2018 Presidential Election

But in 2018, had it not been for Straus, Seaborn likely would have won comfortably. Straus basically just siphoned from Seaborn.
Not all from Seaborn, he had some positions which attracted some Conservative isolationist voters, in that Straus was for the US leaving NATO and attacked the UN as well. He certainly wasn't an "internationalist Green" like his running-mate.
 
But in 2018, had it not been for Straus, Seaborn likely would have won comfortably. Straus basically just siphoned from Seaborn.
I just hope this California Congressman who's the Green Party nominee doesn't do the same thing for Seaborn this time around. I'm worried this election has no clear winner, it goes to the House and then... who knows.
 
Last edited:
I just hope this California Congressman who's the Green Party nominee doesn't do the same thing for Seaborn this time around. I'm worried this election has no clear winner, it goes to the House and then... who knows.
Seaborn is 16 points ahead now, with the Green nominee polling at 5%. Usually third party candidates decline at the end. If that happens, most of the drop off from the Green nominee should go to Seaborn. I am feeling a lot better than I was a month or so ago.
 
Not all from Seaborn, he had some positions which attracted some Conservative isolationist voters, in that Straus was for the US leaving NATO and attacked the UN as well. He certainly wasn't an "internationalist Green" like his running-mate.
Obviously not all of Straus' voters would have voted for Seaborn if Straus hadn't run, but an overwhelming majority of people who voted for a self-described socialist who attacked the Democratic ticket from the left would have otherwise voted Democratic rather than Republican.

I had actually made an infobox for what would have happened if Straus hadn't run, using RL second-choice data from Nader voters in 2004 (which fit better than other similar data, because TTL 2018 election had a GOP incumbent, which had a very pronounced effect on Nader voters' second choice compared to 2000 with a Democratic incumbent) for an article I never ended up writing:

9CRhXoC.png

Basically something like only 1 out of every 8 Straus voters would have picked the GOP if he hadn't run, so Sam essentially ends up winning by the same popular vote margin (and the exact same map with the exception of Iowa) as Obama's re-election in 2012.

I figured that a scenario where Franklin Hollis didn't nearly cost the Democrats the election would have meant any impetus for dumping him would have sputtered out, hence him winning the VP race instead of Hunter. Which, of course, lends itself to an AH of an AH, because if Hunter isn't forced to sit out 2022, he probably runs and the GOP primaries look completely different.

I just hope this California Congressman who's the Green Party nominee doesn't do the same thing for Seaborn this time around. I'm worried this election has no clear winner, it goes to the House and then... who knows.
There is no Green nominee yet. The party convention in early July (7-10) will decide between Susan Buckner (the party's VP nominee in 2018) and congressman Randy Celeste.
 
There is no Green nominee yet. The party convention in early July (7-10) will decide between Susan Buckner (the party's VP nominee in 2018) and congressman Randy Celeste.
I imagine it'll be Celeste as he's the one who's held political office. Unless, did Buckner hold any office at all? I know her father did when he went up against Bartlet in 98.
 
Mark, did you just make 2014 a squeaker for the suspense? Typically, an incumbent President running for reelection in a decent economy with the country in decent shape and no scandals does not just win in a 270-268 squeaker, and in fact trailing the entire summer up until the debates.
 
Mark, did you just make 2014 a squeaker for the suspense? Typically, an incumbent President running for reelection in a decent economy with the country in decent shape and no scandals does not just win in a 270-268 squeaker, and in fact trailing the entire summer up until the debates.
It was always going to be a Walken win if I am honest, it is just that Fitzsimmons ran a good campaign after getting the nomination. Walken was not helped by the mess of the GOP convention and the much publicized fight between Alan Duke and Sean Boone, but Walken slowly edged back into it, (also we assumed when writing that the polls had a shy "GOP" factor, with some not wishing to admit that they where actually voting for Walken). It was thought that Fitzsimmons losing in 2014, would set up Seaborn in 2018 is what we really planned (because we wanted to pay tribute to the show and what the show set up with President Bartlet and Sam Seaborn running for the Presidency in the future way back in series 3). The debates where not massive wins for Walken but he did just enough to eek enough support, and then in the final two weeks of the campaign, the Walken campaign went after Pennsylvania in a big way, whilst the Fitzsimmons campaign assumed that the state was in the bank, and because they where ahead in both Florida and Ohio (they would win both, that they would win).
Although having said all that, as I was about posting that Walken had carried Nevada and thus the election, I did message Disputed (who was the key other writer at that time, I say 100% should it be Walken, we both agreed yes it should, just to set up Sam in 2018).
 
