-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Wow, I cant believe I missed out on the primaries. I was actually going to suggest a coalition of moderate Democrats and moderate Whigs under a ticket with myself as the president or VP candidate.
So, here we go (hopefully applicable).
I call on all people who support a unified country to band together. We cannot support the radicals of the North who wish to destroy the institution of slavery immediately, it will surely anger the South. Nor can we listen to the radical cries of Dixie in the South who wish for all but secession from this Union. We must strike a middle ground where northerners and southerners can coexist. This union cannot and will not be torn asunder. I hereby call, to put it officially, a coalition of all moderates be they Whig or Democrat to align behind this party to oppose the power of the radical Southerners and break the power of the radical Whigs. (I realize that three Whigs have already called for nomination so I have one of two requests to the powers that be (BBB). Either I form this party and a Whig candidate, or three ;-) drop out to support me (unlikely) or I will give my ticket to a currently running Whig and go as their running mate under this new party.) What say you?
So, here we go (hopefully applicable).
A Call for Normalcy. A Call for the Formation of the Democratic-Republicans
I call on all people who support a unified country to band together. We cannot support the radicals of the North who wish to destroy the institution of slavery immediately, it will surely anger the South. Nor can we listen to the radical cries of Dixie in the South who wish for all but secession from this Union. We must strike a middle ground where northerners and southerners can coexist. This union cannot and will not be torn asunder. I hereby call, to put it officially, a coalition of all moderates be they Whig or Democrat to align behind this party to oppose the power of the radical Southerners and break the power of the radical Whigs. (I realize that three Whigs have already called for nomination so I have one of two requests to the powers that be (BBB). Either I form this party and a Whig candidate, or three ;-) drop out to support me (unlikely) or I will give my ticket to a currently running Whig and go as their running mate under this new party.) What say you?
I'd support an alliance of moderates, but I've already gone for the Whig Presidential candidate. Confused as to what to do.
I might be excluded from fielding my own ticket due to the three candidate rule, but can offer my ticket (the Democratic Republican moderate coalition) to you (you already banded together with Mr. Gallatin). Not to alienate the moderate Democrats, I also ask if any of them would be willing to take my ticket.
Senator Fender's proposed coalition is the only group which proposes to focus on the goals of the nation as a whole, rather than merely the ambitions of a region. A repeat of the last four years or an administration led by the SNP would have disastrous affects on the unity of our great nation. However, a ticket composed entirly of former Whigs (even moderate Whigs) would be unlikly to garner support in the south. Therefore, it would seem prudent for at least one spot on the ticket to go to a former democrat.
Senator Parker is right. Perhaps a grand coalition Gallaten and a Democrat could be achieved? I am prepared to sacrifice my position on the ticket for the sake of national unity ;-).
Y'all might just destroy the rest of the democratic party. Considering that the SNP has already drawn off its more extreme members and most of its southern members .
Im going to be indisposed for a few hours, so can you guys mull over this proposition BBB, Gallatin, Democrats, etc...?
As I predicted. Well, the diluted Whigs and Democrats can run together as one of the three tickets if they want, but it is more imperative than ever for a true Whig to be on the official Whig platform - if the compromisers want to run, let them do it in the space reserved for the Democrats. The official Whig nominee must be a party stalwart.
That's why I strongly recommend that President King, Mr. Vinograd, and any other pro-abolition Whigs not run against each other in the primaries.
Think of it this way - if a "moderate" wins the Whig primary due to the stalwarts running against each other, that'll leave a "moderate" Whig, a "moderate" Democrat, and a SNP fire-eater. With the moderate vote split, the SNP could get into the White House and dishonor it with their presence.
We must shore up the Whig party for a true Whig candidate - which means we must unite around a single candidate in the primary, or else fear we lose it to the Half-Breeds.
That's why I strongly recommend that President King, Mr. Vinograd, and any other pro-abolition Whigs not run against each other in the primaries.
Think of it this way - if a "moderate" wins the Whig primary due to the stalwarts running against each other, that'll leave a "moderate" Whig, a "moderate" Democrat, and a SNP fire-eater. With the moderate vote split, the SNP could get into the White House and dishonor it with their presence.
We must shore up the Whig party for a true Whig candidate - which means we must unite around a single candidate in the primary, or else fear we lose it to the Half-Breeds.
I must agree. However, we should not switch horses midstream. Therefore, I suggest pro-abolition Whigs to rally around me.
((Maybe we should create the Free Soil Party?))
