|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jul 25, 2021 4:29:14 GMT
The 2019 election saw Trudeau's Liberals reduced to a minority government. Since then, Scheer has resigned as Leader of the Opposition, but by no means are the Conservatives without a chance in 2023. Even with 2015 levels of support, destroying a whole industry wasn't on the cards. Your analysis here seems to be flawed.
I am aware of the discussions between Gabbard and the Trump camp in 2016. Even then, it is not clear beyond speculation that there was any 'consideration' for the position. They did not go anywhere at all then and can't really be taken as a concrete piece of evidence that she would suddenly be offered the job and take it in 2020/21, after all that came with the first Trump Administration. A broken clock is right twice a day and, similarly, just because there was commonality over Syria does not change her positions, her alignment, her support base nor her future ambitions. Crossing the floor in a figurative fashion like that kills her future prospects as a Democratic candidate...and there wouldn't be any possibility of getting a Republican nomination.
You've taken an event from 2016 and draw extremely tenuous conclusions from it years down the line with a lot of water under the bridge in the meantime.
I would contend that neither of these follow from any point of departure in what you've written, nor is there a justified lead up to them in the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 7, 2021 1:31:31 GMT
The 2019 election saw Trudeau's Liberals reduced to a minority government. Since then, Scheer has resigned as Leader of the Opposition, but by no means are the Conservatives without a chance in 2023. Even with 2015 levels of support, destroying a whole industry wasn't on the cards. Your analysis here seems to be flawed. I am aware of the discussions between Gabbard and the Trump camp in 2016. Even then, it is not clear beyond speculation that there was any 'consideration' for the position. They did not go anywhere at all then and can't really be taken as a concrete piece of evidence that she would suddenly be offered the job and take it in 2020/21, after all that came with the first Trump Administration. A broken clock is right twice a day and, similarly, just because there was commonality over Syria does not change her positions, her alignment, her support base nor her future ambitions. Crossing the floor in a figurative fashion like that kills her future prospects as a Democratic candidate...and there wouldn't be any possibility of getting a Republican nomination. You've taken an event from 2016 and draw extremely tenuous conclusions from it years down the line with a lot of water under the bridge in the meantime. I would contend that neither of these follow from any point of departure in what you've written, nor is there a justified lead up to them in the story. Many serious political pundits have thought of Gabbard as a realistic SECDEF, and as per Canada, the Conservative Party is a joke that doesn’t stand a realistic chance despite a global pandemic and economic downturn. In a world where those events don’t happen they have even less of a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 7, 2021 1:38:05 GMT
The remainder of 2023 was much more quiet then the beginning portions. The only election of any notoriety was in Louisiana, where Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry replaced term-limited Democrat incumbent John Bel Edwards.
In terms of Presidential politics, dozens entered the race on each side. The front runners for the respective parties where New York Senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, however many Senators, Governors, and Businesspersons, as well as Cabinet members on the right, where considered major candidates. However, advance of the Iowa Primaries any and all front runner status was loose.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 7, 2021 2:29:18 GMT
The 2019 election saw Trudeau's Liberals reduced to a minority government. Since then, Scheer has resigned as Leader of the Opposition, but by no means are the Conservatives without a chance in 2023. Even with 2015 levels of support, destroying a whole industry wasn't on the cards. Your analysis here seems to be flawed. I am aware of the discussions between Gabbard and the Trump camp in 2016. Even then, it is not clear beyond speculation that there was any 'consideration' for the position. They did not go anywhere at all then and can't really be taken as a concrete piece of evidence that she would suddenly be offered the job and take it in 2020/21, after all that came with the first Trump Administration. A broken clock is right twice a day and, similarly, just because there was commonality over Syria does not change her positions, her alignment, her support base nor her future ambitions. Crossing the floor in a figurative fashion like that kills her future prospects as a Democratic candidate...and there wouldn't be any possibility of getting a Republican nomination. You've taken an event from 2016 and draw extremely tenuous conclusions from it years down the line with a lot of water under the bridge in the meantime. I would contend that neither of these follow from any point of departure in what you've written, nor is there a justified lead up to them in the story. Many serious political pundits have thought of Gabbard as a realistic SECDEF, and as per Canada, the Conservative Party is a joke that doesn’t stand a realistic chance despite a global pandemic and economic downturn. In a world where those events don’t happen they have even less of a chance. In the first instance, who are these ‘serious political pundits’ and what is their argument with evidence that a far leftist female Democrat was a realistic Secretary of Defense for a Trump Administration in 2020? I’m really interested to see it, as I have never come across anything of the sort in my reading and like to learn new things. On the matter of the Conservative Party of Canada, your point here is just repeating your earlier contention without any support or evidence. I would suggest that assertion is not a substitute for argument. Even if your