A Time For Unity - The Lost Decades - A Tale of a Potential Future

In a sense the fall election campaign was anti-climatic. It was obvious from the beginning, that with Walton polling above 40% and a viable Democrat in the race, that the odds of the Progressives losing the election, at least at the Presidential level, was relatively low. There were some hopes on the part of the Republicans that the Progressives could be kept from an all-out majority in the House, and the non-viability of the Democrats at the local level in large parts of the country added to the that hope. It was noticed that while when local and state governments fell under Progressive control they rarely turned back, the same did not necessarily apply to the party’s federal representatives, of whom a mere 73 had won with over 50% of the vote in 2022.

As for the Democrats, Clinton campaigned aggressively, especially given her age, and picked up a number of votes of those who disliked the politics of the last decade and blamed both the Republicans and the Progressives for the state of low-level civil war into which the nation was descending. By the end of September, some polls showed her even or even ahead of Ayotte who was doubly compromised by her ties with the past Administration, and by repetitiveness that came with her claims that only she could win. Voters had heard that one time too many.

On September 12th, the polls showed a dead heat for third with Walton substantially ahead, perhaps the best case for the Progressives given their inability to pass the low 40s.

Walton 39%
Clinton 24%
Ayotte 21%

In a way the even split undermined the efforts of the either party to consolidate the anti- Progressive vote, and therefore even when the Progressives stumbled, as they did when Walton suggested at the September 23rd debate that the due to the fact that the Earth’s limited resources would not support a first world life-style for the entire parent, it was the duty of the US to approach the world economy as a zero-sum game, the message became muddled.

The Progressives for their part, accused Clinton of being connected her husband’s signing of NAFTA, alienation of Russia, and the beginnings of the sequence of events that ended in the present crisis with the Caliphate in Middle East. They in turn accused the Republicans of following a foreign policy in rhetoric that they could not support through force, and were in turn forcing the American people to pay the price. Ayotte attempted to jump on this at the second debate:

Kelly Ayotte: We have no desire to have a confrontation with anyone. But our policy has been, and continues to be that we have obligations. We have made our position on relations with the caliphate clear – we are dedicated to an alliance with Israel, we are also dedicated to upholding a system of values that includes the inviolability of private property, and we are dedicated to rights for woman, minorities, and the democratic rights of people struggling under oppressive governments. None of those are worth compromising, either in pursuit of false friends, as the Democrats advocate, or for thirty gallons of crude, as the honorable Senator from Massachusetts would be happy to sell them.

Walton: The charge that we do not care about Democracy or Israel is absurd. But what we care about most is the interest of the United States, and central to those is a policy that recognizes our actual position in the world. Goals must be proportionate to resources, and the President can demand all they want that the Caliph abdicate in favor of free elections, restore property to oil companies, and embrace Israel, but without sufficient resources, the only response in Mecca will be laughter. Are we willing to use force?

Ayotte: We are working with the UN Security Council as well as other nations to impose sanctions…

Walton: I thought so. Any real effective policy against the caliphate would need the support of China, but we have alienated them over Taiwan, which could be dealt with if we had the support of Europe, who we have also alienated by condemning their immigration policies. We have a government that has followed a foreign policy of demanding everything, and accomplishing nothing – nothing that is but 20 trillion of debt and 14 dollar a gallon gasoline.

Clinton: And your policy would be what? Bow down to their demands, abandon Israel, abandon Taiwan?

Walton: No I would secure our own resources. That does not mean selling off our energy reserves for nothing to companies that sell them abroad. The greatest oil reserves in the world lie in the Western Hemisphere, in the Arctic, and we have made no effort to secure them. We laid down our treasure for a century to keep the Russians out, yet we have never taken payment from anyone else for doing so.

Clinton: So you would offend our allies. Canada of all places.

Moderator: Please back to the question.

The Republicans and Democrats both began an aggressive campaign of portraying the Progressives as dangerous isolationists, while simultaneously suggesting the Progressives would be so aggressive internationally they might invade Canada. That the two messages seemed mutually contradictory did not seem apparent until it was too late. Instead the Progressives returned to their discussion of creating a sovereign wealth fund based off domestic energy reserves while turning the campaign into a referendum on the Republican Party’s Forign policy. By late October, any surge in Democratic support had stalled.
October 19th

Walton 41%
Ayotte 25%
Clinton 21%
Undecided 13%

If two candidates
Walton 44%
Ayotee 39%
Undecided 17%

Walton 43%
Clinton 37%
Undecided 21%

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? April 27, 2024, 04:38:14 PM

News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more