Jump to content

  • Create Account

    Create your account to start playing!

  • You may have up to 3 characters at once. They may not be in different political parties and you can have only character voting in the legislature at a time.

  • Characters

    • TedderBear
      Isabella Lu, known on stage as "String Theory," grew up in a middle-class household in San Francisco, surrounded by the sounds of classical music. Her mother, a professional cellist, instilled in her a love for the violin at an early age. By the time she was a teenager, Isabella was already performing in youth orchestras and winning accolades in music competitions. However, while she excelled in the classical world, she felt confined by its strict conventions and yearned to explore new forms of expression.
      Her fascination with hip-hop started during her college years, where she pursued a Bachelor’s Degree in Music Performance. It was here that she began experimenting with integrating her classical violin skills into hip-hop beats, drawing the attention of fellow musicians and producers. This fusion of classical and modern music quickly became her signature style, and the persona of "String Theory" was born. Under this stage name, she brings an innovative blend of hip-hop and classical violin to her performances, creating a unique soundscape that defies traditional genre boundaries.
      As "String Theory," Isabella’s music delves into her experiences of balancing two different worlds: the disciplined realm of classical music and the free-spirited energy of urban hip-hop. Her lyrics explore themes of identity, cultural heritage, and the pursuit of artistic freedom. Her live performances are captivating, often featuring her playing electric violin loops over hard-hitting beats, showcasing her skillful blend of the old and the new.
      Currently, she lives in a loft in San Francisco, where she works as a freelance musician and producer. She spends her days in her home studio, constantly exploring new ways to push the boundaries of her art. While her lifestyle is balanced, she is fiercely protective of her creative independence, fearing that too much industry influence could limit her artistic freedom. Despite the challenges of navigating two contrasting musical worlds, Isabella is driven by her passion for creativity, and she continues to build a bridge between the classical and hip-hop genres, one violin loop at a time.
    • Jostein Karlsen, known as “The Frost Giant,” is a living embodiment of Norse mythology and melodic black metal. Hailing from the icy terrains of Tromsø, Norway, he grew up surrounded by the harsh, awe-inspiring beauty of northern landscapes, which deeply influenced his artistic vision. Born into a working-class family, Jostein developed an early fascination with Viking history and mythology, immersing himself in ancient sagas and poems that would later fuel his creative fire.
      Largely self-taught in both music and poetry, Jostein picked up his first guitar as a teenager and quickly mastered intricate riffs and haunting melodies. His musical journey culminated in the formation of Frostwraith, a melodic black metal band known for its atmospheric and symphonic sound. As the band's frontman and guitarist, Jostein crafted a fierce stage persona, often performing in armor and face paint that reflect his Norse warrior image. His piercing screams and elaborate guitar solos have become his signature, earning him respect and admiration in the metal music scene.
      Despite his intense stage presence, Jostein is known among his close circle as a quiet, introspective poet. He draws much of his lyrical inspiration from the ancient Nordic sagas and the rugged beauty of the northern wilderness. When not touring or recording, Jostein splits his time between his secluded cabin in the forests of northern Norway and his second home in Portland, Oregon. The Pacific Northwest offers him a landscape that mirrors the misty, mountainous beauty of his homeland and a community that embraces his artistic vision. Here, he continues to immerse himself in nature, exploring the forests and mountains for inspiration.
      Jostein's life is a careful balance between the chaos of his music career and his need for solitude and introspection. His biggest fear is losing control, either on stage or within his creative process, which drives him to constantly refine his craft. Through the highs and lows, he remains steadfast in his pursuit of creativity, channeling the spirit of the ancient Norse into his music and poetry.
    • Kai Sato, known in the metal world as "The Riffmaster," is a Los Angeles-based guitarist and composer who has made waves with his unique fusion of traditional Japanese music and heavy metal. Raised in a musical household, Kai was introduced to a wide array of instruments from an early age. His mother, a classical pianist, and his father, a master of the shamisen, nurtured his talent, ensuring he received both formal and informal musical education.
      After completing his bachelor’s degree in Music Performance, Kai gravitated toward the vibrant metal scene in Los Angeles, drawn by its intense energy and the creative freedom it offered. He spent several years as a freelance musician, working on various projects, honing his craft, and developing a distinct style that melds powerful metal riffs with delicate Eastern folk melodies. His playing is characterized by precision, speed, and a deep sense of rhythm—traits he attributes to his disciplined martial arts training.
      Kai's life revolves around a delicate balance between the old and the new. Off-stage, he's reserved and focused, often spending hours in his rented studio apartment practicing his guitar and experimenting with different musical styles. He has a passion for painting, finding that it helps channel his creative energy and emotions when he's not immersed in music. Despite his calm demeanor, he harbors an inner struggle with the fear of losing control—whether it’s in the form of artistic stagnation or the chaos of the industry.
      On stage, however, Kai transforms into a powerful, energetic presence. Clad in his signature blend of traditional Japanese attire and modern metal fashion, he wields his guitar like a weapon, commanding the audience's attention with his dynamic riffs and fluid solos. His band, Iron Lotus, reflects his vision of blending East and West, with every performance becoming a powerful sonic experience that transports listeners to another realm.
      Though he has built a reputation as a masterful guitarist, Kai remains humble and continuously seeks to expand his musical knowledge. His motivation lies in the creation of new, boundary-pushing music that speaks to both his cultural heritage and his love for metal. Yet, this relentless pursuit of artistic perfection sometimes isolates him, as he struggles with the fear that one day he might lose the creative spark that fuels his music.

