Remove ads

MakeAmericaSaneAgain. A 2016 political campaign.

Reader mode
Megaolix said:
I had an idea that night for the debate. We all saw this before, right?



I didn't watch the debates, but generally, Trump will just try to make a show of himself an dinsult people, right? Now, how many people would remember it in a positive way, if, at some point, Pataki just go into one long rant of anger, having enough of Trump and calling him out in multiple things one after another and shutting him down every time he interrupt? To call out serious issues they msut debate and call out the silly ideas Trump had for what they are? To call into question his commitment for the run with his behavior and how he hardly gave serious things to talk about?

I imagine that if done right, applause at the end of it is possible for a 'Nice old man now just had enough of your shit' moment. If it's doable.

TL;DR: Little comebacks on Trump are a thing, but one big one should certainly be remembered much more, right?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I really really like this idea. However, I'm also fairly sure that it wouldn't go over nearly as well if we "had enough of his shit" in the first debate. People haven't had an opportunity to really understand just how bad he is. I'd probably keep the rant idea in the bag until the second or third debate instead. But yes, once he's done his shtick a few times, then we BTFO the bastard. :mad: After last night's performance, I'm really looking forward to reading that.
 
Publicola said:
I really really like this idea. However, I'm also fairly sure that it wouldn't go over nearly as well if we "had enough of his shit" in the first debate. People haven't had an opportunity to really understand just how bad he is. I'd probably keep the rant idea in the bag until the second or third debate instead. But yes, once he's done his shtick a few times, then we BTFO the bastard. :mad: After last night's performance, I'm really looking forward to reading that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair enough, just never bothered to remember how many debates there was (as I don't live in the USA to start with).
 
@The Karvoka Man, a question about endorsements:

Publicola said:
[X] Brushing up old contacts. Pataki knew a lot of people, back in the day, and his personal word carries a helluva lot more weight than yours. Maybe he can dig up some endorsers? (Cost: 10K Chance of Success: 75% Result: Endorsers found. +Momentum in State. Specify state.)
-[X] New Hampshire
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not entirely sure there's anyone significant left in the state who can endorse us.

The Karvoka Man said:
Campaign Endorsements.
U.S Senators (Current):
Kelly Ayotte, Senator from New Hampshire

State Governors (Former):
Craig Benson, New Hampshire.

State Legislators (Current):
Senate Pres. Chuck Morse, New Hampshire
State Sen. John Reagan, New Hampshire
State Sen. Nancy Stiles, New Hampshire
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We already have the Senator in our corner (the other one's a Democrat), the Republican former governor, and a bunch of current state legislators. Who else is left? There is the Republican incumbent from the House (Frank Guinta), but he's under a cloud of corruption scandals and is running neck-and-neck with a primary challenger, Rich Ashooh (there's another primary challenger, Pam Tucker, but she's a minor player). We might approach Ashoosh and offer visibility (include him in the "Sanity Squad"?) in exchange for an endorsement. (His platform certainly seems similar to ours...)

EDIT: it looks like I'm off by a year -- the NH primary was last month (Sept 2016), and Ashoosh didn't declare his candidacy until April of this year. OTOH, Guinta's scandals began early in 2015, so we might seek out and promote Ashoosh early on, as part of our 'fight against corruption' bit.

EDIT: there's also Judd Gregg, former state governor and former Senator (replaced by Ayotte), but he was responsible for the ludicrously unpopular TARP bailout and was offered a seat on Obama's Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. He's a Republican, but one we should probably stay away from...

Alternately, we could theoretically target New Hampshire's next door neighbor: Maine. The state has a sitting Republican governor (Paul LePage) and a sitting Senator (Susan Collins), but Collins has already endorsed Jeb Bush. Another possibility is the retired Senator Olympia Snowe, known as a moderate reformer and who briefly attempted a Presidential campaign herself before disappearing into the <1% ether. She has a pretty good reputation we might be able to borrow...

Yet another possibility would be Scott Brown, famous for his 2010 victory for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat in Massachusetts (and famous as a symbol of national opposition to Obamacare). He was ousted by Elizabeth Warren in 2013, but his endorsement might be a game-changer.

EDIT: A final source of endorsements would be among people who aren't politicians at all, but looking to become so. Identify challengers to the major Democratic names in New England, and see which ones have a viable shot. This would help us make the case that Pataki will turn blue states purple -- and turn purple states red.

EDIT: I found this nifty cheat-sheet from the Washington Post, of Republican politicians who have refused to endorse Donald Trump. Some of these might be quite promising, for now or for the future.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Kelly Ayotte was definitely us peaking with New Hampshire endorsements. Scott Brown wouldn't be a bad one, but New Hampshire's a small state with a shallow pool. Redirect the endorsement option to a campaigning one.
 
