Jump to content
270soft Forum

Recommended Posts

Abraham Lincoln was about the furthest thing from a conservative that ever was in America. Conservatives in America at that time and now favor states rights, little government, and personal liberty. Lincoln was a federalist who expanded government massively, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned opposition, and shut down opposing newspapers. It's like saying Woodrow Wilson was a conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, okay, that's true, and on the major American issues of the day, which in reality boiled down to the issue of race, he was an ardent progressive. But take a broader international viewpoint. This global Conservative Party is not explicitly small-government; that's far too recent a phenomenon. It is, among other things, not enamored of ideas of massive human rights protections (which fits Lincoln, in the examples you've given). They're also vehemently anti-socialist, and Lincoln, like the Republican Party ever after (indeed it's the only real constant in American politics), was heartily pro-business. I can't see making him a Socialist (for the pro-business thing) or a Liberal (for the anti-habeas thing), and I don't really think he was a Fascist. Conservative fits, I think, if you aren't focused on America.

But I appreciate your jumping in on an issue that is clearly very relevant to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us see; probably should add Theodore Roosevelt as a Populist from the United States and Calvin Coolidge as a Conservative (not prominent, but one of the more prominent "true" Conservatives). I checked and Populism has not really occured in Asia, the movement largely restricted to the Western World.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Haile Selassie II as a Populist for Africa.

Sure you don't mean Haile Selassie I? I don't really see a second one, I think... But I certainly like the suggestion of Selassie, and I think I also like Theodore Roosevelt as a Populist, though he and Washington conflict. Any ideas on how to sort that one out? I'm not sure about Coolidge: was he really much of a world figure? He seems like kind of an isolationist, and also not really that much of a towering figure in US politics. I'm thinking Reagan and Thatcher as VP candidates for the Conservatives. In fact, I'm soliciting advice on VP choices for all the parties, really: Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives, Fascists, and Populists. Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you don't mean Haile Selassie I? I don't really see a second one, I think... But I certainly like the suggestion of Selassie, and I think I also like Theodore Roosevelt as a Populist, though he and Washington conflict. Any ideas on how to sort that one out? I'm not sure about Coolidge: was he really much of a world figure? He seems like kind of an isolationist, and also not really that much of a towering figure in US politics. I'm thinking Reagan and Thatcher as VP candidates for the Conservatives. In fact, I'm soliciting advice on VP choices for all the parties, really: Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives, Fascists, and Populists. Any ideas?

Why did I not think of Reagan?! Add him as a "Conservative". For now all the VP candidates should probably be limited to the top-tier candidates, and then expanded when most of the important material is solidly in place. And as I said before, Populism unfortuantely has for the most part been limited to the Western Hemisphere and Europe, and has yet to effectively spread into Asia. This weakness should be made apparent in the general election.

What does the map look like though?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, you are going to have to put the images onto some website like Photobucket, then copy their URL's. When you post a message, one of the options on the second bar is a small photo of a tree. Click on that and insert the URL of the picture, and it will show up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got one of my images uploaded; more hopefully coming in the future. But three of them aren't working for some mysterious reason, and the one I did get to upload I can't figure out how to get an image address for. Argh!

In any event, here are the EV/delegate totals for each candidate/party with and without giving them states where they lead a "tie":

General Election (of 459; 230 for majority):

Socialists 100 (119)

Liberals 30 (63)

Conservatives 196 (267)

Fascists 0 (10)

I'd really like to take the Conservatives down a notch or two in the general-election setup, I think.

Socialist Primaries (of 4038; 2020 for majority):

Stalin 308 (861)

Zedong 665 (665)

Attlee 301 (342)

Mandela 378 (436)

King 302 (302)

Guevara 404 (483)

Gandhi 218 (325)

Nasser 406 (406)

Gorbachev 62 (182)

Meir 36 (36)

NOTE: I kept Lenin and Trotsky off; had I not, they'd've taken away Stalin's 308 (Russia), and possibly some of his 861.

Liberal Primaries (of 5612; 2806 for majority):

Roosevelt 1446 (1534)

Gladstone 1231 (1608)

Bonaparte 1261 (1415)

Jefferson 392 (392)

Akhenaten 278 (278)

Sun 348 (385)

NOTE: Hammurabi, Constantine, Ashoka, and Pericles still have to be added to this primary, so some of those numbers should decline a little bit, especially the big three, I'd say.

Fascist Primaries (of 3037; 1519 for majority):

Hitler 1256 (1275)

Khan 880 (975)

Tamerlane 155 (155)

Pinochet 189 (189)

Mussolini 246 (246)

Franco 69 (69)

Dracula 158 (158)

NOTE: That's not the vampire, it's Vlad III Dracula, better known as Vlad the Impaler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will cry my eyes out if Pierre Trudeau isn't included as a Liberal or Socialist. :(

Trudeau was a Communist and studied Marxist ideology at college, even doing his thesis on it. He eventually became a Liberal, but was still pretty left-wing as far as the Liberal Party went.

Come to speak of it, Tommy Douglas should be a Socialist candidate as well for North America, considering the U.S. doesn't have many good Socialists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Trudeau. If he was a member of the Liberal Party, I think that makes him a Liberal, which is OK as far as I'm concerned. The only reason why I'm skeptical of Douglas is because there are already a lot of Socialists and any North American candidate is going to need to dominate North America in order to have half a chance (which I currently have MLK doing). He'd make a good VP, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the general election:

4561248864_5926876099_o.jpg

I really want to even things out between the three parties a little bit more.