    • Jack Swanner

      By TexAgRepublican, in Characters,

      Born September 26, 1980 Graduated from Texas A&M, member of the Corps of Cadets U.S. Army Officer 2003-2007, served with the First Cavalry Division in Iraq Operated a family-owned timber trucking company Member, Texas State Legislature 2024-present

    • Evie Brink

      By Brink, in Characters,

      Full Name: Evie Brink
      Gender: Female
      Date of Birth: January 14, 1965
      Place of Birth: Roxboro, NC
      Place of Residence: Halifax, VA
      Religion: Evangelical Christian
      Sexual Orientation: Non-LGBTQ+
      Political Party: Republican
       
      Family History:
      Father: Matthew Hawks
      Mother: Edna Hawks
      Siblings: Veronica
      Husband: Steve
      Children: Chris, Doug, Bill
       
      Educational History:
      Bachelor of Architecture, Virginia Tech University
      Master of Architecture, Virginia Tech University
       
      Occupational History:
      Government Architect 
      State Senator for Virginia (Oct 2024-present)
       
      Family Background
      Evie Brink was born in the small town of Roxboro, North Carolina, to Matthew and Edna Hawks, who raised her and her sister, Veronica, with strong Christian values. Her father worked as a local mechanic, while her mother managed the household, ensuring their daughters were grounded in their faith and principles. Evie met her husband, Steve Brink, shortly after completing her education. Together, they have three sons: Chris, Doug, and Bill. The Brink family resides in Halifax, Virginia, where they are active members of their Evangelical Christian community.
      Education
      Evie Brink pursued her passion for design and architecture by attending Virginia Tech University, where she earned both her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Architecture. Her academic journey was marked by a commitment to blending functionality with sustainable design, especially within public spaces. During her time at Virginia Tech, she was deeply involved in student leadership and Christian fellowship groups, solidifying her conservative values and interest in public service.
      Professional Career
      Evie Brink began her career as a government architect, contributing her expertise to a range of public sector projects across Virginia. She played a crucial role in the design and restoration of several historic government buildings, as well as in planning sustainable urban spaces. Her reputation for being detail-oriented and dedicated to the needs of the public earned her respect within government circles.
      In October 2024, Evie transitioned from architecture to politics, stepping into the role of State Senator for Virginia. Her decision to run for office was driven by her commitment to conservative principles and her desire to contribute more directly to shaping policy that reflects her values. In the Senate, Evie has focused on issues like infrastructure development, preserving historical landmarks, advocating for family values, and promoting religious freedom. As a Republican, she has quickly become a vocal advocate for limited government intervention, fiscal responsibility, and traditional social policies.
      Personal Life
      Faith and family are central to Evie’s life. As an Evangelical Christian, she is actively involved in her local church, where she volunteers and participates in various community service activities. Evie’s religious beliefs significantly inform her political and social views, particularly her stance on issues like education, religious liberty, and family values. She enjoys spending time with her husband, Steve, and their three sons.
      Political Outlook
      As a State Senator, Evie Brink is committed to advocating for conservative policies that align with the values of her constituency. She supports traditional marriage, is pro-life, and believes in the preservation of Second Amendment rights. In addition, she prioritizes rural development and infrastructure in Virginia, with a particular emphasis on expanding access to high-quality public services in small towns and communities.
    • Nathaniel "Nate" Yoder was born and raised on a family farm in Hughes County, South Dakota. From an early age, he developed a deep connection with the land and a strong sense of independence, which shaped his conservative values. After obtaining a Juris Doctor from the University of South Dakota, Nate spent several years working as a defense attorney, where he became known for his steadfast advocacy for property rights and states' sovereignty. His passion for preserving South Dakota’s rural lifestyle propelled him into politics, where he eventually became the state's Attorney General.