So this is what the opponents of the SNP resort to, using petty names such as fire-eaters and half-breeds. *sigh* Is this really how low these "moderates" are willing to go in order to achieve what they say would be preserving the Union? Fellow Americans, Southerners and Northerners alike, we must not allow men of such character into the highest seat of power in our great nation. They say that a SNP President would dishonor his position, but I tell you now, this is the exact opposite of the truth. The men of the SNP are all honorable and only seek to see that equality is seen for all the regions of the nation. We have said repeatedly that we do not seek seccesion but the preservation of our Constitution.
-Nicolas Khur, SNP member and Inspector-General of the SNM
The truth is that currently the South party is overwhelmingly strong against the Democrats, the moderate Whigs, and the radical Whigs. We can either bow down to the full force of the Southern party, or go for a party that will give us half our desires. All I call for is one Democratic or Whig candidate to take the reins of the Democratic Republican party.
((It seems your Grand Coalition idea seems to be lacking in leadership or even widespread support, it might actually help my party by splitting the whig vote. And the democrats (Of which I believe there are 2 or 3 remaining) are nowhere to be found supporting thier own party, much less your coalition.))
(( If I had to guess, the moderates of the Whigs and Democrats are going to end up on the Democrat ticket or at least the slot for the Democrat ticket - maybe they'll call themselves Democrats, National Union, Democratic-Republicans. That leaves the Whig ticket or slot for the Whig ticket for the abolitionists. And keep in mind that at least half of the "radical" or, as I have used, stalwart Whigs seem to not be too incredibly radical - both Omega and myself for instance are planning to vote FOR the Davis Plan, only the most radical of the radicals, Vinograd, seems to be voting against it. So the radical Whigs do have a chance - King won once as a blatant abolitionist, he can win again. The people voting Southern now wouldn't have voted for King before, and with the non-abolitionist vote split between Southerners and moderates, King has a serious chance of winning again.))
((But many of the people who voted for king last time are more moderate whigs who are wandering somewhat aimlessly and trying to create a wholly unrealistic coalition. Also, to be honest, I originally thought my party could act as a swing vote with me withdrawing my candidacy in return for concessions. I never dreamed that my party would have a chance of a 1840 victory unil I saw the complete dissolution of the democrats and a schism in the whigs.))
(( If the Civil War event was modified like the 2ACW in KR, in a situation like a SNP presidency, the North would be able to secede from the Union and start the war that way! Also, by being the only one who has been allowed - by virtue of asking for forgiveness and not permission - to create a new/AltHistory political party, you've captured people's attention/imaginations. But if everyone were allowed to do that, it would get old, get silly, and needlessly complicated. So by breaking the rules but being assured that no one else will be allowed to, you've kind of captured the emotional parapets.))
((King had strong support from moderate Whigs which actually tipped the scales [it was really looking like he might have lost earlier on]. It was only after Texas bled and the SNP broke off that the moderates started distancing from King's abolitionist stance.
Currently it looks like we have four basic party ideals.
Whigs -> Radical Whigs and Moderate Whigs.
Democrats -> SNP and Moderate Democrats.
An uneasy coalition is going to have to form one way or another. The realistically possible combinations are
Radical Whigs and Moderate Whigs ("Whig Party")
SNP and Moderate Democrats ("Democratic Party" "Southern Democratic Party" or something)
Moderate Democrats and Moderate Whigs ("Democratic-Republicans", "National Union Party", "Republican Party", "Moderate Party" etc.)
Moderate Democrats, Moderate Whigs, and Radical Whigs ("National Union Party")
The awkward thing for any coalition is that the fringes don't seem to like the moderates or any idea of moderate reconciliation - which is, I guess, the purpose of fringes. It sucks to be a moderate, I might say.
))Seeing the state of this election, I propose that we Whigs put aside past rivalries - not as words to simply declare the abandonment of our beliefs and sound policies, but to emphasize our commitment to working together for the good of our country. I propose that we term the ticket we run on this election as the NATIONAL UNION PARTY, emphasizing how we look not to the interest of an esoteric few, but to the national whole. I furthermore urge like-minded senators and politicians from the Democratic party to join with this National Union ticket - not as party changers or Whigs, but as Americans. I offer to both the people of my party and to those Democrats who seek unity and the common good, cabinet positions so we may collectively discuss and transparently inform each other on government policy and council. I hope that King and the other Whig candidates would do likewise, seeing the wisdom in council of each other, and the benefit of working along with likeminded Democrats for common policies.
Here is what we share:
- The military is a fine institution and not one made for bullying and politicizing by discriminating with arbitrary ratios that would sap our national defense.
- That the whole of the country must be provided for fairly, as a union of common good, not simply one region pushing its weight around.
