2018 Presidential Election
- Thread starter Marky Bunny
- Start date
Saturday September 24th, 2022
Secret Service Protection and Codenames
Aside from President Seaborn who obviously already has it, the Secretary of the Treasury authorizes the Secret Service to protect major presidential & vice presidential candidates for 120 days prior to the election. An advisory panel made up of members of Congress from both houses help the Secretary determine who qualifies as a "major candidate", which includes nominees belonging to parties that cleared at least 10% of the vote in the previous election (Duke) or an independent that was polling for 20% or higher for a period of at least 30 days (Long). As a Result Susan Bucker, the Green party nominee and her running-mate Anderson Gerald do not qualify for protection.
These are the codenames for the nominees who qualify for protection in 2022.
- Seaborn: Princeton (pre-established)
- Tyler: Liberty
- Richmond, VA is where Patrick Henry gave his "Give me liberty or give me death" speech and an appreciation by Tyler of the historic step he's making as someone whose ancestors came to this country in bondage.
- Duke: Whirlwind
- Duke is from Oklahoma, which has both tornados and is famous for being part of the Dust Bowl.
- Pendleton: Traveler
- Bbeing a career military officer, Pendleton moved around quite a bit in addition to his deployments to the Persian Gulf, Equatorial Kundu & Gaza Strip.
- Long: Maverick
- Pretty obvious choice. Both because of Maverick Mobile and Long's unique political career.
- Rudden: Hoosier
- Fitting as Rudden is the first presidential or vice-presidential candidate from Indiana since the Secret Service began using codenames.
Just 6 weeks or thereabouts to polling day! It could be the first time in history, that Texas doesn't award its electoral votes to either major party nominee's and the first time since 1968 that a third party candidate won electoral votes. The last time an incumbent President sought reelection and that the electoral vote also went to a third party candidate was in 1948, when Strom Thurmond, as the Dixiecrat candidate won electoral votes, as did Dewey and of course Truman, who won. Just thought it would helpful to throw in those stats.
Public Service Announcement
Just to let you all know, my colleague @lord caedus will be posting the article on the first debate later on. Unlike four years ago, it will not be a full transcript, (writing that almost drove me to a nervous breakdown), but it will give you a real flavor of what took place.
Kind regards
Mark
On behalf of the writing team
Just to let you all know, my colleague @lord caedus will be posting the article on the first debate later on. Unlike four years ago, it will not be a full transcript, (writing that almost drove me to a nervous breakdown), but it will give you a real flavor of what took place.
Kind regards
Mark
On behalf of the writing team
Last edited:
Sunday September 25th, 2022
The spirited history of presidential debates
American debates have changed much since the days when an Illinois lawyer held the nation spellbound with his moral arguments against slavery. That was 1858, and the arguments of Abraham Lincoln, who was debating Stephen Douglas, didn’t lead to Lincoln’s winning the Senate seat he sought. Nevertheless, transcripts were distributed throughout the country and became a springboard that vaulted Lincoln into the White House just two years later.It was not until more than a century later, beginning in 1976, that national debates would be held for every presidential election. The nonpartisan League of Women Voters ran the debates until 1984, but after the change in the presidential election cycle, in 1986 party leaders took control. Since then, only candidates with substantial support in public polls have been allowed to debate. This year’s schedule includes three debates between the major parties’ presidential candidates and one between their vice presidential running mates. For the first time a third party candidate has qualified for the first debate and the Vice-Presidential debate on October 9th, that being Texas businessman and his running mate the former Governor of Indiana Emily Rudden.
The differences from the Lincoln-Douglas debates will be many: Instead of each candidate speaking for an hour or more at a time over three hours, this years candidates will take turns during a 90-minute televised question-and-answer session . Instead of transcripts going out by telegraph, tens of millions will watch the events live, and social media and the press will amplify both the candidates’ words and viewers’ reactions to them, during and after the debates.