      As Attorney General, Nate garnered national attention for his hardline stance against federal land management policies, leading a coalition of states in challenging what he viewed as federal overreach. This controversial legal battle solidified his reputation as a defender of state autonomy, winning him both staunch supporters among conservatives and fierce criticism from environmental groups and federal agencies. Despite the controversy, he stood firm, arguing that local communities, not federal bureaucrats, should have control over their lands and resources.
      Nate now seeks the governorship of South Dakota, campaigning on a platform of state independence, economic growth through agricultural development, and the protection of traditional values. His balanced lifestyle and hands-on approach to farming keep him grounded, while his resilience and negotiating skills position him as a formidable political force. His deep-rooted fear of losing control over his state’s affairs drives him to fight relentlessly for policies that safeguard South Dakota's conservative way of life. Married with three children, Nate emphasizes the importance of family in both his personal and public life, promising to govern with the same values that have guided him throughout his career.
    • John "Jack" Barnes is a prominent figure in the Oklahoma business community, coming from a wealthy family with deep roots in the oil and gas sector. After earning a degree in Business Administration, he quickly rose to prominence within his family's oil business, expanding it significantly over the years. His keen negotiation skills and strategic thinking have cemented his reputation as a powerhouse in the state's economy.
      Jack's career has been marked by his strong support for energy independence and his opposition to federal regulations that impact Oklahoma’s oil industry. As a leader who believes in the power of business to drive state growth, he has been a vocal advocate for policies that favor local businesses and minimize government intervention.
      He is a workaholic, often putting in long hours at his company and in his political career. Married with two children, Jack's family lives in an expansive estate in Oklahoma County. Although his demanding lifestyle has sometimes put a strain on family life, his wife, Catherine, is a supportive partner who shares his passion for politics and community development.
      In his spare time, Jack enjoys sports, particularly golf and hunting, where he finds camaraderie and relaxation. His primary motivation for running for governor is to wield the power necessary to shape Oklahoma's future, ensuring that the state's economic prosperity continues under a business-friendly government. However, he harbors a deep-seated fear of losing control—both of his business empire and the state he hopes to lead. Despite his sometimes brash and aggressive public demeanor, he is admired by his supporters for his leadership qualities and straightforward approach to problem-solving.
    • James "Jim" Cutter is a fifth-generation Montanan, raised on the sweeping plains of Gallatin County. Growing up on his family's cattle ranch, he learned the value of hard work and the challenges faced by the agricultural community. After earning his bachelor's degree in Agricultural Business from Montana State University, he took over the family ranch and expanded it into a thriving business, including an agricultural supply company serving farmers and ranchers across the state.
      Jim is known for his straightforward demeanor and a deep-rooted belief in the self-sufficiency of Montana's rural communities. He is a strong advocate for reducing government interference, particularly concerning agricultural regulations. His experience managing a ranch and business gives him a practical perspective on economic policies. A family man, Jim is happily married and spends his free time engaging in Montana's outdoor lifestyle—hunting, fishing, and horseback riding.
      With a vision of promoting Montana's agricultural interests, Jim has entered the race for governor. He promises to bolster the state’s economy by supporting local businesses, fighting federal regulations that harm ranchers, and ensuring the prosperity of rural areas. His negotiation skills, honed through years of land deals and business management, make him a formidable politician. However, his desire to maintain control over Montana’s future is both his driving force and his biggest fear, as he strives to protect the state's heritage from external pressures.
    • Elise Montgomery is a passionate and outspoken political figure from Johnson County, Kansas. At 35, she has already made a name for herself as a fiery conservative voice in local politics. Born and raised in a middle-class family, Elise spent her early years in Kansas City, where she pursued a degree in Education. She worked as a school teacher for several years, during which she became increasingly involved in community activism, particularly advocating for parents’ rights in education. Her experience in the classroom shaped her views on what she perceives as the growing "indoctrination" of students, leading her to champion conservative causes.
