-
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.
((I think the Democrats are dead. Don't know anyone else who'd want to stand as a Federal, the last two potential candidates are gone (Khur and Taggerman have both defected) and I think everyone else is fine with another run by me (don't want to be overly presumptive though.)))
Do I have to declare the Democrats dead for the time being?
((Me thinks, yes.))
(( The conservative and socialist isolationists were in talks via PM to make the Democrats the isolationist party, but then you had the big narrative boom in the ACP for the non-interventionist conservatives, meaning they didn't need us anymore. As much as I think the game needs a three party system, especially when one of two parties otherwise would be the always hard to pin down too broad of tent Federalists, I'm tired of running for president for the time being, though this was the first time in a little while. ))
Simon Firefly speaks to private assembly of DNC leadership, advises party to endorse Terrance on a coalition ticket in exchange for key concessions and cabinet posts, as a springboard to renewed electoral success. "Coalition now is the only way to prevent a permanent merger later", advises Firefly.
Simon Firefly speaks to private assembly of DNC leadership, advises party to endorse Terrance on a coalition ticket in exchange for key concessions and cabinet posts, as a springboard to renewed electoral success. "Coalition now is the only way to prevent a permanent merger later", advises Firefly.
Last edited:
Well bugger.
The Democratic Party, though not disbanded, will decline to run a candidate in 1909 as they support Mr. Terrance.
Last edited:
((Democrats trying to steal my schtick! I've been doing this since the 1860's, man. At least now the Federals will have to really define their positions... are we going to wait to see if another Federal runs, or are we going on as is?))
(( I think if we, by which I mean me, are going to throw weight in the next election though, leading with the Democrats endorsing Terrance is better than burying the lead behind "no candidate this time"; narratively speaking. It makes more sense if I'm going to give the good old college try again next time for the Dems to not have fallen into a moribund state but instead adopted the coward's path of backing Terrance; who shares my new character's pro-British sentiments and a generally socially-liberal economic platform.
Really it is a coalition with Terrance, not the Federalists, in a manner of speaking - as one can never count on the ideology of Federalist candidates to stay the same long enough to be reliable long-term partners. ))
I'm currently writing up the primary update. If someone announces their candidacy before I post it, then we'll have two Fed candidates.
((Sounds like a coalition to me, which I dislike intensely. Just saying.))
(( So we either run our own or stay out of the election at all, in your opinion?
The handful of Democratic voters are that much of a threat behind Terrance, when that is who those characters as leftists would vote for over the ACPers anyway? ))
The handful of Democratic voters are that much of a threat behind Terrance, when that is who those characters as leftists would vote for over the ACPers anyway? ))
The Primary of 1908
Federal Candidate(s)
T. H. Terrance (b. 1871), Mayor of Philadelphia ((Mikeboy)). Terrance believes both that the policies he advocated last time around are still the best, and that the nation has had enough of the ACP.
American Conservative Candidate(s)
Joseph P. Jarvis (b. 1860), Governor of California ((Riccardo93)). Jarvis is the head of the extremely strong isolationist lobby of the ACP, and one of the most ardent free marketers in all of Congress.
Simon Von Ritter (b. 1870), Secretary of War ((Avindian)). The Secretary has a very strong claim to representing the interventionist wing of the ascendant ACP. He advocates not only military buildup, but alliance with a European power.
David Hensdale (b. 1857), Vice-President of the Republic ((Frymonmon)). The vice-president does not believe in military power. In his opinion the United States’ greatest advantages are its economy and moral high ground. Although not as isolationist as Jarvis, unlike Ritter, he does not believe in European entanglement.
-----------------------
Exceptional Situation(s):
Vote.
Last edited:
I vote for David Hensdale. While not my perfect candidate, he is the best by far, encouraging a strong United States but not one that will pointlessly intervene in a war all the way across the Atlantic.
Mr Jarvis
I choose him not because I respect non-intervention, for I believe the US should expand its interests in the Americas and Asia, but because he is against war in Europe. Also, he has an awesome economic policy.
May the Honorable Governor of California rock on to the primaries!
I choose him not because I respect non-intervention, for I believe the US should expand its interests in the Americas and Asia, but because he is against war in Europe. Also, he has an awesome economic policy.
May the Honorable Governor of California rock on to the primaries!
Mr von Ritter, if you are elected to be our next President, which nation would you seek to form an alliance with?
I would like to say a few things:
First of all, thank you for your support, Mr. Taggarman! I have high hopes that a return to the free market will rebuild our still fragile economy.
Now, I would like to comment on Mr. Hensdale. During the Harrison years, he stood as the foremost representative of the fallacious "Empire of Liberty" and pushed the administration's line about it's moral supremacy. Under the last administration, you more or less advocated interventionism in Latin America. The only difference between you and von Ritter is that you are more cautious on Europe. However, what difference is there between you and Carr, or Harrison, foreign policy-wise, since both men engaged in imperialism?
First of all, thank you for your support, Mr. Taggarman! I have high hopes that a return to the free market will rebuild our still fragile economy.
Now, I would like to comment on Mr. Hensdale. During the Harrison years, he stood as the foremost representative of the fallacious "Empire of Liberty" and pushed the administration's line about it's moral supremacy. Under the last administration, you more or less advocated interventionism in Latin America. The only difference between you and von Ritter is that you are more cautious on Europe. However, what difference is there between you and Carr, or Harrison, foreign policy-wise, since both men engaged in imperialism?
A very fair question, Mr. Khur. Many will accuse me of having some bias towards Germany, and that is certainly one possibility I have considered. I will ultimately choose whoever offers the best deal for America.