Jump to content
270soft Forum

lizphairphreak

Members
  • Content Count

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About lizphairphreak

  • Rank
    Political Guru

Recent Profile Visitors

298 profile views
  1. It's interesting that you ignored what I said about charisma not being something that can be measured objectively to then make objectively said statements. I was referring to the level of enthusiasm that people had towards her around 2016, her convention speech being a clear example of it. Frankly I didn't understand the enthused response she seemed to always get myself (again, subjective) but it's weird to me that that has been ignored or downplayed this election (weird, in this case, meaning very predictable because any time someone runs for office, especially women, the positives are downplayed and the negatives are amped.)
  2. I think it's crazy how, suddenly, Warren is considered not to be charismatic when in 2016 she was talked about with major enthusiasm constantly. (Also, she draws large rallies in this election too.) I think this is just another example of how the nebulous concept of charisma is not something that can be objectively measured but is often talked about as though it can be.
  3. in literally what universe is yang more progressive than warren?
  4. Totally agree. This is a really easy way out of a very difficult (but not impossible) race for Bernie. The ad buy cancellation seems like they may be aware of that. And even if they are "postponed," it creates the question of: did his campaign lack confidence that he would recover well? Yeah, I think it's unfair that people are going to judge his health for something that's pretty common and far from a life-threatening procedure. BUT... people are going to judge. And now there is a "Hillary has secret Parkinson's!" type of insidious scandal for the GE. People are definitely very much questioning Biden's health, but the focus is more on his mental health. For either of them, the question will be there.
  5. I actually support challenging the vape industry because it IS impacting young people, and flavored products are one of those tactics. HOWEVER, I don't support banning these products because I think all drugs should be legalized, decriminalized (including retroactively decriminalized,) and regulated.
  6. 1. No, and I think it's wild how people who were willing to cash into the "the DNC is rigged!!" propaganda are okay with this. 2. Theoretically, yes, for sure. But I don't always think so in practice. Having an ideologue driven purely by ego can cause massive damage that may not come from a place of seeking to do good the way a worthy challenge would. But I think usually it is good to have ideas challenged, so you go into a GE tested and prepared. 3. None of the challengers really have a chance to be the GOP nominee, but could use the coverage to hit Trump. They will do more by staying in the race as long as possible to use that platform, and maybe take a couple of delegates along the way (though it's doubtable.)
  7. Several candidates have one poll that has them at 2%, but not all of them have reached the donor threshold. I think Williamson is very likely to get into the October debate. It's going to be really weird when the Oct debate has more candidates than this Sept one.
  8. That's kind of the root of it all, in my opinion. Several of the candidates have an "emails" type of quote-unquote scandal hanging over their heads (Warren with the DNA test, Harris with some of her criminal justice background, Sanders and his wife's FBI investigation I guess, Buttigieg and police in South Bend, etc) but the Franken thing seemed to go straight to donors and party leaders, who never gave Gillibrand a chance. It's a shame, I think, since Gillibrand does bring unique perspectives to the table and should've been a Top 5, if not a Top 3 candidate.
  9. Yeah, I think that type of stuff also showed really clearly just how uninvolved he actually was with his own campaign. I guess props to the teens who ran it and made some headlines and, I guess, moved the needle (on what, though? They needed Marianne Williamson of all people to bolster their fundraising) in a way I would've loved to have had the opportunity to do as a teen. However, there was such an anarchist way of running that campaign that only privileged white male teens would feel comfortable with. It started feeling like the worst of the gamer community
  10. He's officially endorsed Bernie, despite saying last week he was planning to do media work for Tulsi in September, and his teens saying that he was planning to meet with Marianne and Warren. I know it wasn't a 'real' campaign, but this type of disorganization really got to me by the end.
