Should the Labor Party disband?

[S019]

No, Labor's dominance is nothing compared to the JCP dominance, and with hindsight, I wouldn't have supported dissolution then either, the idea of successful parties dissolving is just absurd. You never hear talk IRL of parties dissolving if they win elections.

[S019]

If anything we might as well on the Fed side just do everything in our power and ability to make the game as miserable as possible for the Labor Party since the game is pretty much dead to us outside of my Glorious South. We don't owe you all any feelings of shame. We might as well keep on offsite recruiting and damn the consequences.

Is this what "A more welcoming Atlasia" means?

No, it isn't, it's a shame to see the Federalists steer so far from their founding principles, do they stand for anything other than "owning the libs" now?

[S019]

Been here long enough to know not to wish for the demise of the other side, for fear of what would replace them.

Imagine if folks has this approach in 2018.

Was just saying on Discord how Labor dissolution was a disaster, but it was kind-of a fun disaster for me because I got to vote for a lot of people who I otherwise wouldn't have because the left was so absurdly terrible.

Sometimes people have to learn things the hard way. 2018 taught the left the importance of a strong party organization that allowed us to regroup after the disaster of 2017.

At least there was a game in 2017-18.

As far as I am aware, the Atlas Fantasy Elections and Atlas Fantasy Government boards still exist, and there were elections held this past weekend. May you please elaborate on what you mean by your implication that there is a no longer a game? Us, the commoners, would be delighted to be enlightened by your grand wisdom.

[S019]

Seriously, if the opposition party isn't winning, perhaps lurch to the left instead of doubling down on conservatism?

Yeah this is the only real answer, I've long said if the right wants to win, they need to move left, a party that's neoliberal on economics, and comes out in favor of moderately pro choice and pro gun control positions, might make some inroads among moderates on the left. Maybe even a rebranding of the name entirely something like "Liberal Conservative party," "Liberal Party," "Liberal Democratic Party" all could be good names. If you want to narrow in on a specific type of moderate conservatism (i.e. ignore the guidelines earlier in my post) then "One Nation Tory Party" or "Rockefeller Republican Party" could also work.

[S019]

Seriously, if the opposition party isn't winning, perhaps lurch to the left instead of doubling down on conservatism?

Yeah this is the only real answer, I've long said if the right wants to win, they need to move left, a party that's neoliberal on economics, and comes out in favor of moderately pro choice and pro gun control positions, might make some inroads among moderates on the left. Maybe even a rebranding of the name entirely something like "Liberal Conservative party," "Liberal Party," "Liberal Democratic Party" all could be good names. If you want to narrow in on a specific type of moderate conservatism (i.e. ignore the guidelines earlier in my post) then "One Nation Tory Party" or "Rockefeller Republican Party" could also work.

Not sure how many moderate Labor voters that would pull over without alienating a large chunk of the party. Which would maybe put them in the middle of a three-party system (likely to end up as the UK's edition of your third name, albeit perhaps with some relative success if they can hold onto "main street Feds"), but I doubt it's effectiveness at winning a majority in a two-party system.

See, in the pre-Trump era, lots of Feds would be defined in RL terms as "moderate" or "libertarian," with only a few as "hard right" and some more in between/idiosyncratic. Post-Trump what is considered "hard right" is more mainstream, secular, and edgy so it's much more common on the forum than the likes of Classic/Ben/JCL were during the mid-2010s; meanwhile, libertarianism has withered away even more than it already was (hi) and the wishy-washy of the moderates either turned hot or cold when the mask came off US political discourse.

TL;DR: there is a wider gulf in the factions, this wouldn't work.

I'll note from 1997 to 2010, the Lib Dems were a pretty serious party. What killed them was the coalition with the Tories as they still drew support from the left, but given Labour needed a ridiculous coalition of chaos of Plaid, SDLP, and SNP, and likely promising independence referendums to at least one, and possibly all three, and how Gordon Brown had suffered among the worst losses for a Labour leader in an election (something like 90 seats), the writing was on the wall, and another election would've probably been even worse for Labor. Obviously continuing with the UK analogy, in this case the Tories are totally eliminated, and the Lib Dems suck up all their votes, then ofc the 2010 coalition never happens, the Lib Dems maintain their base and the Tories vote reluctantly for the Lib Dems due to a lack of right wing parties.

For instance, just looking at the February results, I can confidently say that a more moderate candidate would have won a few more voters and won the election. The goal would be for the Feds to peel off New Democrat or DLC types in the Labor Party, which is plausible with this path for the right.

[S019]

Who are those New Democrat/DLC types that a moderate could have flipped?

Idk, but a more moderate candidate would have also held the right wing defections that the right lost in Feb 2020 which is enough to win them the Presidency. A brand new party system would bring a lot of questions that we don't have answers to.

[S019]

Who are those New Democrat/DLC types that a moderate could have flipped?

Idk, but a more moderate candidate would have also held the right wing defections that the right lost in Feb 2020 which is enough to win them the Presidency. A brand new party system would bring a lot of questions that we don't have answers to.

If you can’t name specific voters to a question like this, then it’s probably no one. This isn’t RL politics to the extent RL politics work this way.

Like Joe McCarthy he speaks of lists of travelers but ever fails to produce the the names so often alluded to and hinted at. Perhaps it is just his shopping list or the receipt from the grocery store he is frantically waving about, we may never know.

Please do not compare this to Joe McCarthy. Also as others said if there was a more moderate nominee who didn't voice support for toxic third rail policies, the right would've won in February. Rebranding as the Lib Dems could also allow for the right to attract center left/center zombie voters from the forum as well as defections from Labor.

[S019]

This is such a strange thread. Why are we comparing fake elections between "citizens" who all know each other to UK politics, especially now that we've all more or less cynically decided that winning elections is less about appeal and more about PMing zombies?

Not only that, why are we suggesting that emulating the Liberal Democrats is a strategy for electoral success? I think it should have been pretty clear that nobody likes these "rich man's centrist party" types and nobody wants to vote for them.

Well...


...sometimes.

"The other lady is a Nazi" really isn't a fair case study. Isn't Macron incredibly unpopular these days?

As far as French presidents go he is reasonably popular. And by that I mean he has what, a 35% approval rating? Big improvement over Hollande's 4% though

He will only win reelection indeed cause he is likely to face someone named Le Pen though

Honestly he'd probably beat a left candidate, given that Le Pen was leading Hidalgo in a recent runoff poll. The biggest threat to Macron probably would come from an LR candidate, who rightists would vote and leftists might become convinced that there isn't much of a difference between the two and stay home. He's in that odd center where everyone hates him, but enough people hate the alternative even more.