      Frustrated with what she saw as the erosion of traditional values in schools, Elise ran for the position of County Commissioner, vowing to "bring back common sense" to the education system. Her grassroots campaign quickly gained traction, particularly among religious and conservative communities. She won the seat and immediately began pushing for controversial policies, including the restriction of access to certain books in public school libraries, particularly those addressing LGBT issues. Her stance has drawn national attention, with some praising her as a defender of parental rights and others condemning her as a promoter of censorship and intolerance.
      Despite the controversy, Elise remains unyielding in her mission. She is a skilled public speaker, known for her ability to stir up emotions and rally crowds around her causes. Married to a local businessman, she lives in a modest but well-kept home in the suburbs, where she maintains a health-conscious lifestyle, focusing on fitness and family. Her marriage and traditional family life are key components of her public persona, reinforcing her advocacy for conservative values.
      Elise's motivation for power drives her actions in the political arena. She desires not only to influence educational policy in Kansas but to set an example for the entire country. She is unafraid to take on anyone who disagrees with her, often engaging in heated public debates and sparking polarizing discussions. Her biggest fear is losing control over the narrative and the policies she fights for, making her a relentless and sometimes ruthless political force.
      Campaign Focus: Elise Montgomery’s campaign for governor revolves around issues of "restoring traditional values" to Kansas. Her primary focus includes:
      Education Reform: Advocating for parental rights in education, including restricting access to what she calls "inappropriate and harmful content" in school libraries. This includes pushing for the removal of books addressing LGBT topics, which she argues are not age-appropriate and go against the moral values of many families. Family Values: Promoting policies that align with conservative family values, such as opposing comprehensive sex education in schools and advocating for abstinence-based programs. Limited Government: Calls for reducing the role of federal government regulations in local education, supporting school choice, and giving more control to parents and local school boards. Community and Safety: Promotes a strong stance on law and order, including support for increased funding for police and first responders, and stricter policies on drugs and crime. Elise’s campaign is marked by her energetic rallies, where she frequently uses her talent for public speaking to engage with her base. While she has faced harsh criticism and protests from various groups, she remains unapologetic, asserting that she is fighting for "the heart and soul of Kansas."
    • Samuel "Sam" Mendoza grew up in a working-class family in the mining town of Gallup, New Mexico. From a young age, he witnessed firsthand the struggles faced by his community – long hours, dangerous conditions, and the constant threat of layoffs. Determined to make a difference, Sam started working in the mines straight out of high school. Over time, he transitioned into management roles, but his heart remained with the workers on the front lines.
      Sam soon became involved in labor organizing, fighting for better wages, safer working conditions, and healthcare access. His charisma, combined with a genuine concern for his fellow workers, quickly made him a prominent leader in the labor movement. He has spent decades as a labor union leader, tirelessly negotiating contracts and advocating for workers' rights across New Mexico. His resilience and hands-on approach have earned him the trust of workers and respect from employers, even as he pushed for tough reforms.
      Now, as a candidate for governor, Sam seeks to expand his fight for workers' rights statewide. His platform focuses on economic justice, advocating for fair wages, improved healthcare access, and stronger labor protections. Though he carries the weight of his community's hopes and fears on his shoulders, Sam is undeterred in his mission to create a fairer New Mexico where every worker is treated with dignity and respect.
  • After you have created your character, you will start with 100 Energy to get started playing immediately. Within 24 hours the Game Master will officially welcome you. After this point your character will automatically receive 2 Energy per hour.