Can the debates make a difference, well in 2002 we saw during the only televised debate between Josiah Bartlet and Rob Ritchie, how the debate did swing the election. Leading into the debate, the President held a small lead in the polls and the electoral college, but following a masterclass performance from the president and an equally awful one from the Republican nominee, the race swung in Bartlet's favor, leading to his historic landslide win and a second term.
Four years later, the debates rules where ripped up on stage, when the two nominee's Arnold Vinick and Matthew Santos ripped up the agreed rules on the stage and allowed for what has now been termed the "Vinick/Santos" rules which allow for candidates to question each other directly and move around the debate stage.
For whatever happens tonight, you can be sure the world will be watching.
Well to you and @lord caedus and other writing team members take care of yourselves.
Seaborn stumbles in chaotic first debate
Sunday, September 25th, 2022
The first presidential debate concluded a few minutes ago with most observers giving President Sam Seaborn (D) the lowest grade in a debate that was, in the words of host Mark Bunn of NBS "a tad chaotic." Hosted by Bunn at Hofstra University in Hempsted, New York, the open debate format (commonly referred to as the "Vinick/Santos" style after the famous presidential debate in 2006 where both candidates opted to rip up the rules in favor of a largely unmoderated debate) and having three participants instead of the usual two, resulted in a fast-moving debate with plenty of cross-talking.
As fitting the largely unstructured debate, the candidates touched on multiple issues, including taxation, healthcare, the environment, and the candidates' fitness to be commander-in-chief.
Both Seaborn and Andrew Long (I) attacked former senator Alan Duke (R) over Duke's vision of "restoring America", with the president saying that the Republican nominee "wants to go back to a time that never existed," while Long asking how voters could be expect for Duke to succeed in office if "your search for a vice president includes a woman who thinks we should give guns to kids while we burn their school books?"—a clear shot at Duke's reported vetting of controversial congresswoman Patty King (R-GA). Duke disavowed King's statements, saying that he was unaware of her extreme views when he asked she be vetted and that he does not agree with her on several key issues "including the ones you mentioned."
Duke, for his part, took few potshots at Long, while joining him in attacking Seaborn's economic stewardship. Duke attacked "Seabornomics" for making the economy "unstable" and charging the president with "burning billions of tax dollars in R&D [research and development] to change our nation's energy policy simply because a few very fallible, very human scientists say that we have to."
The most contentious exchange was one between Seaborn and Long, when the Texas billionaire charged Seaborn with enacting unsustainable government spending: "Mr. President, if we ran a business like you run this country, we would have gone bankrupt a long time ago."
Duke, who had just retreated to his podium to sip some water, interjected "And he's speaking from experience!", causing both Seaborn and Long to quickly turn and look at the Republican candidate. The remark, referencing several businesses of Long's that filed for bankruptcy early in the businessman's career, drew a scowl on Long's face and a photograph of a surprised Seaborn, smirking Duke looking over his glass, and scowling Long has already become a meme on social media.
For his part, Seaborn attempted to attack the economic proposals of his opponents, but most observers say his points were "ignored or bowled over" by Duke and Long, who both spoke over Seaborn repeatedly, causing Bunn to intervene multiple times.
The next presidential debate will be October 17th, following a debate among all three candidates' running mates on October 9th.
A similar scenario to Obama's first debate stumble against Romney in 2012
Seaborn stumbles in chaotic first debate
Sunday, September 25th, 2022
The first presidential debate concluded a few minutes ago with most observers giving President Sam Seaborn (D) the lowest grade in a debate that was, in the words of host Mark Bunn of NBS "a tad chaotic." Hosted by Bunn at Hofstra University in Hempsted, New York, the open debate format (commonly referred to as the "Vinick/Santos" style after the famous presidential debate in 2006 where both candidates opted to rip up the rules in favor of a largely unmoderated debate) and having three participants instead of the usual two, resulted in a fast-moving debate with plenty of cross-talking.
As fitting the largely unstructured debate, the candidates touched on multiple issues, including taxation, healthcare, the environment, and the candidates' fitness to be commander-in-chief.
