Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Can YOU campaign better than the US Presidents?
Topic Started: Jul 20 2013, 09:58 PM (2,011 Views)
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
http://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/

An interesting game which places you in the shoes of a Presidential candidate in 1896, 1968 and 2012. A nice way to spend some time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Interesting. Of those, 1896 strikes me as the most plausible for a reverse outcome, 1968 and 2012 being close to foregone conclusions in light of international events.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

Took me three tries to beat Obama with an actually conservative platform:



" 9962 games have been played with Mitt Romney
Your ranking this game is #1843
You have outplayed 81.5% of your contemporaries"

Hah! Did better than 80% of them.
Attached to this post:
Attachments: 2012.jpg (193.31 KB)
Edited by Matthew, Jul 20 2013, 11:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Ah, the 2012 election. For some reason I read it as 2008. I suppose there is an off chance if you pick Rubio as the VP, but not terribly great.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

I tried Jindal to start, then Rubio, but got in with Ryan. Still, it was probably more a policy thing.

No gay marriage, no enviromental stuff, free markets (which also meant no crony capitalism), going to Mars, (mostly as a way to get Americans moving again), aggressive on Obama's record, strong on the military, etc, and a big push for Ohio.

Honestly, even I would be content to vote for that platform, which surpised me as I thought it would be silly and only let you win if you moderated.

The second time around, though, I made my base mad by saying that the past US policy vis a vis the middle east was wrong and you shouldnt have supported the changes (ala Mubarak) in the first place. I guess I just read it as 'Nasser' or 'Ghadaffi' and you guys know what I think of them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Mars, interesting. Sounds more a Gingrich type of idea.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

I also was quite hard line about China.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Member Avatar

Lulz, I proclaim this game nonsense.

2012 as Romney.

Somehow, I lost North Carolina and Virginia and won Florida, Ohio, and Iowa. Losing North Carolina should lead to losing any close state there is. North Carolina leans Republican. If Romney could not win that state, he had no chance of winning the others. I won by more than 6 pts in Florida.
Edited by John, Jul 21 2013, 03:47 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
That does tend to cast doubt on it. I don't see how you could lose North Carolina and win Ohio. It was considered a "slam dunk" for Republicans, and in fact I think it was the only one of the southern states that went Democrat in 2008 that was taken back in 2012.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Member Avatar

Not only did I win this second time around, I crushed the President, 350 - 188 (@ 98.2%). And this further confirms that this test is nonsense.

I won,

Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Nevada
New Hampshire
New York <--- Not a chance!
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin <--- possible, but I also lost Michigan by 4 percentage points. Michigan would be very close if Romney were to win Wisconsin.
Edited by John, Jul 21 2013, 05:38 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Maybe Hurricane Sandy wiped out New York and prevented 3 million Democrats from getting to the polls...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Member Avatar

That is the only sensible alternative in this timeline. Hurricane Sandy must have destroyed New York City.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

Did you go moderate or something? I don't necessarily agree that that would have won Romney the presidency, (or if it would even be worth winning at that price), but it wouldn't surprise me if that played a part in their rational.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
I heard somewhere (although it could be just political talk) that Romney actually got fewer conservative votes than McCain, so I doubt it would help him to go further.

According to Wiki, Romney got 1 million more votes total than McCain did in 2008. Obama got 4 million fewer votes total.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
I'd like to see if somebody can make Texas turn Democratic as Obama. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Member Avatar

I did not go moderate, at all. The only thing I did differently was go up to 80 questions and turn hardline on China.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

Odd, I mean, as much as I'd like to think it would work, it certainly wouldn't turn NY. Maybe you just plastered Obama's record so well his base didn't come out at all...
Edited by Matthew, Jul 22 2013, 04:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
It is an addictive little game and a nice bit of fun.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
I won as Romney with Rubio, with 338 seats to 200, 51.07% vs 47.11% and 66.9 million votes to 61.727 million votes. I did a lot of campaigning in the Midwest, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Virginia, picking up Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida. New Jersey, Delaware, Nevada, New Hampshire and Colorado as part of a total of 35 states to Obama's 15 + DC.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Member Avatar

Oh, and I did choose Rubio as my VP, as well.