contention is completely correct, it would actually work against the point that originally sparked this - that Trudeau would destroy a large part of the nation’s economy to shore up the vote. If the opposition was a complete joke, why would he need to take such…courageous…action to shore up his position? Where are the votes coming from? The Liberals have a near monopoly on the Maritimes, parity with the Bloc Québécois in Quebec and a clear lead in urban seats in Ontario (76/121 compared to 34 CPC). I’m not sure that a radical environmentalist policy would succeed in gaining much additional support due to the structure of the House of Commons - the only potential room for growth on the left would seem to be from the 11 NDP and 2 Green seats in BC, which would be partly offset by losses there, in Manitoba and Ontario beyond the cities.Given the past electoral history and trends of Manitoba and BC, there is precedent for them to swing in CPC favour, pushing the balance of the HoC to ~145 to 132 or thereabouts. In that case, the next election comes down to outer Toronto and other ON urban centres. These would not be ripe for the Liberals to keep in the event of a major recession, which has just been caused by flushing a sector worth $105 billion, comprising one third of the Canadian non-service economy and providing 500,000 jobs. Economic rough times would be further exacerbated by an international recession sparked by the removal of the world’s 4th largest oil producer. There is also the factor of this occurring during a Second Trump Administration, which is likely to respond to the downstream economic damage of such a decision with punitive tariff measures on Canada. |
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 7, 2021 2:56:56 GMT
Many serious political pundits have thought of Gabbard as a realistic SECDEF, and as per Canada, the Conservative Party is a joke that doesn’t stand a realistic chance despite a global pandemic and economic downturn. In a world where those events don’t happen they have even less of a chance. In the first instance, who are these ‘serious political pundits’ and what is their argument with evidence that a far leftist female Democrat was a realistic Secretary of Defense for a Trump Administration in 2020? I’m really interested to see it, as I have never come across anything of the sort in my reading and like to learn new things. On the matter of the Conservative Party of Canada, your point here is just repeating your earlier contention without any support or evidence. I would suggest that assertion is not a substitute for argument. Even if your contention is completely correct, it would actually work against the point that originally sparked this - that Trudeau would destroy a large part of the nation’s economy to shore up the vote. If the opposition was a complete joke, why would he need to take such…courageous…action to shore up his position? Where are the votes coming from? The Liberals have a near monopoly on the Maritimes, parity with the Bloc Québécois in Quebec and a clear lead in urban seats in Ontario (76/121 compared to 34 CPC). I’m not sure that a radical environmentalist policy would succeed in gaining much additional support due to the structure of the House of Commons - the only potential room for growth on the left would seem to be from the 11 NDP and 2 Green seats in BC, which would be partly offset by losses there, in Manitoba and Ontario beyond the cities.Given the past electoral history and trends of Manitoba and BC, there is precedent for them to swing in CPC favour, pushing the balance of the HoC to ~145 to 132 or thereabouts. In that case, the next election comes down to outer Toronto and other ON urban centres. These would not be ripe for the Liberals to keep in the event of a major recession, which has just been caused by flushing a sector worth $105 billion, comprising one third of the Canadian non-service economy and providing 500,000 jobs. Economic rough times would be further exacerbated by an international recession sparked by the removal of the world’s 4th largest oil producer. There is also the factor of this occurring during a Second Trump Administration, which is likely to respond to the downstream economic damage of such a decision with punitive tariff measures on Canada. Forst Gabbard being female is irrelevant and Gabbard being a far left figure is false, she’s one of the most moderate Democrats in politics today. But as for serious speculation: www.ibtimes.com/trump-cabinet-after-bernie-sanders-endorsement-tulsi-gabbard-considered-defense-2449253There is no reason to believe Trudeau won’t court his left. newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/An 8% chance of winning the most seats and a 0% chance of winning a majority is nothing to be proud of on the Conservative side. They are a minor party. Further, it’s not destroying an industry, it would be a boon to the left. The reason for courageous action would be to minimize the threat of the New Democratic Party. Trudeau would need to shore up there because while what you said on provincial math is correct it is projected that the NDP could double the seats they currently hold. The number of jobs or the productivity generated is irrelevant, if you recall several world leaders have shut down entire countries destroying trillions in jobs and productivity and have faced little consequences. I see no reason why, exchanging one crisis for another, this would be any different. And yes tariffs may follow but being an enemy of Trump only helps the case of Trudeau. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 7, 2021 4:30:49 GMT
1.) The Gabbard story is from 2016. You've not addressed that at any point. What changed between 2016 and 2020 regarding Mr. Trump and the willingness of some to give him a go? Quite a bit.
2.) Cristina Silva is a single journalist for USA Today, not a serious political pundit of any note. The substance of some of her other articles on the IBT ('Very Old People Share Their Secrets of Beating Death' or 'Being in a Relationship is Good for your Health') does not quite suggest seriousness nor depth of analysis.
3.) The sole source for her article is unnamed "media sources".