Both Seaborn and Andrew Long (I) attacked former senator Alan Duke (R) over Duke's vision of "restoring America", with the president saying that the Republican nominee "wants to go back to a time that never existed," while Long asking how voters could be expect for Duke to succeed in office if "your search for a vice president includes a woman who thinks we should give guns to kids while we burn their school books?"—a clear shot at Duke's reported vetting of controversial congresswoman Patty King (R-GA). Duke disavowed King's statements, saying that he was unaware of her extreme views when he asked she be vetted and that he does not agree with her on several key issues "including the ones you mentioned."
Duke, for his part, took few potshots at Long, while joining him in attacking Seaborn's economic stewardship. Duke attacked "Seabornomics" for making the economy "unstable" and charging the president with "burning billions of tax dollars in R&D [research and development] to change our nation's energy policy simply because a few very fallible, very human scientists say that we have to."
The most contentious exchange was one between Seaborn and Long, when the Texas billionaire charged Seaborn with enacting unsustainable government spending: "Mr. President, if we ran a business like you run this country, we would have gone bankrupt a long time ago."
Duke, who had just retreated to his podium to sip some water, interjected "And he's speaking from experience!", causing both Seaborn and Long to quickly turn and look at the Republican candidate. The remark, referencing several businesses of Long's that filed for bankruptcy early in the businessman's career, drew a scowl on Long's face and a photograph of a surprised Seaborn, smirking Duke looking over his glass, and scowling Long has already become a meme on social media.
For his part, Seaborn attempted to attack the economic proposals of his opponents, but most observers say his points were "ignored or bowled over" by Duke and Long, who both spoke over Seaborn repeatedly, causing Bunn to intervene multiple times.
The next presidential debate will be October 17th, following a debate among all three candidates' running mates on October 9th.
Makes sense - expectations for Duke were low and it was just feeling too easy for Seaborn. Hoping he sorts it out before we se irl 2016 all over again!
Seaborn stumbles in chaotic first debate
Sunday, September 25th, 2022
The first presidential debate concluded a few minutes ago with most observers giving President Sam Seaborn (D) the lowest grade in a debate that was, in the words of host Mark Bunn of NBS "a tad chaotic." Hosted by Bunn at Hofstra University in Hempsted, New York, the open debate format (commonly referred to as the "Vinick/Santos" style after the famous presidential debate in 2006 where both candidates opted to rip up the rules in favor of a largely unmoderated debate) and having three participants instead of the usual two, resulted in a fast-moving debate with plenty of cross-talking.
As fitting the largely unstructured debate, the candidates touched on multiple issues, including taxation, healthcare, the environment, and the candidates' fitness to be commander-in-chief.
Both Seaborn and Andrew Long (I) attacked former senator Alan Duke (R) over Duke's vision of "restoring America", with the president saying that the Republican nominee "wants to go back to a time that never existed," while Long asking how voters could be expect for Duke to succeed in office if "your search for a vice president includes a woman who thinks we should give guns to kids while we burn their school books?"—a clear shot at Duke's reported vetting of controversial congresswoman Patty King (R-GA). Duke disavowed King's statements, saying that he was unaware of her extreme views when he asked she be vetted and that he does not agree with her on several key issues "including the ones you mentioned."
Duke, for his part, took few potshots at Long, while joining him in attacking Seaborn's economic stewardship. Duke attacked "Seabornomics" for making the economy "unstable" and charging the president with "burning billions of tax dollars in R&D [research and development] to change our nation's energy policy simply because a few very fallible, very human scientists say that we have to."
The most contentious exchange was one between Seaborn and Long, when the Texas billionaire charged Seaborn with enacting unsustainable government spending: "Mr. President, if we ran a business like you run this country, we would have gone bankrupt a long time ago."
