Page 7 of 18

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 1:13 pm
by Vienna Eliot
Zjaum wrote:I will post early tomorrow. Happy Memorial Day weekend, everyone! Try and get some rest, and remember all those who have fallen to... gosh, we really haven't had a threat to the United States in 150 years, have we? Well, remember all those who have fallen to make American culture one of the most prominent in the world (I guess)!

I'd say Samuel P. Huntington is still alive in 2052 but he died in 2008.

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 3:54 pm
by Ascysia
I will be able to make a few posts in the next few days. Sorry for my absence recently.

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:14 pm
by Zjaum
Actually, question: when we're done with this RP (since we're sprinting towards the finish line), can we have a House-of-Cards-style RP with the same characters as key players? I think that has a number of good opportunities, and I'd be curious to see how people hold up to their campaign promises. Heck, the existence of that RP might bring some weight into this RP, since (right now) we could practically promise the world to our constituency.

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 9:31 pm
by Cainesland
Zjaum wrote:Actually, question: when we're done with this RP (since we're sprinting towards the finish line), can we have a House-of-Cards-style RP with the same characters as key players? I think that has a number of good opportunities, and I'd be curious to see how people hold up to their campaign promises. Heck, the existence of that RP might bring some weight into this RP, since (right now) we could practically promise the world to our constituency.


That would be pretty cool.

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 8:26 am
by Firaxin
Sorry for not replying in a while. Last days of school took priority, and I was only able to access NationStates via phone which is very hard to write with here. Am I still in or is Hasting's run over?

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 11:19 am
by Vienna Eliot
Firaxin wrote:Sorry for not replying in a while. Last days of school took priority, and I was only able to access NationStates via phone which is very hard to write with here. Am I still in or is Hasting's run over?

You’re good, I only removed people who have posted once or not posted at all and who were contesting primaries.

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 4:15 pm
by Helowi
Zjaum wrote:Actually, question: when we're done with this RP (since we're sprinting towards the finish line), can we have a House-of-Cards-style RP with the same characters as key players? I think that has a number of good opportunities, and I'd be curious to see how people hold up to their campaign promises. Heck, the existence of that RP might bring some weight into this RP, since (right now) we could practically promise the world to our constituency.

I would enjoy this. It would be interesting to see what Wright would be like as a president or as a Senator working with or against the president.

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 4:41 pm
by Vienna Eliot
Zjaum wrote:Actually, question: when we're done with this RP (since we're sprinting towards the finish line), can we have a House-of-Cards-style RP with the same characters as key players? I think that has a number of good opportunities, and I'd be curious to see how people hold up to their campaign promises. Heck, the existence of that RP might bring some weight into this RP, since (right now) we could practically promise the world to our constituency.

Possibly — but if we do, I’d prefer to see it as a series of roleplays with events defining the beginnings and endings, rather than a single open roleplay. I think that could allow it not only to last longer and allow us to look at some particular aspects of what the world is like post-2052, but also we could continue to attract new players (or invite some back) since they wouldn’t have to be familiar with pages and pages of history to join.

Anyway, yes, I think that’s a great idea.

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 6:44 pm
by New Cobastheia
I just did some rough math to find out how many people California has in 2052: 80,459,750, that's like around a 6th of the whole country if we're going by saying the USA has 500 million people.
Given that it is rough math though, it's likely Calfornia has even more people because California is under-represented in the House and the Electoral College, which I both used to find the 80 million number.

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 7:44 pm
by Vienna Eliot
New Cobastheia wrote:I just did some rough math to find out how many people California has in 2052: 80,459,750, that's like around a 6th of the whole country if we're going by saying the USA has 500 million people.
Given that it is rough math though, it's likely Calfornia has even more people because California is under-represented in the House and the Electoral College, which I both used to find the 80 million number.

Pretty close. According to the calculator, California's population is 82,183,113 on Election Day, 2052.

PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2018 11:09 pm
by Zjaum
Vienna Eliot wrote:
New Cobastheia wrote:I just did some rough math to find out how many people California has in 2052: 80,459,750, that's like around a 6th of the whole country if we're going by saying the USA has 500 million people.
Given that it is rough math though, it's likely Calfornia has even more people because California is under-represented in the House and the Electoral College, which I both used to find the 80 million number.

Pretty close. According to the calculator, California's population is 82,183,113 on Election Day, 2052.

That's assuming a roughly linear population trend, when nations and societies around the world are showing a slowing of population as time continues. I assume that Mexican immigration slows as Mexico enters the first world over the course of a half century. I'm totally down with that 82M number, but I just wanted to present that counter.

Also, the electoral college and representation methods thereof were designed to protect the populations and political cultures of smaller states from those of larger states, not to create a pure democracy. Egilson brought a similar point up previously.

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 9:43 am
by Vienna Eliot
Zjaum wrote:
Vienna Eliot wrote:Pretty close. According to the calculator, California's population is 82,183,113 on Election Day, 2052.

That's assuming a roughly linear population trend, when nations and societies around the world are showing a slowing of population as time continues. I assume that Mexican immigration slows as Mexico enters the first world over the course of a half century. I'm totally down with that 82M number, but I just wanted to present that counter.

Also, the electoral college and representation methods thereof were designed to protect the populations and political cultures of smaller states from those of larger states, not to create a pure democracy. Egilson brought a similar point up previously.

I forget the exact source, but I used a study that projected the change in a number of different demographics, which also helped me to identify the political changes in each state. In retrospect I didn't even bother to look at the methodology (not that I would've understood it), but it almost definitely didn't assume that Mexican immigration would slow down, meaning it probably ignored international affairs altogether.