Last edited:
1656061062704.png

Friday June 24th, 2022

Labour comfortably hold East Ham and Vauxhall in by-elections


As expected Labour won both by-elections held in London yesterday, although it's vote did drop in both seats compared to the 2018 general election, it was never the less a good win.

The Socialist Alliance performed well in East Ham, moving up from fourth place in 2018 to second place and increasing it's vote by almost 13%, although the overall dropped by just 5,000 votes, Newham Councillor Derek Gregory won with a majority of 19,456 votes.

Across the city in Vauxhall, although the Labour vote dropped by 3.6%, but with Lambeth Council Leader Ian Potts as it's candidate it still produced much the same result as 2018 with the Labour majority dropping by just 835 votes to 19,508.

Results of both by-elections
1656061784317.png

(As always thanks to @lord caedus for the Wiki box)
 
By-Elections of the 2018 Parliament

NoDateConstituencyIncumbentPartyCauseWinnerPartyResult
128/03/2019Bermondesey & Old SouthwarkRobert RichardsonLiberal DemocratResignation to take up new role as Director of the International Centre for Humanitarian DeminingPatrick AllinsonLabourLabour Gain from Liberal Democrat
228/03/2019South ShieldsStan DoveLabourDeath after short illness on 17/02/19Alan OwensLabourLabour Hold
328/11/2019DarlingtonAndrea BennLabourResignation to take up new role as UK Ambassador to the City State of JerusalemDomnic SimonLabourLabour Hold
428/11/2019Hackney South & ShoreditchDaniel LamontLabourSought re-election upon change of party allegianceDaniel LamontSocialist AllianceSocialist Alliance Gain from Labour
528/11/2019Manchester CentralHannah MartinLabourResignation for family reasonsKate WellsLabourLabour Hold
616/01/2020Esher & WaltonAnthony WalkerSpeaker of the House of CommonsDeath after heart attack on 12/11/19Martin GreenwellConservaativeConservative Gain from Speaker
713/05/2021Dundee EastMatthew KennedySNPResignation to contest the seat of Dundee East in the Scottish ParliamentJamie McGarrSNPSNP Hold
817/06/2021RushcliffeKenneth PatonConservativeDeath after long illness on 06/04/21Peter BenjaminConservativeConservative Hold
901/07/2021BlackburnRay GarnerLabourResignation after being elected as Governor of Lancashire on 06/05/21Paul ButcherLabourLabour Hold
1001/07/2021HaltonPeter McNallyLabourResignation after being elected as Governor of Cheshire on 06/05/21Brian MillingtonLabourLabour Hold
1101/07/2021HertsmereAlan JennerConservativeResignation after being elected as Governor of Hertfordshire on 06/05/21Robert HendersonConservativeConservative Hold
1201/07/2021Truro & FalmouthGraham BrimacombeConservativeResignation after being elected as Governor of Cornwall on 06/05/21Charlotte CooperConservativeConservative Hold
1324/03/2022Bury NorthWilliam MorganConservativeElevated to the peerage & the House of LordsPaul HiltonConservativeConservative Hold
1424/03/2022CarlisleJames AdcockConservativeResignation after being charged with tax evasion, fraud, bribery, false accounting, money laundering, assault, incitement of others to commit crimes & breaches of local government Housing regulationsTony DunneLabourLabour Gain from Conservative
1524/03/2022Illford NorthMichael GratyConservativeResignation to take up new role as Head of Development for United Britannia AirlinesDavid ParkesLabourLabour Gain from Conservative
1624/03/2022Leeds CentralBryan AtkinsonLabourContinued ill healthKelvin HarveyLabourLabour Hold
1723/06/2022East HamFred DawesLabourDeath after short illness on 10/05/22Derek GregoryLabourLabour Hold
1823/06/2022VauxhallDominic EamesLabourResignation after being elected Mayor of London on 05/05/22Ian PottsLabourLabour Hold
 
