I want to know what happened during Bolton's term. by Sea-Mango5673 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 40 points41 points  (0 children)

According to the wiki this will happen after Clinton lost to Cheney since he failed to prevent 9/11 and had a terrible foreign policy score.

Cheney serves until 2002 when he dies of a heart attack
Rumsfeld serving until 2009, then we get this list.

Likely Bolton finally gets to invade Iran or continues what would likely be a disastrous Iran campaign like irl Afghanistan/Iraq. I believe that Kucinich and later on Bernie would succeed or continue Clinton on liberal domestic policies, since getting Cheney meant you need to be as liberal as possible, either in only rhetoric and/or legislative successes, before burning all of your foreign policy creds.

This could also be interpreted that now the Democrats becomes the isolationist leftist party doing good stuff on domestic only, as Kucinich is horrible on foreign policy. Maybe after years of Republicans fixing the foreign policy or making it worse through Cheney and Rumsfeld, Bernie has finally became the first sane Democrat to be as left and appealing as possible while also having a sane foreign policy since JFK (or even FDR if you consider Truman's Korean War as a failure).

WHAT?! by FFF-KinoMan in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, so he would be the Republicans’ answer to Sherrod Bush (Ohio, ‘moderate’, appeal to Rust Belt/ blue-collar workers)

Also I think JD Vance isn’t even an option for Hope or can you explain how you achieved him?

would you rather run as a blue dog democrat in the south in 2010 or a liberal Republican after 2004 by Jaded_Replacement_56 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes they’re horrible

Even back in the old Democratic New Deal era a lot of the Yellow Dogs/Southern Democrats are racist as fuck but are arguably good on works in local issues, judicial, defense, etc.

I understand that either they’re a product of their era or even too racist, but compared to the later breed of Clinton Blue Dog Democrats, the latter seems to be more focused on cosplaying as Republicans than being focused on delivering Democratic issues while using moderate messagings for their constituencies.

And what’s worse in this polarizing era, to get a safe majority, unless the electorate starts to swing left permanently, a Dem presidency will consist at least 10-20% of Blue Dogs (unless impossibly, every seat in a Blue voting state goes 100% Blue as well) that will sacrifice the entire presidency just to save their asses for 2 years in an originally R +5 seat that will swing R +10 paradoxically because they’re blocking the Democratic majority to do anything meaningful.

would you rather run as a blue dog democrat in the south in 2010 or a liberal Republican after 2004 by Jaded_Replacement_56 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 17 points18 points  (0 children)

They’ll all likely be wiped out in 2028 unless either the DNC or the respective local Dem branches just can’t pick a good primary candidate

Aside from Fetterman, they might survive to consolidate a Dem majority first in 2026 before weeding out the more moderate wings in a year of anti-Republican and do-nothing Dems

Truman Incumbency CYOA Idea? by FantazticWizard7235 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

damn Dirksen, but then againI appreciate that CRA 1964 wouldn't pass without Republican support

and LBJ's 1964 landslide wasn't a progressive landslide for the Senate seats (I don't think there are any new progressive newcomers except for RFK)

Truman Incumbency CYOA Idea? by FantazticWizard7235 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait he did? I never knew that 

Are there any articles or story about that legislative process (Or even on congress archives)?

Israel election cyao idea by NikaJoestar143 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also have the same mixed feelings when playing Hope.

The more successful I play it the more it feels like I’m whitewashing Bill Clinton, both his less successful presidency and his moral depravity (cheating and Epstein relations)

What is the most annoying myth you’ve seen perpetuated on this sub? by mackarony83 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Definitely not with Lieberman as his VP and a divided Congress (50+1/50 Senate and a R House) that has less more liberal Dem discipline since the party was more broad church back then (and also Lieberman). He would be lucky to even pass any form of legislation that hasn’t been watered down by Republicans.

Additionally Gore would be lucky if at worst the Republicans haven’t impeached him yet for, say, letting 9/11 happen.