Duke, who had just retreated to his podium to sip some water, interjected "And he's speaking from experience!", causing both Seaborn and Long to quickly turn and look at the Republican candidate. The remark, referencing several businesses of Long's that filed for bankruptcy early in the businessman's career, drew a scowl on Long's face and a photograph of a surprised Seaborn, smirking Duke looking over his glass, and scowling Long has already become a meme on social media.
For his part, Seaborn attempted to attack the economic proposals of his opponents, but most observers say his points were "ignored or bowled over" by Duke and Long, who both spoke over Seaborn repeatedly, causing Bunn to intervene multiple times.
The next presidential debate will be October 17th, following a debate among all three candidates' running mates on October 9th.
Duke takes giant leap to narrow polling gap
Tuesday, September 27th 2022
Republican nominee Alan Duke's numbers have jumped significantly in the latest NBS/YouGov poll, the first taken after the first presidential debate.
Duke, who was trailing President Sam Seaborn (D) by 21 percent previously, has narrowed the lead to six percent, putting him well ahead of independent candidate Andrew Long to get near Seaborn in the popular vote. According to the latest polling, 35 percent of likely voters say they are planning on voting for Duke, trailing the 41 percent who support Seaborn, but far ahead of the 14 percent that back Long and the three percent that say they will vote for Green nominee Susan Buckner.
The big swing towards the GOP candidate has come largely at the expense of Long, whose support up until this point has been largely made up of Republicans and conservatives who opposed Duke's nomination. Long's numbers fell from 19 percent in the previous poll thanks to voters who identified as Republicans and Republican-leaning switching in large numbers to Duke. This was only partially offset by a large increase in self-identified swing voters and a smaller increase in Democratic-leaning voters switching from Seaborn to Long as a result of the real estate billionaire's inclusion in the debate.
The new poll has resulted in a tectonic shift in NBS' projections for the electoral college. Seaborn, who had previously been projected to win a comfortable electoral college majority even if Duke or Long had won every single swing state, is now projected to have secured only 197 electoral votes, 73 short of a majority. Duke is now projected to win at least 114 electoral votes, a massive increase from the paltry 17 in the previous electoral forecast. Long, who NBS had projected would be the first third-party candidate to win a state since 1968, is no longer projected to win his home state of Texas; indeed, Long is now tied with Seaborn for second in the Lone Star State with a projected 28 percent of the vote, behind Duke's 35 percent.
Presidential Election Polling
Seaborn (D): 41% (-5)
Duke (R): 35% (+10)
Long (I): 14% (-5)
Buckner: 3% (±0)
Undecided: 7% (±0)
States to Watch
ArizonaSeaborn (D): 41% (-5)
Duke (R): 35% (+10)
Long (I): 14% (-5)
Buckner: 3% (±0)
Undecided: 7% (±0)
States to Watch
Duke (R): 40% (+10)
Seaborn (D): 35% (-2)
Long (I): 14% (-5)
Buckner (G): 4% (±0)
Undecided: 7% (-3)
Florida
Duke (R): 40% (+10)
Seaborn (D): 39% (-4)
Long (I): 12% (-4)
Buckner (G): 2% (±0)
Undecided: 7% (-2)
Ohio
Duke (R): 40% (+11)
Seaborn (D): 35% (-4)
Long (I): 15% (-5)
Buckner (G): 3% (±0)
Undecided: 7% (-2)
Pennsylvania
Seaborn (D): 42% (-3)
Duke (R): 36% (+9)
Long (I): 13% (-4)
Buckner (G): 2% (±0)
Undecided: 7% (-2)
Texas
Duke (R): 35% (+9)
Long (I): 28% (-10)
Seaborn (D): 28% (+3)
Buckner (G): 2% (±0)
Undecided: 7% (-2)
Wisconsin
Seaborn (D): 39% (±0)
Duke (R): 33% (+8)
Long (I): 15% (-5)
Buckner (G): 6% (±0)
Undecided: 7% (-3)
Projected Election Map
Seaborn (D): 197 (-137) electoral votes
Duke (R): 114 (+97) electoral votes
Long (I): 0 (-40) electoral votes
Toss-up: 227 (+80) electoral votes
Changes
Alabama (9 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Arkansas (6 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Colorado (10 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Florida (30 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Georgia (16 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Indiana (11 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Kansas (6 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Kentucky (8 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Louisiana (8 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Maine (4 EV): Toss-Up to Seaborn
Michigan (15 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Minnesota (10 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Mississippi (6 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Missouri (10 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Montana (4 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Nebraska (5 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Nevada (6 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
New Hampshire (4 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
New Mexico (5 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