Conclusion: This does not amount to the type of evidence you characterised it as, nor have you proved it is applicable to 2020.
4.) Mr. Trumps's relations with Democratic females over the course of his first term are a matter of public record.
5.) Gabbard's political positions are in favour of single-payer heathcare; against the Dakota Access Pipeline; in favour of the Green New Deal whilst concerned about the vagueness of some of its proposals; against nuclear power; received 88%, 92% and 100% ratings from the Human Rights Campaign, a LGBT advocacy group for her three terms in Congress; supports the legalisation of all drugs; for the complete transition of the USA away from fossil fuels; free community college and free 4 year college tuition; an F- from the NRA and supports a common rifle weapons ban and universal background checks; advocates the legalisation of prostitution; supports federal funding for abortion; pardoning Assange and Snowdon; supported legislation for a US no-first use of nuclear weapons; opposed the withdrawal from the JCPOA; and introduced the No More Presidential Wars Act.
Conclusion: One cannot seriously take those positions as an indicator of being one of the most moderate Democrats. Even if we do, though, that still does not change that collection of positions in total to one other than leftist in comparison to the general American populace.
6.) Trudeau has very little to gain on his left. It amounts to the 24 seats of the NDP and 2 Greens seats in BC; the latter two are fairly rusted-on constituencies on Victoria Island. Simply asserting something doesn't make it so.
7.) The CPC has 119 seats in the House of Commons. How on Earth can that be characterised as a minor party?
8.) The Conservatives and Liberals were neck and neck at the beginning of 2020 before the large increase in Liberal support as the pandemic took hold.
Conclusion: Assertion is not argument, nor does @ date for 2020 and 2021 really have an impact when your PoD clearly changes the circumstances that lead to the change.
9.) Ending petroleum production and extraction does count as destroying the industry.
10.) The NDP is not a threat to the Liberal Party at this point, nor into the future.
11.) 'Courageous' was used in the sense of 'Yes, Minister':
"Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"
12.) Where is the projection of doubled NDP seats, when was it predicted and under what circumstances did the prediction occur?
13.) Jobs and productivity are relevant, particularly in an ordinary, non-pandemic world. Prior to 2020, the ordinary rules apply. Furthermore, it is limited to a single country, rather than being a worldwide trend. In circumstances where a single country takes actions that are not mirrored by its neighbours and competitors, then the latter are not the ones who pay the price.
14.) Jobs and productivity are always relevant, as taking an axe to them precipitates a recession in ordinary, pre-2020 economics.
15.) Trudeau has to deal with a resurgent, powerful Trump for 4 years, and perhaps more if a successor can follow. Canada's biggest economic relationship is with the USA and is of larger significance than addressing a threat which was not present at the beginning of 2020.
Conclusion: You are taking the situation of post-pandemic Canadian politics and applying it casually to the different world, removing all context and connection. It simply does not make sense.
Overall, to support your arguments, you need more conclusive and more rigorous evidence; simply asserting something does not expunge the need for your premises to support your conclusions; and using arguments, evidence and circumstances from after the extremely substantial point of departure (an epoch defining pandemic) doesn't quite support your case as you might wish it.
Neither of these matters are truly significant for your timeline. Gabbard could simply have a higher profile due to some different types of interactions with Trump, as, for her purposes in running for office, she needs to court the Democratic base first before trying to recover the voters lost to Trump. Trudeau has many domestic options to work on to add to his (already substantive) left wing that don't quite amount to the third rail.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 8, 2021 4:20:53 GMT
1.) The Gabbard story is from 2016. You've not addressed that at any point. What changed between 2016 and 2020 regarding Mr. Trump and the willingness of some to give him a go? Quite a bit. 2.) Cristina Silva is a single journalist for USA Today, not a serious political pundit of any note. The substance of some of her other articles on the IBT ('Very Old People Share Their Secrets of Beating Death' or 'Being in a Relationship is Good for your Health') does not quite suggest seriousness nor depth of analysis. 3.) The sole source for her article is unnamed "media sources". Conclusion: This does not amount to the type of evidence you characterised it as, nor have you proved it is applicable to 2020. 4.) Mr. Trumps's relations with Democratic females over the course of his first term are a matter of public record. 5.) Gabbard's political positions are in favour of single-payer heathcare; against the Dakota Access Pipeline; in favour of the Green New Deal whilst concerned about the vagueness of some of its proposals; against nuclear power; received 88%, 92% and 100% ratings from the Human Rights Campaign, a LGBT advocacy group for her three terms in Congress; supports the legalisation of all drugs; for the complete transition of the USA away from fossil fuels; free community college and free 4 year college tuition; an F- from the NRA and supports a common rifle weapons ban and universal background checks; advocates the legalisation of prostitution; supports federal funding for abortion; pardoning Assange and Snowdon; supported legislation for a US no-first use of nuclear weapons; opposed the withdrawal from the JCPOA; and introduced the No More Presidential Wars Act. Conclusion: One cannot seriously take those positions as an indicator of being one of the most moderate Democrats. Even if we do, though, that still does not change that collection of positions in total to one other than leftist in comparison to the general American populace. 