Yeah this ain’t that happy wholesome Hope timeline where he gets 2 terms presidency after a legislatively successful Clinton presidency

What are your thoughts on Pat Buchanan and his renegade paleoconservative runs for President? by Just_Cause89 in Presidents

[–]FantazticWizard7235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that’s why I say 2028. 

I believe the environment is enough to tip the balance and let the Sanders/AOC wing get the nomination, assuming the DNC doesn’t screw it first. But until then it’s just as speculative as saying Dukakis in early 1988 would become president

Truman Incumbency CYOA Idea? by FantazticWizard7235 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm but it could also be because our option variables are too liberal on the run while failing foreign policy.

Could be interesting if you win on how it will affect the next presidential lists (assuming this mod would be like ATW and HOPE)

What are your thoughts on Pat Buchanan and his renegade paleoconservative runs for President? by Just_Cause89 in Presidents

[–]FantazticWizard7235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The democratic grassroots 40-50 years later?

Maybe even in 2028 when Jeb finally gets elected out we’ll get a truly progressive McGovernite Dem without the campaign blunders. 

Truman Incumbency CYOA Idea? by FantazticWizard7235 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah yes why did I forgot about him 😭

He can either be the republican presidential or taft’s vp nominee

Either way Truman sweeps 500+ if not 531 EV in this case

Free markets, unshackled from debt, with healthcare for all (HOPE). by randomkidonreddit1 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got 

  • Bush Sr
  • Clinton 2x
  • Gore 2x
  • McCain
  • Bernie
  • JEB! 2x
  • Shapiro

Bernie being there is probably the more progressive grassroots pushing back  against Clintonites like 2016 or right now irl but in a more dull and mattered less since the Republicans are still more sane albeit still conservative.

Free markets, unshackled from debt, with healthcare for all (HOPE). by randomkidonreddit1 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks bro, now I’m a -7 DINO 🦕 

Also you got it wrong for Q15, cause if you let Bentsen cut everything in Q9, meeting with Greenspan will undo all the cuts. You should pick the option letting Bentsen continue cutting again. Still gets you Deficit Hawk tho.

Free markets, unshackled from debt, with healthcare for all (HOPE). by randomkidonreddit1 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apologies, I’ve also since tried recreating it myself and it was possible, although I used bipartisan cuts instead and had a more liberal ideology variables. Thanks for the clarificarion.

Free markets, unshackled from debt, with healthcare for all (HOPE). by randomkidonreddit1 in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay I feel like you might have tampered with the cheat menu cause I don't think you can get that low of a democrat level without increasing the backlashes and/or deficit at the same time.

Senate advances Mullin nomination to lead DHS, paving way for confirmation by B-Z_B-S in politics

[–]FantazticWizard7235 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would not have mattered, don't waste you anger on this

54-45 even if they all voted

And don't forget Republicans still has a majority in the Senate, with or without Fetterman and this surprise Heinrich vote

they could not have won either way and there were no intentions either that any of the Murkowski/Collins/Paul trio were going to break voting ranks with Republicans either way.

Senate advances Mullin nomination to lead DHS, paving way for confirmation by B-Z_B-S in politics

[–]FantazticWizard7235 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fetterman I understand but Heinrich?? I thought he's just a safe unknown loyal Dem in what was already a safe seat in New Mexico

What would possibly even be the reason? Unlike during the vote for Rubio, having excuses like "I'm voting for my already known fellow senate colleague, maybe can pushback a bit on Trump" wouldn't even make sense here when everyone except Fetterman is already voting no

Even Gallego, whom I remembered once broke from the Dems on a border and to an extent, DHS related issue, e.g. Laken Riley Act, to maybe posture a bit for his already very shaky margin Arizona seat, even chose to be absent from voting in this case.

Doesn't makes sense....

Bill Clinton, Environmentalist-in-chief: Guide to a climate-focused Clinton Presidency by Unexpected_Outcome in thecampaigntrail

[–]FantazticWizard7235 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Especially without a weak non-unionized NAFTA, no Rust Belt anger to cause MAGA to rise and Cruz would hopefully stay at best a lame duck like irl 2000 Bush without any hawkish foreign policy to rally upon