I never imagined that after the close fight of four years ago that the fine Jeremiah Brass would have such a leisurely stroll into the oval office.
I feel somewhat bad, it's mostly the timing. I could have been the sacrificial candidate four years ago, and Kerr would be walking into office with even more votes than me today.
We should have anticipated in the last election that with the pro-slavery faction of the Whigs finally deceased that people would naturally want to have a Democrat after so long a time.
Also, once the SNP ceased to be a real threat to the Democrats, that bolstered their ranks as well.
The last election was just a very strong moment for them; however we have seen that in this game it's not necessarily easier to be reelected than elected - as Arthur King can tell you.
So, if we were going on mass party appeal - through some formal convention system - I, or Nightmore if I could have weasled out of it, would have been a sacrificial candidate four years ago in order to lead the compromise (acceptable to both moderates and radicals) candidate Kerr to this election's victory now.
However instead you had a case where I had pull among a small but dedicated voting bloc, and the collapsing moderate wing rather than wishing Kerr success in the general election merely wanted him to win the primaries rather than any radical candidate.
It is a shame that John B. Kerr did not have a wing of his own, but our party didn't really ever have an internal center - just the Moderates on one hand and the Radicals on the other, without much attempt to bridge the gap between the two by most Whigs. Cameron was more interested in bridging the gap with the Democrats than with the other half of the Whig party, after all.
However, now that the Moderate Wing has been dead a while, I have a feeling that either the party as a whole will take a gradual reformist but definite action line like in my platform and Mr.Kerr's before me, OR we will have a reformist wing and a radical wing, rather than the old moderate and radical wings.
Yes, that is why when the history books are written, they will show the large amount of people who abstained from voting in this election.
To be fair Mr. Brass, I believe we should see how your attemps at reform pan out before we declare conservatism dead. As a nation I believe we are unaware of the manner in which certain segments of the population and regions might respond to your reform.
Polls have closed.
The score (by my count) is 10-3 in favor of the National Republican Candidate.
The next President of the Republic will be Jeremiah Brass.
Conservatism isn't dead, but the slavery-coddling wing of the Whigs certainly is. There's no room for them in a world where the SNP and Dems are under one roof. The ex-SNP won't vote for Cameronites, and neither will the reformist Whigs. And as their own faction or party they'd be too small to compete with the Dems+oldSNP.
You Democrats are a large party these days, and that puts a certain pressure on the Whig party - meaning that rather than appealing to Democratic swing voters in our loosely held primary elections, there's more of a Whig core actually doing most of the primary voting, and the majority of the Whigs are at least moderately pro-reform.
As the math showed earlier, even counting abstains, I was certainly not elected by any sort of historically low percentage of the electorate as you are suggesting.
In this way, Walsh's term seems a lot like Arthur King's (except that with the Whigs - excuse me, the Republicans - relatively unified, there was no common ground between the dissatisfied groups). If the Democrats can find a politician who can take the Whig victory and run with it...I believe next election the democrats will make a much stronger showing. Because of the nature of Walsh's term much of the old SNP and swing vote SNP-Democrats could not bring themseles to vote for him again, I believe we might have won had I been able to continue in primary bid. ((RL Crippling stomach flu)) Who knows what the next four years will bring. The decisions may be in your hands Mr. Brass, but the fates are in God's.
In this way, Walsh's term seems a lot like Arthur King's (except that with the Whigs - excuse me, the Republicans - relatively unified, there was no common ground between the dissatisfied groups). If the Democrats can find a politician who can take the Whig victory and run with it...
Now, if Cameronites and the old SNP vote managed to find a common goal, that would change things up again, but much like the radical Whigs in Cameron's era, they are stuck with no better alternatives.
((A lot of people seem to have left this game, we're back (including abstains) to 1836 turnout. BTW, would it be technically possible for me to run for president again, and run for reelection after that.))
I believe next election the democrats will make a much stronger showing. Because of the nature of Walsh's term much of the old SNP and swing vote SNP-Democrats could not bring themseles to vote for him again, I believe we might have won had I been able to continue in primary bid.
((I think people just skipped out on this election, even if they have left more people will join for the Southern War of Independence.))
((What a curious name for the Slaveholders Treason.))