6.) Trudeau has very little to gain on his left. It amounts to the 24 seats of the NDP and 2 Greens seats in BC; the latter two are fairly rusted-on constituencies on Victoria Island. Simply asserting something doesn't make it so. 7.) The CPC has 119 seats in the House of Commons. How on Earth can that be characterised as a minor party? 8.) The Conservatives and Liberals were neck and neck at the beginning of 2020 before the large increase in Liberal support as the pandemic took hold. Conclusion: Assertion is not argument, nor does @ date for 2020 and 2021 really have an impact when your PoD clearly changes the circumstances that lead to the change. 9.) Ending petroleum production and extraction does count as destroying the industry. 10.) The NDP is not a threat to the Liberal Party at this point, nor into the future. 11.) 'Courageous' was used in the sense of 'Yes, Minister': "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"12.) Where is the projection of doubled NDP seats, when was it predicted and under what circumstances did the prediction occur? 13.) Jobs and productivity are relevant, particularly in an ordinary, non-pandemic world. Prior to 2020, the ordinary rules apply. Furthermore, it is limited to a single country, rather than being a worldwide trend. In circumstances where a single country takes actions that are not mirrored by its neighbours and competitors, then the latter are not the ones who pay the price. 14.) Jobs and productivity are always relevant, as taking an axe to them precipitates a recession in ordinary, pre-2020 economics. 15.) Trudeau has to deal with a resurgent, powerful Trump for 4 years, and perhaps more if a successor can follow. Canada's biggest economic relationship is with the USA and is of larger significance than addressing a threat which was not present at the beginning of 2020. Conclusion: You are taking the situation of post-pandemic Canadian politics and applying it casually to the different world, removing all context and connection. It simply does not make sense. Overall, to support your arguments, you need more conclusive and more rigorous evidence; simply asserting something does not expunge the need for your premises to support your conclusions; and using arguments, evidence and circumstances from after the extremely substantial point of departure (an epoch defining pandemic) doesn't quite support your case as you might wish it. Neither of these matters are truly significant for your timeline. Gabbard could simply have a higher profile due to some different types of interactions with Trump, as, for her purposes in running for office, she needs to court the Democratic base first before trying to recover the voters lost to Trump. Trudeau has many domestic options to work on to add to his (already substantive) left wing that don't quite amount to the third rail. I don’t have time to respond to all your points tonight but I will address what I can for now. www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/democratic-rep-tulsi-gabbard-consideration-trump-cabinet/story%3fid=43696303 Multiple sources say she was under consideration, and I haven’t seen any real change that could take her off the table. She also has a level of celebrity on the right and holds unorthodox views that don’t qualify as either progressive or conservative www.thedailybeast.com/why-conservative-media-and-the-far-right-love-tulsi-gabbard-for-presidentAs for Canada, while I’d love to argue electoral math all day, the Conservative Party has turned itself into the Liberal Party Lite. The CBC Canada source on my previous post is my source for the projected doubled number of seats. While yes the POD does change things a lot, COVID-19 OTL showed that a crisis could be used to justify things much bigger then shutting down a single industry. 2020 OTL showed the rules could be suspended. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Aug 8, 2021 6:25:11 GMT
That's quite alright - it is only the internet after all!
1.) That makes two sources for 2016, one of which isn't too highly regarded and the other is ABC. In both cases, they cited anonymous officials.
The problem is that it happened in 2016. You have it occur in 2020/21. In the interim, relations between Trump and the Democrats absolutely collapsed to the point of outright hostility. The embryonic hope that he might grow into something of a normal president of late 2016 was absolutely aborted by his actions, statements and positions even before he took office. You are taking the Gabbard dalliance, if that it really was, of an entire election cycle ago and trying to transplant it into your alternate late 2020 as if nothing had changed in the interim.
A lot can change in that time. In 1948, the Draft Eisenhower movement mainly had traction with the Democrats, but he was the successful Republican candidate in 1952. In the case of Mr. Trump, there wasn't a coalescing of American politics around him in 2020, but a huge polarisation. That is why your fiat use of Gabbard as SecDef sticks out like a dead dingo. It doesn't matter that she might have been considered in 2016, because in 2020, there had been a profound shift in politics, even without the pandemic.
The fact that the neo-isolationists and the far right (an endorsement from David Duke and Richard Spencer is not a positive for a candidate from any party) agree with her position against intervention in Syria and her espousal of conspiracy theories regarding chemical weapons amounts to sweet nothing at the end of the day. Having support from the far fringes of the opposite party doesn't help someone who wants success in the Democrats.