It was always going to be a Walken win if I am honest, it is just that Fitzsimmons ran a good campaign after getting the nomination. Walken was not helped by the mess of the GOP convention and the much publicized fight between Alan Duke and Sean Boone, but Walken slowly edged back into it, (also we assumed when writing that the polls had a shy "GOP" factor, with some not wishing to admit that they where actually voting for Walken). It was thought that Fitzsimmons losing in 2014, would set up Seaborn in 2018 is what we really planned (because we wanted to pay tribute to the show and what the show set up with President Bartlet and Sam Seaborn running for the Presidency in the future way back in series 3). The debates where not massive wins for Walken but he did just enough to eek enough support, and then in the final two weeks of the campaign, the Walken campaign went after Pennsylvania in a big way, whilst the Fitzsimmons campaign assumed that the state was in the bank, and because they where ahead in both Florida and Ohio (they would win both, that they would win).
Although having said all that, as I was about posting that Walken had carried Nevada and thus the election, I did message Disputed (who was the key other writer at that time, I say 100% should it be Walken, we both agreed yes it should, just to set up Sam in 2018).
Why would there be a shy Walken effect though? Walken was not Alan Duke or Donald Trump. He was not unpopular. His party was after the convention debacle but he wasn't.
 
Btw what ever happened to disputed? I know a few years ago he said he was leaving and then a year later he came back and started contributing again.
Does Seaborn intend to wait until Charlotte and introduce his running mate at the Democratic convention? Why didn't the Democrats wait until late August to hold their nominating convention? In OTL the incumbent party often does this; take 1956, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1984, 1992, 1996 and 2020. In my view it would've made better sense! It would have had the advantage of completely knocking Duke out of a whole news cycle! I have asked this question before, but as it hasn't been answered, thought I'd ask it again!
 
Tc9ooaA.png


Supreme Court overturns several concealed-carry laws, restrictions on vouchers for religious schools in final day of term

Friday, June 24th, 2022

The final day of the Supreme Court's 2021-22 term ended with the Court striking down several states' concealed-carry gun laws, overturning restrictions on using state education vouchers for religious schools, and disappointed pro-life activists by striking down Texas' "heartbeat bill" that would outlaw abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat.

In the case of New York Firearms Association, Inc. v. Danek, a 6-3 majority of the court ruled that New York's current "may-issue" system of permits for concealed-carrying firearms was unconstitutional, saying that it violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments . Writing for the majority, Justice Christopher Mulready wrote that the "may-issue" system in New York that "denied the right to bear arms to those without political connections, celebrity or a clear threat to their person...could not be justified by the state's obligations to protect life and maintain public safety" in current circumstances. In a concurring opinion, Justice Roberto Mendoza said that any "may-issue" system that could be upheld by the Court would require strict constitutional scrutiny to avoid disproportionately preventing ethnic and racial minority applicants from obtaining a conceal and carry permit compared to the "shall-issue" system used in most states.

Chief Justice Evelyn Baker Lang wrote the dissent, saying that the majority's finding that the circumstances did not allow New York to justify their system with the threat to public safety was incorrect, and that such a decision "invalidated a law written over a century ago and continuously upheld and updated by the New York Legislature."

The court also found in Murray v. Eckes that state education vouchers cannot be restricted from being awarded to parents wanting to send their children to religious schools. In a 5-4 decision, the Court said that the provision in New Hampshire' state constitution that forbids the state funding of religious institutions does not apply in the case of religious education, citing the Free Exercise portion of the First Amendment. Justice Olivia Emmett Franklin wrote the dissent, saying that the majority's decision (penned again by Mulready) violated the separation of church and state, while also accepting the majority's assertion that states are not required to subsidize private education.