Quote:
 
I won as Romney with Rubio, with 338 seats to 200, 51.07% vs 47.11% and 66.9 million votes to 61.727 million votes. I did a lot of campaigning in the Midwest, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Virginia, picking up Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida. New Jersey, Delaware, Nevada, New Hampshire and Colorado as part of a total of 35 states to Obama's 15 + DC.


Yea...............................................................no.
Edited by John, Jul 22 2013, 01:03 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
They were both by fairly convincing margins as well.

I tried to lose as badly as possible as Obama, choosing Hilary Clinton as my running mate.
For a while, it looked like I'd only get DC, but California came through 48.9% to 47.11%.
Overall, it was 480-58, 77,365,020-49,941,828 and 59.37% to 38.32%.

The next challenge is to lose California.

Winning as Nixon in 68 has proved more difficult than I'd thought.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
Whenever I try with Nixon, no candidate gets enough electoral votes to actually win. Once I was even tied with Humphrey 264-264.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
I wonder if they'll expand it later. There are so many more interesting elections: 1860, 1912, 1920, 1948, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2004.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
I managed to lose California as Obama after a few tries.

I quite agree that it would be interesting to apply it to other elections; I do like the little faces of the political advisors and can picture them having a seizure with some of the things I have the candidate say.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doctor_Strangelove
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

Well, for myself, I don't personally care about being on the 'winning' side, it is more a question of what is right and what is wrong.

That being said, the more I think on it, the more the question of homosexual marriage is simply a smaller part in the larger battle being fought over the question of what is and what is not a family, and I think the rest of that question deserves just as much, if not proportionately more, attention. That being said, gay marriage is simply the grounds on which the question is being forced.

All in all though, I am not one to give up a fight simply because it seems hopeless. I realise I am a 'stick-in-the-mud,' with one mindsets which are 'racist,' 'imperialist,' 'misogynist,' 'patriarchal,' and 'out of touch with reality,' and only belong in an era that is 'out-dated,' and is 'gone-for-good.' I am 'colonial,' and 'bigoted' and 'xenophobic' and 'homophobic' (apparently) and 'islamophobic' and could be labeled with pretty much everything else in the book. I realise I am not sufficiently 'multicultural' and that I do not welcome enough 'diversity,' and that I am extremely 'intolerant,' and that I am 'hateful' to suggest that people should not abuse their liberty in the ways so prevalent since, especially, the sexual revolution. I realise that people would hate me for all this, especially because I am white, (and not just white, English!), Christian, and male. I realise I may very well stand on the wrong side of history.

Frankly, though, I don't give a damn.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doctor_Strangelove
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewington
Member Avatar

I was able to win as Romney/Rubio 285-253 by being moderate and attempting to appeal to the Northeast. I was able to win Ohio and NH and just missed out on Pennsylvania.

I think that debating the issues in depth will only create needless animosity.

EDIT: You beat me to the punch EQ
Edited by Lewington, Jul 24 2013, 09:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doctor_Strangelove
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
On what basis is "discrimination" of gay people immoral, unjust, or repugnant? (Though it is not, in fact, discrimination, since gay people have the same rights to marry as everyone else -- it is simply not marriage if it's not heterosexual.) What is the standard?

This is the fundamental issue at play. We no longer have a coherent standard by which to set behavior, laws, or anything else in society. "Everyone does what is right in his own eyes."

There is no animosity. EQ and I and several others have debated this and other contentious issues many times before without it turning into a mudslinging contest. If you ask me, almost all Americans make one of two mistakes these days. Either they demonize the opposition and treat them as less than scum, or they avoid contentious issues altogether for the sake of getting along. Peace is not the absence of conflict.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

Oh, have no fear, I had no intention of going 'in-depth,' thats quite another matter entirely.