Here's the kicker: If she did cross the floor, figuratively speaking, to take up a position in the Trump Administration, it would mean her death in the Democratic Party. There would be no return nor future chance at higher office. At her age and with her ambitions, it would not be a sensible course of action to nail her colours to the Trump mast.
On Canada:
- Yes, the CPC post 2015 has turned into a version of the Liberal Party. These things tend to happen when there is a change of government. I will say that they recovered very quickly from the 2015 nadir to perform creditably in the 2019 election. None of this makes them a minor party and the information derived from the data on the CBC link you supplied does not lead to the inference of that conclusion.
- The CBC link contained a feature on the second graphic that allowed
Projected
Likely
Min/Max
The figures for the NDP were
33
25-44
17-57
Given that the NDP currently have 24 seats in the House of Commons, to characterise the information available on that link as containing a projected total of 48 seats is at best an innumerate misreading of the clearly explained data. The current projection is for an increase of 9 seats to 33. The only possible data that could give 48 seats is taking a figure randomly from the high end of the Min/Max category.
- The bigger the crisis, the more that can be done. In this ATL case, there was no crisis nor any driving need. To have Trudeau take such a drastic step in a non-COVID world, there would need to be a very drastic circumstance to justify it. That would rapidly have an impact beyond the borders of Canada and change the very nature of what you are trying to create. I'd suggest that you are better off thinking again.
The rules can change in a dramatic circumstance, but we cannot simply apply that rule to non-dramatic circumstances. If Mr. Roosevelt called for 100,000 planes to be produced in 1936, it would have a different result without that little factor that made it possible...World War Two. Another case would be Japan and Germany suddenly announcing to completely phase out nuclear power without a Fukushima event.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but that it doesn't make sense as you've done it.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 8, 2021 13:30:00 GMT
That's quite alright - it is only the internet after all! 1.) That makes two sources for 2016, one of which isn't too highly regarded and the other is ABC. In both cases, they cited anonymous officials. The problem is that it happened in 2016. You have it occur in 2020/21. In the interim, relations between Trump and the Democrats absolutely collapsed to the point of outright hostility. The embryonic hope that he might grow into something of a normal president of late 2016 was absolutely aborted by his actions, statements and positions even before he took office. You are taking the Gabbard dalliance, if that it really was, of an entire election cycle ago and trying to transplant it into your alternate late 2020 as if nothing had changed in the interim. A lot can change in that time. In 1948, the Draft Eisenhower movement mainly had traction with the Democrats, but he was the successful Republican candidate in 1952. In the case of Mr. Trump, there wasn't a coalescing of American politics around him in 2020, but a huge polarisation. That is why your fiat use of Gabbard as SecDef sticks out like a dead dingo. It doesn't matter that she might have been considered in 2016, because in 2020, there had been a profound shift in politics, even without the pandemic. The fact that the neo-isolationists and the far right (an endorsement from David Duke and Richard Spencer is not a positive for a candidate from any party) agree with her position against intervention in Syria and her espousal of conspiracy theories regarding chemical weapons amounts to sweet nothing at the end of the day. Having support from the far fringes of the opposite party doesn't help someone who wants success in the Democrats. Here's the kicker: If she did cross the floor, figuratively speaking, to take up a position in the Trump Administration, it would mean her death in the Democratic Party. There would be no return nor future chance at higher office. At her age and with her ambitions, it would not be a sensible course of action to nail her colours to the Trump mast. On Canada: - Yes, the CPC post 2015 has turned into a version of the Liberal Party. These things tend to happen when there is a change of government. I will say that they recovered very quickly from the 2015 nadir to perform creditably in the 2019 election. None of this makes them a minor party and the information derived from the data on the CBC link you supplied does not lead to the inference of that conclusion. - The CBC link contained a feature on the second graphic that allowed Projected Likely Min/Max The figures for the NDP were 33 25-44 17-57 Given that the NDP currently have 24 seats in the House of Commons, to characterise the information available on that link as containing a projected total of 48 seats is at best an innumerate misreading of the clearly explained data. The current projection is for an increase of 9 seats to 33. The only possible data that could give 48 seats is taking a figure randomly from the high end of the Min/Max category. - The bigger the crisis, the more that can be done. In this ATL case, there was no crisis nor any driving need. To have Trudeau take such a drastic step in a non-COVID world, there would need to be a very drastic circumstance to justify it. That would rapidly have an impact beyond the borders of Canada and change the very nature of what you are trying to create. I'd suggest that you are better off thinking again. The rules can change in a dramatic circumstance, but we cannot simply apply that rule to non-dramatic circumstances. If Mr. Roosevelt called for 100,000 planes to be produced in 1936, it would have a different result without that little factor that made it possible...World War Two. Another case would be Japan and Germany suddenly announcing to completely phase out nuclear power without a Fukushima event. I'm not saying it can't be done, but that it doesn't make sense as you've done it. Thank you for your patience then. 1) There are others as well, which I can provide if needed. www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna686976www.google.com/amp/s/www.thequint.com/amp/story/news/world/us-president-elect-donald-trump-first-hindu-congresswoman-tulsi-gabbard-democratic-syria-terrorism-republicanabc7chicago.com/1618594/The consideration most certainly happened, although the beef of your point is that a lot has changed. Indeed, Democrats and Trump weren’t on the best footing OTL nor are the ATL. However, Gabbard is different. She is one of only three democrats in the house (I believe, at least, if memory serves correct) who didn’t vote to impeach Trump the first time. Gabbard hasn’t had a major change to stop consideration by Trump, IOTL today many on the right love Mrs Gabbard. 2) As for party seating, those numbers seemed to have changed since I previously posted it. However, on the point of the CPC being Liberal Lite, I meant it in that there would not be serious pushback from the CPC. But as for perhaps the need for another factor, I concede you may be right. I will likely go back and revise previous chapters to include some sort of major National disaster which can be linked to climate change, which could allow Trudeau to begin treating it as a crisis in the truest form of the word. |
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 14, 2021 3:22:52 GMT
2024: The Race begins
After a relatively quiet 2023, 2024 was shaping up to be much different. Incumbent President Donald Trump had an approval rating that set at 52%, up about 4 points from the beginning of his term. However, Trump refused to endorse a candidate in the race.
