have some of them somewhere. My first email addresses were created when I was still making the comics. I’ve gotten use to my username, even though I don’t often think about what other people might think of it. I’ve had people ask if I’m a venture capitalist.
  24. Yes. I'm wondering if the number should be 20 impact points though, because 25 is the highest possible impact points. A traditionalist player might opt to just always refuse to propose otherwise. Also, while this option is only for trad players, it should only be triggered by traditionalist proposers. This way, a traditionalist player can't use a conservative or moderate to get the points.
×
×
  • Create New...