Stealthy said:
Redirect the endorsement option to a campaigning one.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm strongly considering it, but I'm not sure it's benefits us as much to have Pataki fly back and forth and back and forth between campaign events in multiple states in a single week. I'd really prefer to prioritize a single state per week.

My plan was to emphasize South Carolina this week, then to put everything in New Hampshire next week. That'll have even more impact when we introduce our 'People Over Politics' major plank. Then we're off to Iowa the week after that (debate week), since we're introducing the more red-meat 'Safe at Home' major plank (along with 'Defending Life' after the debate. Then either back to New Hampshire or South Carolina to talk up our 'Secure our Future' third plank with Neil deGrasse Tyson by our side. Three week rotation, something new to say each time, targeted appeals based on what planks will appeal most to each group, that sort of thing.

If people do prefer I change the 'endorsement' action, let me know!
 
I was considering more or less the same. People Over Politics speech in New Hampshire (hell, maybe give the speech in Iowa too), Safe at Home in South Carolina, and then Secure Our Future in New Hampshire as well. And at some point get our foot in the door in Nevada.

Although problem is that the release dates don't really match up as a weekly thing. But we can make it work.
 
Publicola said:
If people do prefer I change the 'endorsement' action, let me know!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think we should look for some endorsements in SC but I'm not sure if they're already tapped out by Graham and Bush.

Also, did you decide on the "Invulnerable" and spy actions yet? I honestly don't see the point in throwing an action away on bulletproff suits.

EDIT: Why not go for Barnstorming in NH? We have a 85% chance of success. It's not going to get any better than that.
 
Last edited:
Also would like to reiterate that LL Cool J will be more useful in Las Vegas than Manchester, and would be a nice opening act, so to speak.
 
Publicola said:
Ben Carson is a non-entity, but don't criticise him -- for whatever reason, the voters seem to love the guy, so going negative could backfire.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...



[x] Plan Publicola

I would add some caveats to my affirmation of the plan, these being: that I agree with the point about the endorsements, and that I feel the suit option is pointless. Furthermore I believe we shouldn't go with the suit option at all. American tailors or nothing, except perhaps Saville Row.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'm pretty much set at this point on swapping "seek endorsements in New Hampshire" for "barnstorm through New Hampshire." The only thing keeping me from doing it now is a single doubt:

@The Karvoka Man, can you confirm that it's feasible to do two 'campaign in [state]' actions for different states without losing effectiveness?
 
Publicola said:
Okay, I'm pretty much set at this point on swapping "seek endorsements in New Hampshire" for "barnstorm through New Hampshire." The only thing keeping me from doing it now is a single doubt:

@The Karvoka Man, can you confirm that it's feasible to do two 'campaign in [state]' actions for different states without losing effectiveness?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have done that for quite a few of the earlier turns.
 
The Karvoka Man said:
Yes. It is something you guys were doing earlier. I would advise against big rallies in multiple states, though
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Good to know. I'll make the change.

Should I keep LL Cool J barnstorming in New Hampshire, or should I send him to Nevada instead? I kinda like the idea of having Pataki campaign with a pop culture icon, but it might be good to establish a beachhead in the fourth state that will vote...


As for 'Invulnerable', my main reason for picking it was: I doubt Karvoka would have included if it wouldn't become plot-relevant later on (...!) and this is probably the best timing to pick it up (since we'll be swamped with campaign events as the voting days approach).

On the other hand, most responses have picked that element as the one they'd like to change, so I'm willing to do so if there seems to be a consensus. Probably replace it with Fundraising, since money is essential for campaigns and we'll be spending more and more as the campaign goes on. Or I could replace it with 'Issue Familiarity', to prepare even more for the debates and plank speeches...
 
Also, semi-randomly: we have George & Libby both campaigning in South Carolina this week. I just added New Hampshire to George's itinerary, so he'll be making some campaign appearances in that state as well. Couldn't we add that to Libby's itinerary as well, so she is in SC with her husband then travels up to NH when he does?
 
Publicola said:
Also, semi-randomly: we have George & Libby both campaigning in South Carolina this week. I just added New Hampshire to George's itinerary, so he'll be making some campaign appearances in that state as well. Couldn't we add that to Libby's itinerary as well, so she is in SC with her husband then travels up to NH when he does?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And Libby would add a bonus to Pataki's rolls, too, so this would be perfect.
 
Publicola said:
As for 'Invulnerable', my main reason for picking it was: I doubt Karvoka would have included if it wouldn't become plot-relevant later on (...!) and this is probably the best timing to pick it up (since we'll be swamped with campaign events as the voting days approach).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The real world doesn't conform to Chekov's Gun. It would make no sense for anyone to try to assasinate Pataki and even if they did, they'd never get past our eventual security.
 
Libby gets one action. Orrrrrr we can do that.