North Carolina (16 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
North Dakota (3 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Oklahoma (7 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Pennsylvania (19 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
South Dakota (3 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Tennessee (11 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Texas (40 EV): Long to Toss-Up
Wisconsin (10 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Seaborn (D): 197 (-137) electoral votes
Duke (R): 114 (+97) electoral votes
Long (I): 0 (-40) electoral votes
Toss-up: 227 (+80) electoral votes
Changes
Alabama (9 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Arkansas (6 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Colorado (10 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Florida (30 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Georgia (16 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Indiana (11 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Kansas (6 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Kentucky (8 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Louisiana (8 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Maine (4 EV): Toss-Up to Seaborn
Michigan (15 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Minnesota (10 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Mississippi (6 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Missouri (10 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Montana (4 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Nebraska (5 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Nevada (6 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
New Hampshire (4 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
New Mexico (5 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
North Carolina (16 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
North Dakota (3 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Oklahoma (7 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Pennsylvania (19 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
South Dakota (3 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Tennessee (11 EV): Toss-Up to Duke
Texas (40 EV): Long to Toss-Up
Wisconsin (10 EV): Seaborn to Toss-Up
Just wonderful. Seaborn needs to wake up and smell the coffee, and do it like yesterday. Really, how hard is this? Having a disgusting excuse for a human being like Alan Duke as the GOP nominee is painful enough to watch without him being President. Every election on this timeline does not have to be a squeaker for us to enjoy it. For once can't we have a predictable landslide?
Last edited:
Meh, a bit of suspense is entertaining - plus I’m sure Seaborn will pull it together in the next debates/Duke will trip up over his own gaffes (Lord, I hope I’m not wrong about that). I imagine that debate prep within the Seaborn camp would be pretty heavy right now! Perhaps Sam has a more confrontational friend and former colleague who can help him prepare…
If I were gambling man I would say that the polls will widen again after the next debates and in the coming weeks, but that it will still be closer than suggested on election night. If recent US/UK National elections are anything to go by there is still a real issue with under-polling right wing support on a national level (Plenty of possible reasons for that but we shouldn’t get off topic).
If I were gambling man I would say that the polls will widen again after the next debates and in the coming weeks, but that it will still be closer than suggested on election night. If recent US/UK National elections are anything to go by there is still a real issue with under-polling right wing support on a national level (Plenty of possible reasons for that but we shouldn’t get off topic).
We shall see. I do not want to see a close race. I want to see Duke annihlated/humiliated/clock cleaned. I want him to be a laughingstock after all is said and done. Plus, Mark even said that everything that happened up to 2018 through the Walken years was the buildup to President Seaborn. In 2018 Seaborn won by the skin of his teeth with zero coattails and the Vice Presidency wound up being decided by a contingent election with a Republican Vice President. It would be nice for Seaborn to be able to claim a mandate this time. The past 3 elections were nail biters. For once can't we have a predictable landslide where we basically all know what is going to happen the night before?
You've been saying the same thing for the last few several months. Even casual readers of the thread are well apprised of your position on this. Mark and the writing staff are not going to reveal a 50 state blowout or House of Rep squeaker before it actually happens. Remember that fundamentally this thread is the continuation of a TV show and suspense is a useful narrative tool.
Exactly, that's story telling 101. Keep in mind too the 2002 election was a squeaker until the debate.
True - always impressed me how they managed to keep it entertaining in the following episode even though the suspense was lifted with the debate episode.