I will just leave it by stating that I would certainly not support making homosexuality, once again, illegal, for that is indeed quite out of the jurisdiction of the state, in the same category as fornication, and adultery and things of that variety. Marriage is, however, due to its connection with the family, a much much more complicated and nuanced issue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Well I for one have no qualms about debating something in depth. :P We are all friends here, and if Matt and I can debate something as close to our hearts as the question of republicanism vs. monarchism and remain friends, I cannot see what the hullabaloo is. It isn't as if we've just discovered that some here are social liberals while others are social conservatives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewington
Member Avatar

My mistake for misinterpreting the demeanor as being unfriendly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

Well, I don't mind per se, but I didn't intend to bring it up myself, originally, I was just responding with as much concision as possible to EQs post.

I do agree, though, that I don't think debate need necessarily lead to animosity. Proper, healthy, debate is a good thing, and a cornerstone of our society, and sharpens everyone involved.

Edit: And don't worry about me, Lew, I don't hold any ill feelings on the matter towards anyone here, we are all friends and, besides, hardly responsible for the current state of affairs.
Edited by Matthew, Jul 24 2013, 10:30 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doctor_Strangelove
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

I suppose the biggest contention, regarding 'unfairness' is tax breaks and things of that sort.

Firstly, due to the importance and benefits brought to a society by the healthy traditional family, I think it is not wrong for the government to encourage such behaviour in its citizens. To what degree this should be taken is for debate, but if I am not mistaken, a lot of the family things of this sort were geared towards this end.

I am otherwise generally content to leave marriage entirely in the hands of the church, as marriage was originally a religious institution anyway, at least as far as western society goes, and I don't really think it is a preserve of the state.

I disagree, however, with the current and widespread attempts to treat all varieties of relationships as perfectly equal and good. It is one thing to not actively persecute them in the name of individual liberty, it is quite another to suggest they are not really different at all, when they most demonstrably are. To do so is simply intellectual foolishness, and playing around with words and terms in a dishonest fashion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
A very valid point. If there were no welfare state, most of the practical issues would vanish.

Again, though, the question comes down to what is considered normal, good and healthy. People tend to forget that homosexuality was classified as a mental disease until the 1960s or so. I doubt anyone would insist that bipolar or multiple personality disorder is just as good and desirable as a "normal" state of mind. We might treat the person with respect just the same (which, admittedly, they did not do back in the 50s, considering all the stigma), but that doesn't mean we would uphold it as a perfectly valid alternative.

As for love, the fact is that the straight culture today does not understand what love really is, instead equating it with cushy feelings or physical affection. So it is no surprise the confusion carries over.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewington
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
As for love, the fact is that the straight culture today does not understand what love really is, instead equating it with cushy feelings or physical affection. So it is no surprise the confusion carries over
. Spot on. As Matt alluded to earlier, homosexuality is just one part of the problem. An article in the Telegraph recently highlighted how the majority of babies in the UK will be born out of wedlock by 2016. The institution is crumbling as a whole.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

Lewington
Jul 24 2013, 10:48 PM
Spot on. As Matt alluded to earlier, homosexuality is just one part of the problem. An article in the Telegraph recently highlighted how the majority of babies in the UK will be born out of wedlock by 2016. The institution is crumbling as a whole.
For sure. This may sound a bit archaic (but I did just say I didn't really care) but I think that the entire debate is missing the point of marriage, and working from a faulty understanding of love.

Firstly, love is about sacrifice, and there is nothing to stop anyone from loving another person, gay or not. As as Christian, I am even called to love my enemies, so it is certainly not about a physical desire for another individual.

Secondly, the primary historical advantage of marriage was that it bound the two individuals together, for better or worse, providing an optimal environment for the development of children. This, of course, is already under siege due to the divorce laws which have, in my opinion, contributed more to the destruction of the family than anything else.