  • Latest News

  • Latest Activity

    1. 24

      Sunrise to Sunset Network

      The Sunset Statement: A Call for Action by: Natalie Clarke King of Prussia, PA– A city of around twenty-five thousand people. Another community was devastated. Two people legally armed to the teeth murdered forty-two men, women, and children and injured another seventy-nine. More children would’ve been killed if not for the brave action of seventeen-year-old Brooke Matthews. She stepped in and saved the lives of those kids. She risked her own life and safety to save the children. It should not have been necessary. Both shooters legally purchased an arsenal including semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. As one senior federal officer according to CNN, stated “This entire tragedy was preventable. They were able to stockpile enough weapons and to wage a small war, all legally. It's a tragic reflection on our current gun laws.” Why are we allowing citizens to buy weapons that have only one real purpose to unleash terror and death in their wake? As I’m writing this, I am struggling to find the words. I look at my own kids, they are going to start school soon. I cannot believe in this country I am going to have to hope that if something awful happens they have someone brave like Ms. Matthews willing to risk her life to save them. Or am I one day going to get a call that will tell me that my child has been shot in her school or at the mall? Why is being a parent in America like this? Why are these the questions we must ask ourselves as parents and be prepared for? All the lives that have been cut short. All these preventable deaths. Another community stating, “I can’t believe this happened here.” It has become too common too acceptable for them to be a mass shooting in this country. How many more massacres of children is it going to take for us to be allowed to finally have a needed conversation about how lax our gun laws are? We did not have one after Sandy Hook and then we had Las Vegas. We didn’t have the conversation after the Las Vegas shooting, and then we had Parkland. We did not have the conversation after Parkland, and then we had Uvalde. We did not have the conversation after Uvalde and now we are here. Are we seriously going to need more victims to talk about Gun control? How many will be enough? How many more children must die upon the alter of the second amendment? Parents around this country must know. Does their kid have to be next for us to finally wake up and realize that we have a gun problem? I do not know how anyone can look at the details of this tragedy and shrug their shoulders and pretend this is anything but a failure in gun policy. We can look around the world, no other western country has this problem, and in no other western country is it easy to buy a gun. This is a call to action. This is a call for us to look beyond the gun policy that have been called for by Democrats for over a decade. It is time that we go further. We must finally do universal background check and closing the gun show loophole, I am not arguing against that, but neither of those solutions would have prevented this tragedy. It is time to bring back the assault weapons ban. It is time to ban high-capacity magazines. It’s time to get weapons that are not designed primarily for hunting and specific self-defense weapons off the streets. But if our nation is not ready to step up and implement broad measures that will prevent weapons of war from being used on Americans by other Americans than let me suggest an unconventional solution. Why is it easier to own a weapon of war than a car. In many states you cannot drive a car off the lot without having insurance. Let’s put in place a national rule that you cannot bring your gun out of a gun shop without insurance. That you cannot own a gun without insurance. You want to own a gun; you must have insurance, and the gun owner should be held liable if their gun is used to murder or harm an innocent person. This would have limited effects on people who are buying weapons that are designed for hunting, or for self-defense and instead make sure that the weapons of war have extensive insurance coverage, designed to help the families of the victims of tragedies like this. There are people that are going to say that now is not the time to talk about gun control. They are going to tell you that we cannot have this discussion after a tragedy. Then when are we ever going to happen Over six hundred people died in a mass shooting in every year since 2020. Everyday three-hundred and twenty-seven people are killed, and twenty-three minors are killed. Last year there was nearly two mass shootings every day. If we cannot have a discussion on gun control after a tragedy, then we are never going to have the conversation we so desperately need because there is a new tragedy every day. Please reader hug your children and your loved ones. Do it for the people that cannot hug theirs today because two nihilistic people were able to buy a small armory before heading into a mall in small town America and senselessly murder mothers, daughters, sons, fathers, brothers, sisters, and friends. (This article contains a list of every person who lost their life in the shooting)
      Blake in The Fourth Estate
    2. 24