Anyway, tonight's results will come in live over time. I'll post the link to where they'll appear soon. I'm aiming for 7pm Eastern as the time for them to start coming in, meaning I'll probably stop factoring in campaigning after 6pm ET — feel free to post about your candidate's watch party, though.

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 2:04 pm
by Vienna Eliot
Here is where the Democratic results will come in. They will start coming in at 7pm EST and end around 10:30pm EST. The totals for Faulkner will be wonky for several hours because of a number error, but in general each state will be accurate on its own. Granted, it hasn't been tested, so it might not work at all.

I don't think I'll be able to put together the Republican one in time given that there are so many candidates, so GOP results will be released on the forum.

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 8:34 pm
by Zjaum
I don't think Egilson deserved that big of a lead. He focused the most on fundraising than the other candidates, but I don't think that edge (even in addition to the other edges my candidate has) would result in the majority of delegates.

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 8:49 pm
by Vienna Eliot
Zjaum wrote:I don't think Egilson deserved that big of a lead. He focused the most on fundraising than the other candidates, but I don't think that edge (even in addition to the other edges my candidate has) would result in the majority of delegates.

In my assessment, fundraising makes a campaign successful, and plays a big role in the result. But it's also worth noting that Egilson and Wright are very different places ideologically. Wright performs well where working class whites have shifted to the more liberal wing of the Republican Party — the South (Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas, Mississippi, etc.) and the Midwest (Colorado, Minnesota, Kentucky, South Dakota) — but those areas aren't necessarily delegate-rich. Keep in mind as well that not all GOP primaries are proportional: for example, despite only winning half the vote, Egilson took all 184 of Texas's delegates because it is winner-take-all; though he only squeaked out a lead, Wright won all 81 of Georgia's delegates.

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 9:00 pm
by Zjaum
Vienna Eliot wrote:
Zjaum wrote:I don't think Egilson deserved that big of a lead. He focused the most on fundraising than the other candidates, but I don't think that edge (even in addition to the other edges my candidate has) would result in the majority of delegates.

In my assessment, fundraising makes a campaign successful, and plays a big role in the result. But it's also worth noting that Egilson and Wright are very different places ideologically. Wright performs well where working class whites have shifted to the more liberal wing of the Republican Party — the South (Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas, Mississippi, etc.) and the Midwest (Colorado, Minnesota, Kentucky, South Dakota) — but those areas aren't necessarily delegate-rich. Keep in mind as well that not all GOP primaries are proportional: for example, despite only winning half the vote, Egilson took all 184 of Texas's delegates because it is winner-take-all; though he only squeaked out a lead, Wright won all 81 of Georgia's delegates.

Understood. Thank you for the explanation.

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 9:00 pm
by New Cobastheia
Could I also get an explanation of why Guess did so well in the South? Mainly just because I didn't expect to win so overwhelmingly there, especially because Clinton did much better than Sanders in the South in 2016, and as you stated Moderates are the main reason the South became Democratic again.

Not that like I'm asking for you to take delegates away from Guess and all, just an explanation would be fine.

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 11:43 pm
by New Cobastheia
Also, thank you for finally making a pun on Guess's name. May I say I loved the part of the phone call where they were talking about him. I mean, there was a reason I choose to have the last name be Guess over Gist( a different form of the last name) and that reason was the potential puns.

PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2018 11:54 pm
by Zjaum
New Cobastheia wrote:Also, thank you for finally making a pun on Guess's name. May I say I loved the part of the phone call where they were talking about him. I mean, there was a reason I choose to have the last name be Guess over Gist( a different form of the last name) and that reason was the potential puns.

No problem. I'm sure you can make a bunch of egg puns with my guy, too!

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 3:34 am
by Ascysia
I really need to stop looking at the 2016 primary calendar and at the RP one more. Otherwise there would've been time in Washington, Florida and Texas.

New Cobastheia wrote:Could I also get an explanation of why Guess did so well in the South? Mainly just because I didn't expect to win so overwhelmingly there, especially because Clinton did much better than Sanders in the South in 2016, and as you stated Moderates are the main reason the South became Democratic again.

Not that like I'm asking for you to take delegates away from Guess and all, just an explanation would be fine.

Demographic shift I'd assume. African-Americans will be even more populous down there than they used to be, that's also the reason the entire south is open for play.

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 3:36 am
by Ascysia
How long is there, in IC time, between Super Tuesday and the next two set of primaries?

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 9:49 am
by Vienna Eliot
New Cobastheia wrote:Could I also get an explanation of why Guess did so well in the South? Mainly just because I didn't expect to win so overwhelmingly there, especially because Clinton did much better than Sanders in the South in 2016, and as you stated Moderates are the main reason the South became Democratic again.

Not that like I'm asking for you to take delegates away from Guess and all, just an explanation would be fine.

Both demographic shifts, like Ascysia mentioned, and a shift in how working class whites vote. In 2016 they went for Trump's populism — though it doesn't look like it now (/:), the Democrats eventually catch on and start fielding Sanders-type populist candidates in the Deep South. In many ways then, Faulkner's support was from those moderate Democrats of the pre-Trump era, as well as some voters of color, while Guess's base in the South was post-Trump left-wing populists.\

Ascysia wrote:How long is there, in IC time, between Super Tuesday and the next two set of primaries?

Probably a month or two. The way it's set up in theory is that ICly the primaries are at different times, but I don't think we're roleplaying that way. I'll put up an IC timeline today.

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 10:05 am
by New Cobastheia
So are we gonna have another live primary tomorrow cause, last time I thought that was really cool

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 1:58 pm
by Helowi
Are the results gonna be tonight?

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 6:42 pm
by Cainesland
Based on the last Republican vote, if there are only 77 delegates left, it seems like Egilson has won the Republican primaries. Is that correct?