The argument that it is for the children does not apply to gay marriage in the same way. There is obviously no chance of biological children. Furthermore, regarding adoption, it is curious how willing we are to rush to allow such experimental forms of partnerships to adopt, despite the normal protectiveness surrouding the nature of adopted children. And at any rate, despite how unpopular it is to say these days, it really is not as healthy for a child to have no father or no mother.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewington
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
There is obviously no chance of biological children
That's very quickly being erased. The thing is that for certain aspects there is no going back. It'd be nice for there to be a primary caretaker present all the time in the home, but that would be an emasculating role for men and extremely unfair imposition on women.

I would argue that the divorce laws are not as important as the culture surrounding divorce. Divorce should be perfectly legal in every case. If people are ready to enter marriage without being ready or call it quits so quickly marriage loses its point though as you say.
Edited by Lewington, Jul 24 2013, 11:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doctor_Strangelove
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
Basil Fawlty
Jul 24 2013, 10:40 PM
A very valid point. If there were no welfare state, most of the practical issues would vanish.
And yet, a myriad of other issues would pop out. Let's not open that can of worms, and keep the discussion here.

As far as I am concerned, marriages, in a traditional sense, should be a prerogative of the religious institutions. However, the state has an obligation to ensure equality of all citizens of the state/country, and therefore gay marriages should, in that sense, be allowed - if, for nothing else, so that gay couples may be entitled to same rights as opposite sex couples.

As for comparing bipolar or multiple personality disorder with homosexuality, I think it is just wrong. It was classified as a mental disorder by leading scientists of the day, yes - however those same scientists said that lobotomy was harmless and would only do good. They were wrong on one count - could they not be wrong on homosexuality as well?

Homosexuals, who are in the vast minority, are definitely not responsible for the reduction in the amount of children born, or the skyrocketing number of children born outside of wedlock. Society has changed drastically, and that is the main reason. That is, however, a completely different discussion.

As for having no mother or father argument, I don't know how valid it is, truth be told. Although it is even in my opinion beautiful to see a kid playing with his mom or dad, and that it is definitely great for them to have both a mother and a father, you have a pretty big amount of families without either a mother or a father for various reasons - and in such cases, grandparents, older relatives or good family friends can have a crucial role just as biological parents do.

EDIT: Just had a few words to add in the last paragraph. :P
Edited by Petar, Jul 24 2013, 11:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

I am not up on all the newest technological advances, but, from what I am aware, it still takes the input from (some) male and (some) female for children to take form. Of course, this is where the moral/Christian arguments have an immediate impact.

As to caretaking, I do not quite understand why child-rearing is seen as such a demeaning task, (in fact, it is practically the most honourable, and the most noble, raising the future generations as opposed to us guys who just go off and get them all killed in wars,) but women do seem to sometimes see it that way. I don't think it makes for an optimal environment however, and, at least as far as child rearing goes, parental input should be encouraged.

You do have a point vis a vis the culture around divorce, and it certainly ought to be discouraged, but simultaneously I would suggest people not get married, and not have children, if they are not willing to commit.

To be fair though, when or why divorce ought to be legal is something I need to dwell on some, but I do think what we have now is far from good, be it laws or culture or some combination.

As to infertile couples, no, we just don't need to change the institution explicitly on their account, which is what is being asked by homosexuals. The debate is, I guess, around the question if marriage is something two people do, or if it is something two people, one being a man, and one being a woman, do. As, at least in western society, marriage has significant roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and not in the state, or anything else, it is clearly the latter.

The entire family, grandparents included, is definitely crucial, but there is a specific reason that (and I admit, I am working from a Judeo-Christian perspective, which can be argued about separately if necessary) God set up the family as one father and one mother, and this is generally born out in what testing has been done. This is not to demean the efforts of those single parents who really do try to do the best they can, but that is no argument for encouraging the further destruction of the traditional family, simply for recognizing those individuals as extraordinary, that is to say, recognize their more-than-usual efforts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
Matthew
Jul 24 2013, 11:22 PM
As to infertile couples, no, we just don't need to change the institution explicitly on their account, which is what is being asked by homosexuals. The debate is, I guess, around the question if marriage is something two people do, or if it is something two people, one being a man, and one being a woman, do. As, at least in western society, marriage has significant roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and not in the state, or anything else, it is clearly the latter.
Then have the civil unions be recognized in all states, if not marriages per se. Homosexual couples should have the same right before the state, if not before God.