On the Republican side, a record breaking number of candidates entered the race. Early on (2021 through early 2022) Vice President Mike Pence lead the polls. However, he floundered as a candidate, with comparisons with Jeb Bush being made. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem was the widely accepted front runner, however Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Florida Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul where all considered major candidates. In the Iowa Caucuses, Senator Cruz pulled an upset on Noem, winning the state with 27% of the vote to Noem’s 26%. With Iowa next store to Noems home state of South Dakota, this caused great concern with her campaign. Other strong showers in Iowa included Secretary of State Pompeo, who scored 13% of the vote, Rubio who scored 11%, Abbot 6% and Hawley 4%. All other candidates dropped out after this.
In New Hampshire, Noem regained her momentum with the support of Senator Chris Sununu, who won in 2022 pushing back against the blue wave tide that gave Democrats control of NH’s governorship and two House seats. She won the primary with 32% of the vote to Cruz’s 26%. Abbott also preformed very well, winning 19% of the vote. The remaining 23% of the vote was divided up between Pompeo, Rubio, and Hawley, plus a handle full of write-ins. All but Noem, Abbott, and Cruz dropped out after this.
Nevada was the next primary, where the Hispanic Cruz was deemed as having an advantage over Noem in the heavily Hispanic state. However, Noem outperformed Cruz by a wide margin in Clark County and won the state with 42% of the vote to Cruz’s 35% (Abbott scored 23% and choose to drop out).
The final Republican primary before Super Tuesday was South Carolina. The momentum of the race was throughly behind Noem, with key figures in the state including Senators Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham endorsing Noem. The result wasn’t close, with Noem winning 61% to Cruz’s 39%. Super Tuesday was little different, and Noem became the parties presumptive nominee. She then received Trumps endorsement.
On the other side of the aisle, a two person race was heating up. The wide primary field of 2020 sapped the Democrats of candidates, with many wary of a second unsuccessful run. New York Senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (Mayor Pete’s 2020 running mate) where the two major candidates in the race, although Secretary of Defense Tulsi Gabbard launched a minor run, aiming at being a VP choice of Grisham or Ocasio-Cortez. Others had run, such as Kamala Harris, but dropped out due to low levels of support.
In Iowa, AOC proved herself a political outsider to Lujan Grisham, and this resonated with the Iowa electorate. They delivered her a win in the state, winning a total of 43% of the vote to Lujan Grisham’s 36% (with Gabbard overpreforming at 21%, mainly for those wanting an outsider moderate.) However, New Hampshire was different. Lujan Grisham scored a victory in the state, winning 52% to AOC’s 41% (Gabbard scored a paltry 7% and dropped from the race). With Nevada next in line, Lujan Grisham possessed a significant advantage in the state, Nevada. She carried the state 54-46. AOC’s campaign began to get concerned, as South Carolina had a record of breaking for moderate candidates (Buttigieg in 2020, Clinton in 2016). Grisham carried the state 57-43, and many began calling the New Mexico Governor the Democratic nominee. However, surprises remained in store for the nation.
Super Tuesday shocked the nation. AOC pulled off major wins in states no one thought she could. California and Texas, the states with the most primary delegates, went to AOC, alongside Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Minnesota, Virginia, and North Carolina. Lujan Grisham had failed to campaign majorly and had begun moving to VP vetting, a major mistake according to political scientists. AOC surged in momentum, and after winning ever county in Wisconsin, Lujan Grisham dropped out. The remainder of the race would have two parts: VP selection and the run for President itself.