And while I really like the idea of George with Cool J, I really think we're underestimating Nevada's importance given how we're totally ignoring it. Our goal for February probably looks like this:

Iowa: Second, or strong third. Ideally have Huckabee or Carson taking the religious right instead of Cruz.
New Hampshire: Victory. Kasich drops out.
South Carolina: Second/Third, depending on what the field looks like. Narrow to a 2 or 3 man race after this.
Nevada: We nab our second Victory.

This puts us in a strong position for Super Tuesday as a chief contender. Not a great map tbh, but it's what we have to work with.

Maybe we reorient entirely and send Pataki to Nevada with Cool J instead of South Carolina?
 
Last edited:
Publicola said:
Also, semi-randomly: we have George & Libby both campaigning in South Carolina this week. I just added New Hampshire to George's itinerary, so he'll be making some campaign appearances in that state as well. Couldn't we add that to Libby's itinerary as well, so she is in SC with her husband then travels up to NH when he does?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You can do that, but costs multiply as you multiply actions
Versharl said:
The real world doesn't conform to Chekov's Gun. It would make no sense for anyone to try to assasinate Pataki and even if they did, they'd never get past our eventual security.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
People can and do try to kill presidential candidates. Someone nearly rushed Trump with a knife a few months back
 
The Karvoka Man said:
People can and do try to kill presidential candidates. Someone nearly rushed Trump with a knife a few months back
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And I persume the perpetrator was stopped by Trump's Secret Service escort, which just goes to prove my point:
Versharl said:
even if they did, they'd never get past our eventual security.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also, it's fucking Trump. I'm surprised there hasn't been more attempts on his life. Like I said before, Trump and Hillary are some of the most hated presidential candidates ever. Pataki is a moderate and relatively inoffensive guy, so there's a world of difference between him and Trump.
 
Last edited:
The Karvoka Man said:
You can do that, but costs multiply as you multiply actions
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
By how much? An extra 5k? 10k? It might be worth it. Let me know, and I'll probably add it to the itinerary.

Stealthy said:
And while I really like the idea of George with Cool J, I really think we're underestimating Nevada's importance given how we're totally ignoring it. Our goal for February probably looks like this:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a pretty good plan, and I suspect you're right. I have no idea how popular or recognizable Cool J is in either state, but he is an entertainer and Nevada has Las Vegas, after all.

Unless there are any objections, I will change the COOL J action to send him to Nevada.

Publicola said:
As for 'Invulnerable', my main reason for picking it was: I doubt Karvoka would have included if it wouldn't become plot-relevant later on (...!)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Versharl said:
The real world doesn't conform to Chekov's Gun. It would make no sense for anyone to try to assasinate Pataki and even if they did, they'd never get past our eventual security.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Karvoka Man said:
People can and do try to kill presidential candidates. Someone nearly rushed Trump with a knife a few months back
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Versharl said:
And I persume the perpetrator was stopped by Trump's Secret Service escort, which just goes to prove my point:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
@Versharl, I think you were missing my point. Sure, the real world doesn't conform to Chekov's Gun, but this isn't the real world. This is fiction, an alt-universe quest, run by a clockmaker-god named Karvoka Man. And fiction most assuredly conforms to Chekov's gun, especially when the author drops such monumental hints as he's been doing.

Pretty sure all of the major candidates get bulletproof vests at some point. Secret Service protection is fine, but bulletproof is bulletproof. At this point, I'm definitely sticking with my original pick of 'Invulnerable'.
 
Publicola said:
@Versharl, I think you were missing my point. Sure, the real world doesn't conform to Chekov's Gun, but this isn't the real world. This is fiction, an alt-universe quest, run by a clockmaker-god named Karvoka Man. And fiction most assuredly conforms to Chekov's gun, especially when the author drops such monumental hints as he's been doing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was assuming that Karvoka aimed at creating a realistic universe and not continuing the tired old clichés. I'd also like to see these monumental hints that you are talking about, since it's merely been listed as an available option, much like Laxalt going on talk shows. We don't need to do every option available.
Publicola said:
Pretty sure all of the major candidates get bulletproof vests at some point. Secret Service protection is fine, but bulletproof is bulletproof. At this point, I'm definitely sticking with my original pick of 'Invulnerable'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Secret Service provides the candidates with bulletproof vests. What we're doing is wasting an action on getting some useless suits.
Honestly, I can't be bothered with this anymore, since it's really not a big deal and you seem to have convinced youself.
 
Versharl said:
The Secret Service provides the candidates with bulletproof vests.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Source? I'm genuinely curious and wasn't able to find anything about this. I suspect you're right, but my follow-up question would be: when are those vests provided? Because if we can get one free from the Secret Service, that'd probably be preferable (unless they're so uncomfortable that they interfere with Pataki's mobility or something). Thanks in advance.
 
Vests are a bit bulky and uncomfortable. And aren't fun in summer heat. A snazzy suit is better. Cause see, then we have the best suits. Suits like you wouldn't believe. Suits that even Donald Trump doesn't have.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top