Finally, the Court ruled that Texas' "heartbeat bill" was an unconstitutional violation of the right to privacy, disappointing pro-life activists who felt that a court tilted in favor of conservatives would use the case to overturn the court's landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade that protected the right for women to have abortions. In a 5-3 decision, Justice Judi Rand wrote that the bill, which would effectively outlaw abortion at six weeks into a pregnancy when fetal heartbeats can be detected, "fails utterly to meet the standard of fetal viability that the Court has cited...as the point when the state's interest begins to override a woman's right to privacy [on the issue of abortion]." Justice Jackson Hoyt, the longest-serving member of the Court, did not take part in the decision due to being hospitalized with pneumonia when the court heard oral arguments.

While anti-abortion activists have expressed their disappointment, the decisions in Danek and Murray are another illustration of the rightwards drift of the Lang Court from the first days of Chief Justice Lang's tenure thanks to former president Glen Allen Walken's appointment of three (Rand, Howard Weston and Joe Quincy) of the court's nine members. The Court will start its next term at the beginning of October.
 
Btw what ever happened to disputed? I know a few years ago he said he was leaving and then a year later he came back and started contributing again.
He came back after an absence to contribute again, but I think he decided to focus on RL stuff. He hasn't been on the site in over a year, so hopefully he's doing fine.

Why didn't the Democrats wait until late August to hold their nominating convention? In OTL the incumbent party often does this; take 1956, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1984, 1992, 1996 and 2020. In my view it would've made better sense! It would have had the advantage of completely knocking Duke out of a whole news cycle! I have asked this question before, but as it hasn't been answered, thought I'd ask it again!
Because the trend IRL is now that the president's party holds their convention soon after the other party to provide a "quick response" to the other party. Which honestly makes more sense to me because the news cycle is so much shorter than it was 50 years ago when there were four TV channels, home video was just beginning to become a thing, and the internet only existed as a concept in the minds of nerds at DARPA.

The convention of a sizable gap between the two parties' conventions was also a function of the incumbent party not wanting to try and compete with the Summer Olympics for viewership, a problem that stopped being relevant ITTL with the realigning of the presidential election cycle .
 
Note that Bartlett pivoted towards school vouchers (for non-religious schools I think) after a talk with Charlie; would Sam have done the same in light of the Court's ruling?
 
Note that Bartlett pivoted towards school vouchers (for non-religious schools I think) after a talk with Charlie; would Sam have done the same in light of the Court's ruling?
No.

Leo tells Mallory that Sam doesn't support school vouchers in Season 1, and the "education is the silver bullet" speech he gives in that episode makes it clear his vision for education is incompatible with a voucher system that allows public money to be funneled to private religious institutions.

Also, because the federal government doesn't really have a role in state voucher systems. The whole situation with Bartlet and DC's voucher system (it was for a pilot program) was only a thing because DC's budget is controlled by Congress, so the president gets a say.
 
Well if you examine the 1956, 1964 and 1972 cases; the idea that the Olympics would create a scheduling issue doesn't apply, in 1956, the Olympics occurred in Melbourne in October, yet there was only a week between the Democrats and Republican Conventions. In 1964 there was a whole 5 weeks between the Republican's (San Francisco; July) and the Democrats (Atlantic City; August), yet the Olympics occurred in October in Tokyo, then in 1972, there was roughly a 5 week gap between the Democratic and Republican's Conventions both held in Miami Beach, yet the Olympics were held in Munich in September. It should be noted that in all three cases, the Olympics didn't impact the timing factor. From an incumbent perspective, wouldn't it be likely that campaign expenditure factors governed the timing? I mean the incumbent could hammer the challengers with negative ads, using "issue orientated" ads to make their case; while holding their general election funds in reserve for the two month sprint from Labor day to Election day.
 
Top