Interestingly, with both parties nominating female Presidential candidates, the chances of a female President where all but guaranteed. This was celebrated by feminist groups across the country as a major win for women. Additionally, AOC was the first woman of color to be nominated by a major party, which was also celebrated although also assured, with Lujan Grisham too benign a women of color.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 14, 2021 3:32:11 GMT
Vice Presidential Candidate Vetting
Noem’s Campaign
Selected:
Senator Josh Hawley
Shortlist:
Senator Ted Cruz
Senator Chris Sununu
Senator Marco Rubio
Governor Ron DeSantis
Governor Amanda Chase
Governor Kevin Faulconer
Representative Dan Crenshaw
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
AOC’s campaign
Selected:
Governor Stacey Abrams
Shortlist:
Senator Kamala Harris
Senator Cory Booker
Former Governor Roy Cooper
Governor Katie Hobbs
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham
Representative Jared Golden
Secretary of Defense Tulsi Gabbard
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 14, 2021 18:25:49 GMT
2024 Presidential Election: The Nightmare Begins (Part 1)
Before 6:00 PM: Polls show a neck and neck race. Noem was deemed the winner of the first debate, however the VP debate and later two Presidential debates where clear Democrat wins. Polls showed Noem leading AOC by an average of 2-4%, depending on the poll aggregator.
6:00 PM: Polls close in parts of Indiana and Kentucky. Republicans lead in all Presidential, Senate, and Gubernatorial races in those states.
7:00 PM: Polls close in the rest of Indiana and Kentucky, which are promptly called for Noem*. Polls also close in Vermont, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and most of Florida. Noem leads in all those states except Vermont, which is called for AOC.
7:12 PM: After a release of results in Fulton county, AOC is propelled to the lead in Georgia. The state remains uncalled as less then 25% of the vote has been tallied.
7:30 PM: Polls close in North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia. WV is called for Noem, who also leads in NC. AOC leads in Ohio.
7:39 PM: AOC takes the lead in Virginia, although the state remains uncalled.
7:46 PM: With most of Virginia’s rural vote in, Virginia is called for AOC, due to high turnout in the DC Metro area.
7:51 PM: South Carolina is called for Noem after unusually slow ballot counts.
8:00 PM: Polls close in AL, CT, DE, IL, ME, MD, MS, MO,
*- out of convenience to myself lower ballot races will be covered in a future post.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 15, 2021 19:59:41 GMT
8:00 PM: Polls close in AL, CT, DE, IL, ME, MD, MA, MS, MO, NH, NJ, OK, PA, RI, TN, DC, the rest of Florida, and parts of Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas and Michigan. www.yapms.com/app/?m=bl5u8:04 PM: Missouri is called for Republicans after low turnout in St. Louis is revealed. 8:11 PM: Florida is called for Republicans. 8:17 PM: Ohio is called for Republicans 8:24 PM: Democrats take the lead in North Carolina. 8:27 PM: In it’s final spite against AOC, New Hampshire goes to Noem. AOC had lost NH to Lujan Grisham in the primaries. 8:30 PM: Polls close in Arkansas. It is promptly called for Noem. 8:35 PM: After a vote drop in Western North Carolina, Noem retakes the lead. The state is called for Noem. 8:41 PM: As it appears Georgia may go to Democrats, protests build in Northwestern Georgia. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene calls for the 14th Congressional District of Georgia to join Alabama or Tennessee. 8:47 PM: After a final vote dump from Fulton County, Georgia is called for AOC. Mass protests erupt. 8:52 PM: Maines 2nd Congressional District is called for Noem. 8:56 PM: A riot breaks out in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, after Governor Josh Shapiro leaves a ballot counting station. 9:00 PM: Polls close in AZ, CO, LA, MN, NE, NM, NY, WI, and WY, as well as the rest of Texas, Kansas, the Dakotas, and Michigan. Kansas, the Dakotas, Louisiana, Wyoming, and Nebraska are called for Noem. New York is called for AOC. AOC leads in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Noem leads in Texas and Michigan. 9:06 PM: Texas is called for Noem. 9:17 PM: Noem takes the lead in Wisconsin. 9:21 PM: Minnesota is called for AOC. 9:27 PM: Pennsylvania is called for Noem. 9:31 PM: New Mexico is called for AOC. 9:39 PM: Colorado is called for AOC. 9:43 PM: In a major blow to AOC’s campaign, Wisconsin is called for Noem. With Noem up in Michigan and likely to win Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Utah, and Alaska, AOC began preparing for a concession speech. 9:46 PM: Michigan Governor Garlin Gilchrist goes before the press saying that AOC will win Michigan and urges AOC not to concede. 9:51 PM: A massive vote drop in Michigan puts Noem’s lead at a thin 1,317 votes. Many allege voter fraud, with the drop coming just 5 minutes after Governor Gilchrist’s announcement. 9:56 PM: Noem goes before the press and announces that she will send in attorneys to investigate the most recent Michigan vote drop. 10:00 PM: Polls close in Iowa, Montana, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of Idaho and Oregon. Iowa, Montana, and Utah are called for Noem while Noem leads in Nevada. Nevada is key to a victory with Michigan so close. 