  11. I like the idea of a recount button, but how would you want it to affect gameplay (genuinely asking)? I feel like since the game is based on computerized numbers rather than actual votes, a recount wouldn't have as big of an affect as it could in real life where human error has to be accounted for. Maybe instead of a simple recount, there could be an option to call for a runoff, or something. Give a few more weeks and then candidates would have to focus their campaigning in the state(s) they called for a runoff. Maybe there is a tool that could do a recount in a fun way, I'm just not sure how that would look to others.
  12. I think the debate rankings were: 1. Booker- clear first. most energized, and everyone else seemed like they were on xanax for the first half. really bizarre. but Booker had good lines and made great points throughout. 2. Gillibrand- Kirsten had the most well-packaged moments-- the "Clorox the Oval Office" line will serve her well, & her discussion of white privilege might have the same effect that Williamson's comments on reparations did on night 1. I also think her approach to climate change is the best in the whole field, by mixing a deep commitment to treating it seriously while also being hopeful and positive-minded. However, Kirsten also had the weird moment where she wasn't prepared to be asked a question, and she also stumbled on her Biden attack (but props to her Comms staff which have stories about that op-ed spinning in several publications today.) 3. Gabbard- Tulsi kind of nailed it on most of her answers, despite being a pretty problematic candidate. Her takedown of Harris was great, and Harris was obviously rattled during post-debate interviews. However, Tulsi ending the debate with "There is no shelter" and sounding her creepiest was a good reminder that she's a very odd candidate, so I don't think she gained much support. 4. Biden- Joe was not good tonight by any means, but slipped through attacks well enough to avoid taking damage like the first debate. His joking with De Blasio and Booker, as well as a solid one liner against Gillibrand protected him. However, he still didn't answer important questions or confront topics he should've. 5. Inslee- Inslee was fine. Not super compelling, but didn't open himself up to any attack like he did by giving Klobuchar an opening last debate. He's a single issue candidate, but like I said, I think Kirsten does better talking about climate change than he does. 6. Castro- a solid night for Castro, but his low energy for much of the debate killed the buzz. Definitely didn't live up to his breakout performance last debate, but showed he does deserve to be up there. 7. Yang- He didn't flub his answer on his signature policy this time. That's a boost from the last debate. 8. Harris- Kamala was really mediocre. It's clear she's not passionate about health care as an issue-- this isn't an insult, it's just that there are so many issues that candidates are likely to have mixed levels of enthusiasm-- and yet she stayed bogged down in it for so long and then never really emerged with any level of energy. I did like that she and Kirsten seemed to have a sense of solidarity, with KG refusing to attack Kamala and Kamala jumping in when Gillibrand's attack on Biden started to fall flat. 9. Bennet- Forgettable. Why is he running? 10. De Blasio- While I confess I enjoyed him constantly attacking Biden, he didn't do it with the same precision and energy that he was able to get on Beto in the first debate. And then he said very little else of relevance. And his poor handling of Pantaleo gave other candidates (in this case, Gillibrand as a fellow New Yorker) a perfect opening to wack him. Overall, I think Warren won both nights, easily. She feels like the only choice right now-- but there's a lot of time to go.
  13. 1. On means that the candidate is in the race and campaign. Not Seeking means that the candidate is not in the race, and really can't campaign beyond some media appearances and altering their platform. Undecided is in between, where some campaign options are available and others are not. It's the "exploratory committee" phase of a campaign. Note that if you start a candidate as Undecided or Not Seeking, you will likely have extra obstacles in the campaign including getting ballot access. 2. Rallies are much bigger than Barnstorming, and are better (in my experience) when your candidate has a following in a certain state, ie, don't try to have a rally in a state we're you're polling at 1% and have limited attention. 3. Not sure, I tend not to use the polling option but would love to figure it out someday.
  14. This may either be a suggestion or a question since I haven't played in a bit, but is there a way to pre-set candidates' themes in the editor? I confess that I often forget about theme at the beginning of a game and so I fall a little behind, but if we could edit in the editor we could skip that step (as well as ensuring all candidates have themes/emphasis that match their real life campaigns.)
  15. I think playing small elections in this game is interesting because you can kind of test the more objective, data-driven waters of local elections that often go by the wayside in favor of personalities, familial relationships, and social connections in local (esp small town) elections.
×
×
  • Create New...