As for child rearing, it is definitely one of the most noble and great tasks before every woman, so... we agree on that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
What Petar says is true on some level. I've been thinking about it ever since I read C.S. Lewis' thoughts on something similar in Mere Christianity (written all the way back in 1945).

Lewis said that divorce should not be limited legally, not because it is not wrong to get a divorce for any and every reason under the sun (for Jesus plainly taught that divorce, except in cases of infidelity, is infidelity itself), but simply because the vast majority of people in society are not Christians. Thus it does not make sense to thrust what is essentially a Christian worldview on them.

I'll confess to having trouble with this view, inasmuch as it leads directly to what we have today -- the old idea that a law based on religious principles is invalid, but the same law based on non-religious reasons is perfectly fine. Basically what you establish is a society where non-religious people can support anything they like, simply because they have no religion, whereas someone who is religious is never able to justify his ideas in front of the country, merely because they have a religious component. That is a political inequality far worse than the supposed inequality of not being able to marry.

As for the welfare state, you know Petar that I am really a social democrat at heart. :P

I think a simple solution that would fix many of the problems is being able to designate a recipient, etc., for Social Security benefits and other family prerogatives. It's not like that would be any more difficult to record than a marriage license. That actually strikes me as a good idea quite apart from the gay marriage issue.

However, I don't think it would solve it, because as EQ has made clear by the "separate but equal" language, it is really about acceptance. Homosexuals want to be accepted, legitimized. That's why so many of them do not want the half-measure of a civil union.
Edited by Basil Fawlty, Jul 24 2013, 11:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewington
Member Avatar

I think that the alternative to not allowing gay marriage to have parity with heterosexual marriage would be for the government to distribute civil unions to all and the religious folk to call their unions "marriages" if they wanted to. Naturally everyone would call their unions marriages anyways and the institution would become almost completely secularized.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Petar
Member Avatar
The General
Lewington
Jul 24 2013, 11:42 PM
I think that the alternative to not allowing gay marriage to have parity with heterosexual marriage would be for the government to distribute civil unions to all and the religious folk to call their unions "marriages" if they wanted to. Naturally everyone would call their unions marriages anyways and the institution would become almost completely secularized.
Basically, that would be the best compromise, in my opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Doctor_Strangelove
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:25 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
That really is not any different from elevating gay marriage to the level of traditional marriage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matthew
Member Avatar

I guess it just gets back, again, to the question of the purpose of Civil Unions/Marriages, or whatever you want to call them.

As I mentioned before, I think the biggest 'difference,' at least as far as the state is concerned, between Civil Unions/Marriages and co-habitation is simply the question of tax-breaks, with the aim of encouraging one or another sort of behaviour. With less of a nanny state, this issue receeds in importance, and that is the direction I would prefer to take anyway.

But that does get into the debate about the welfare state, and how it ought to be structured, if it ought to exist at all.

If it is just an issue of simple acceptance as being equal, in purely semantic terms, I would not mind going the route Lewington suggests of civil unions for all and let religions call them what they will.

I look at it as less of discrimination against gay marriage and instead in favour of traditional marriage. This may sound like mere wordplay, but I think there is a difference, specifically in terms of emphasis, i.e., we want more traditional marriage because of x, y, and z, (which would require addressing all the related factors, not just gay marriage, but also co-habitation, and what not) as opposed to we don't want gay marriage just because we want to be jerks.

All in all though, as said before, there are a lot of bigger issues brought about by the sexual revolution that I think deserve a higher prioritization, though there is the argument that, just because attention is being directed elsewhere does not mean just anything goes everywhere else.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · History · Next Topic »
Add Reply