10:04 PM: A vote drop comes in from Lansing, putting Noem’s lead in the state at a slim 83 votes. 10:17 PM: After a vote drop in Clark County, Nevada, Nevada is called for AOC. 10:23 PM: Arizona is called for AOC. AOC is also the first Democrat to win Maricopa County (Phenoix area) in decades. 10:31 PM: Fox News host Tucker Carlson states on air that Michigan will decide the result of this Presidential election. Allusions are made to Florida in 2000. 10:38 PM: Michigan Senator John James leads a group of Senators on the Senate Judicial Committee in announces an investigation into the still-uncalled state of Michigan. 10:46 PM: AOC’s campaign fires back at voter fraud allegations in Michigan, claiming instead that she’d win by a wider margin if it wasn’t for voter suppression in North Carolina, Florida, and Texas. 10:53 PM: A vote drop from Michigan reviews Noem’s lead to a slim 13 votes. These tight results prevent the state from being called either way. 11:00 PM: Polls close in the rest of Idaho and Oregon as well as in California and Washington. All except Idaho are called for AOC, while Idaho is called for Noem. 11:13 PM: Michigan’s board of elections states that the vote count in Michigan is final, with Noem winning the state by a slim 13 votes. 11:24 PM: AOC announces she will not concede and calls for a recount in Michigan. 11:31 PM: Noem claims victory, citing her win in Michigan and her likely win in Alaska. However, Michigan remains uncalled by most outlets. Noem states that she will send in attorneys to investigate. 12:00 AM: Polls close in Hawaii and parts of Alaska. Noem leads in Alaska while Hawaii is called for AOC. 1:00 AM: Polls close in the rest of Alaska. It is called for Noem. With Michigan undecided, Noem sits at 269 Electoral votes, 1 short of victory. AOC sits at 254. Michigan’s 15 electoral votes remain TBD, although Noem leads by 13 votes. Noem wins the nights popular vote by a 49-47 margin, mostly by running up the vote in rural areas. |
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 15, 2021 20:06:11 GMT
2024: The Nightmare Begins (Part 2)
This is the update on Senate Elections and Gubernatorial Elections from the night. Going into the elections, the GOP controlled the Senate 55-45. They only where defending 10 seats, and only 1 of them (Florida) was truely competitive. The Democrats defended 24.
The Republicans flipped several Senate seats, including West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio, all of which was expected. However, they also picked off Senate seats in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which was not expected. In Gubernatorial seats, Former US Senator Kelly Ayotte defeated incumbent NH Governor Chris Pappas. In Vermont, Republican Incumbent Phil Scott retired, and Democrat Lt Governor Molly Gray easily won this seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by american2006 on Aug 16, 2021 18:41:19 GMT
The Nightmare Begins: Part 3
Troubles in Michigan
Senator AOC called for a recount as soon as the final results where in. Unlike previous recalls, this state was so exceptionally close there was deemed a high chance of the state flipping to AOC. That would create a 269-269 tie and would send the results to the House of Representatives. A hand recount went underway immediately, with the effort lead by Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D). Noem opposed the recount from the beginning. Secretary Benson stated that the recounts results would be published November 20th, 2024. Lawyers from the side of Noem, including United States Attorney General and Noem’s VP Josh Hawley, Michigan Senator John James, and Noem’s primary opponent Ted Cruz, fought the recount.
When the results were published, it showed AOC carrying the state of Michigan by a margin of 462 votes, a 475 vote difference from the election night results. Benson certified the results for Noem. This came to significant backlash. But regardless, Noem and AOC hit Washington to whip votes in there favor. However, the House delegations where almost evenly split and a majority (26) are needed to give a majority to one group.
When January 6th, 2025 came, the electoral votes of 49 states and DC where counted without objection. However, Michigan Senator John James and Michigan Representative Lisa McClain objected to the electoral votes of the state of Michigan. The chambers split, and while the Senate voted to overturn the results, the House declined to vote as such. Split 269-269, the results went to the House of Representatives.
The House delegations where split 25-25 on the first round vote. Noem’s campaign turned to target Iowa’s delegation, while AOC targeted Wisconsin. On the second round after flipping one Wisconsin Representative AOC led 25-24-1. After 28 rounds of voting, US Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming voted for AOC to “break the stranglehold and to declare a President.” Winning 26-23-1, AOC was elected President of the United States.
However, the Senate was much quicker picking the Vice President. Attorney General Josh Hawley won overwhelmingly against Georgia Governor Stacey Abrams, setting up a highly controversial AOC-Hawley administration. The nightmare was just beginning.
|
|