Here's the Socialist primaries:

4560885422_72a452d46f_o.jpg

West Africa is Mandela's, Stalin is leading in East Europe, Central Asia, Poland, and Germany, Gandhi in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Gorbachev in Central Europe and the Balkans, Attlee in Italy, and Guevara in the Caribbean. (Of those not on the front page, Nasser is the gold, King is the light yellow, Gandhi is the turquoise, Guevara the green, Gorbachev the pink, Golda Meir the light blue.)

The Liberal primaries:

4560622621_d4f3678ec9_o.jpg

Not including Hammurabi, Constantine, Pericles, or Ashoka. The light blue is Sun Yat-Sen and the sand color is Akhenaten. Russia, I'm pretty sure, is FDR's, while Gladstone is leading in Asia Minor and Palestine as well as India. Sun is leading Afghanistan, and Napoleon the Balkans. Obviously, Pericles will end up taking the Balkans, Constantine Asia Minor, Ashoka India, and Hammurabi much of the Middle East.

The Fascist primaries really, really don't want to load. I wonder why. But it's basically Mussolini (gray) in Italy, Franco (yellow) in Iberia, Pinochet (dark blue) in all of South America, Vlad the Impaler in Eastern Europe, Tamerlane in central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Genghis Khan taking the rest of Asia and all of Africa, and Hitler taking everything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two questions.

Are you grouping Democratic Socialists & Social Democrats with the Socialists or Liberals?

If Stalin or another Autocratic "Socialist" wins, do you have large regional drops for them in places like Europe / S. America?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, okay. I'm not sure exactly how I'm doing it. Yes, the Socialist Party is comprised of both Communists and Social Democrats. I am also planning on giving candidates major regional bonuses when they win, which I think will be a slightly later stage. I'm not sure exactly how I'll want to finagle this, for exactly the reason you bring up: I give Socialists a lot of strength in South America, but wouldn't a Stalin nomination change that? So do I make the whole thing about the candidates? Make there be no real general-election landscape before the nominations have taken place? And then just have that many different landscapes? It's a lot of work, but probably the highest quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I've added all the Liberals. Now, out of 5612 delegates (2807 for a majority) it's Roosevelt 1088 (1534 with ties), Gladstone 674 (971), Bonaparte 959 (1127), Jefferson 392, Sun 230 (348), Akhenaten 278, Maurya 419, Constantine 181, Pericles 154, Trudeau 208. I'll send it around. Note that I haven't filled out the compliment of Liberal VPs yet. Also, I think I'm going to change the primaries from a 40-30-30 split to a 50-20-30 split, which I also did on my historical US scenarios and which I think makes things slightly less crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've officially decided that eventually I'm going to be giving all of the parties 0% in each region, and give each candidate a regional boost in each region that represents the vote share they'd get in that region. I've tried this in a little simulation just to see if it works, and it does. Of course, it means coming up with another 1974 numbers, so it might take a while, but it shouldn't be too bad... I think candidate bonuses should be used more; it doesn't matter enough currently which candidate a party nominates. There aren't, for instance, systemic differences in strength between the different candidates in a party. (Just think of if Kucinich had managed to win the '08 primaries. Could he have beaten McCain? Doubtful.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, okay, that's true, and on the major American issues of the day, which in reality boiled down to the issue of race, he was an ardent progressive. But take a broader international viewpoint. This global Conservative Party is not explicitly small-government; that's far too recent a phenomenon. It is, among other things, not enamored of ideas of massive human rights protections (which fits Lincoln, in the examples you've given). They're also vehemently anti-socialist, and Lincoln, like the Republican Party ever after (indeed it's the only real constant in American politics), was heartily pro-business. I can't see making him a Socialist (for the pro-business thing) or a Liberal (for the anti-habeas thing), and I don't really think he was a Fascist. Conservative fits, I think, if you aren't focused on America.

But I appreciate your jumping in on an issue that is clearly very relevant to you.

Firstly Lincoln was not pro-business at all... Now Conservatism at its heart is to keep what is present and to avoid progress or to revert back to old ways. Lincoln probably single handedly changed the nation more then any man since the founding fathers. I mean this is a man who had an active correspondence and a strong support from Karl Marx. He was the least conservative president of the 19th century by far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly Lincoln was not pro-business at all... Now Conservatism at its heart is to keep what is present and to avoid progress or to revert back to old ways. Lincoln probably single handedly changed the nation more then any man since the founding fathers. I mean this is a man who had an active correspondence and a strong support from Karl Marx. He was the least conservative president of the 19th century by far.

So where do you want me to put him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just did a spacebar run-through of the Socialist, Liberal, and Fascist primaries, playing as the unopposed Churchill. The winners were Attlee, Gladstone, and Franco. Gladstone had a dominant lead within about eight weeks of the beginning of the campaign, and never coughed it up. Attlee just kept on winning and securing the endorsements of anyone who endorsed anyone. I'm not sure why Genghis Khan dropped out and Hitler endorsed Franco, since before either of them did so they were both ahead of him. Maybe I need to modify the PIP allocation... I went through one round of modifying the Established figures, to try and prevent people like Franco from randomly winning! He's supposed to be a frickin' favorite-son candidate...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...