- That the grossest ills of slavery may be diminished and brought to rest, and that the discussion and work towards common goals in slavery may be done without bellicose rhetoric and thuggery.
- That the prosperity of a further industrializing and developing country, with infrastructure and development policies made to not discriminate against any region, must be assured.
- That the Union must be preserved.
((I think another primary system might work, given that coalitions may continue or warp around even more after this. I wish we could have semi-primaries, because I don't want the extremes of either fixed parties (which make it hard to form coalitions and compromises) or just plain discussion (in which any number of candidates can try their hand at things, given that there's no real leadership for any party save for the SNP*)
*And no doubt next election we will see even the SNP splinter off into those which support the radical reunification with Britain, and those which support the invasion of Tibet, given how we've delved into insanity so well thus far.))
((I'm not Omega, but I for one would be fine with moderating the platform as long as he, being the incumbent, is still the candidate of the National Union or what have you. Ditching Rufus King for someone more moderate to get votes would make sense in real life, but not in the context of this thread/game where a moderated platform will be enough to get votes. I for one am not going to vote against the incumbent President in the primaries. The true Whig paired with a moderate Whig/Democrat VP, or to plausibly give BBB the excuse to put moderate policies in there too, a moderate leader of the National Union in the House of Representatives))
((King had strong support from moderate Whigs which actually tipped the scales [it was really looking like he might have lost earlier on]. It was only after Texas bled and the SNP broke off that the moderates started distancing from King's abolitionist stance.
Currently it looks like we have four basic party ideals.
Whigs -> Radical Whigs and Moderate Whigs.
Democrats -> SNP and Moderate Democrats.
An uneasy coalition is going to have to form one way or another. The realistically possible combinations are
Radical Whigs and Moderate Whigs ("Whig Party")
SNP and Moderate Democrats ("Democratic Party" "Southern Democratic Party" or something)
Moderate Democrats and Moderate Whigs ("Democratic-Republicans", "National Union Party", "Republican Party", "Moderate Party" etc.)
Moderate Democrats, Moderate Whigs, and Radical Whigs ("National Union Party")
The awkward thing for any coalition is that the fringes don't seem to like the moderates or any idea of moderate reconciliation - which is, I guess, the purpose of fringes. It sucks to be a moderate, I might say.
Seeing the state of this election, I propose that we Whigs put aside past rivalries - not as words to simply declare the abandonment of our beliefs and sound policies, but to emphasize our commitment to working together for the good of our country. I propose that we term the ticket we run on this election as the NATIONAL UNION PARTY, emphasizing how we look not to the interest of an esoteric few, but to the national whole. I furthermore urge like-minded senators and politicians from the Democratic party to join with this National Union ticket - not as party changers or Whigs, but as Americans. I offer to both the people of my party and to those Democrats who seek unity and the common good, cabinet positions so we may collectively discuss and transparently inform each other on government policy and council. I hope that King and the other Whig candidates would do likewise, seeing the wisdom in council of each other, and the benefit of working along with likeminded Democrats for common policies.
Here is what we share:
- The military is a fine institution and not one made for bullying and politicizing by discriminating with arbitrary ratios that would sap our national defense.
- That the whole of the country must be provided for fairly, as a union of common good, not simply one region pushing its weight around.
- That the grossest ills of slavery may be diminished and brought to rest, and that the discussion and work towards common goals in slavery may be done without bellicose rhetoric and thuggery.
- That the prosperity of a further industrializing and developing country, with infrastructure and development policies made to not discriminate against any region, must be assured.
- That the Union must be preserved.
((I think another primary system might work, given that coalitions may continue or warp around even more after this. I wish we could have semi-primaries, because I don't want the extremes of either fixed parties (which make it hard to form coalitions and compromises) or just plain discussion (in which any number of candidates can try their hand at things, given that there's no real leadership for any party save for the SNP*)
*And no doubt next election we will see even the SNP splinter off into those which support the radical reunification with Britain, and those which support the invasion of Tibet, given how we've delved into insanity so well thus far.))
1. ((We at the SNP would never support the reunification with britain, Tibet Beware))
2. ((We are much less likely to Splinter as we do have a centralized leadership, me!))
3. ((It is impossible to simultaneously support the compromise and crusade against the ratio, considering it is a integral part of it))
4. ((You are right a coalition might have to form to keep me out of the white house, but will it?))
5. ((Much of your platform including the curbing of excesses against slaves and preserving the Union are part of the SNP platform as well))
6. ((In conclusion, I can only say that your parties need demag........I mean Leaders like Myself))