      Sunrise to Sunset Network

      The Sunset Statement: The Women Shine While the Men Have a Schoolyard Brawl by: John Baker Los Angeles - That sure was something. Tonight's Democratic Debate hosted by MSNBC, moderated by Rachael Maddow and Chris Haynes between Osiris Storm, Hannah Kahiona, Raphael Coleman, and Mary Calloway-Kincaid got off to a heated start and never really cooled off. The clash between Senators Coleman and Storm put the Ukraine debate in last night's Republican debate to shame. The first question concerned the massacre that happened earlier today in Pennsylvania. Senator Storm started the debate out, giving his prayers for the lives lost in the King of Prussia mall. He pledged to enact Universal background checks, reinstate the assault weapons ban, among other gun control measures. He stated that he would support a mandatory gun buy-back program in a response to a question by Chris Hayes. Senator Calloway-Kincaid was up next and started by expressing her condolences for the families and communities affected by the mass shooting. She made a direct call for action stating "We’ve seen far too many moments of silence, too many vigils. The time for thoughts and prayers alone is over—we need action, and we need it now." She would call for commonsense reforms but would not specify specifical policies in her initial response. Senator Coleman was up next, he skipped over the pleasantries and dived straight into the question calling gun violence a pervasive issue. He stated he supported a few gun control measures but stated he opposed a mandatory buy-back program instead of a voluntary one. Finally for the starting statements Senator Kahiona spoke next, she would start by sending her thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families for the mass shooting. Her statement was the most touching and personal of the set. Talking about her children was a nice touch. She landed in a similar spot to Colemand supporting a lot of the same policies but backing the assault weapons ban. Though she was quiet on a buyback program. She also called for us to do better on gun control. Rachael Maddow would stir the pot explicitly by pointing out the policy disagreement on if the buyback program should be mandatory between Coleman and Storm. The first of many flare ups between the two. Senator Storm called to get guns off the streets whereas Coleman called a Mandatory buyback program divisive. Storm hit back stating that Coleman isn't serious about cleaning up our streets. Coleman got the final response telling Storm to take a seat and watch him before talking up his bipartisan record. I think the line would've been more effective had Senator Coleman appeared more Presidential during the rest of the debate. Getting the last work on the question Senator Calloway-Kincaid provided more details to her plan, stating that she supported traditional democrat gun control positions. The exchange would become a preview of the whole night, Senator Storm and Coleman having direct attacks against each other while the other two sit back and come off looking presidential and even-tempered. Overall Kahiona's answer was the best combining the best received statement on the tragedy and landing at fairly typical democratic policy. The next question was my first question of the night, and it drew the ire of people on Twitter. I appreciate that neither side approved of my questions. It shows that I did a solid job. Either way it was directed at Senator Coleman asking about his immigration policy that is quite similar to the one spouted by President Trump and Senator Koenig. His answer likely didn't make him any friends with the California delegation comparing immigration to bleeding as if it is a negative thing that people want to come here and make a better life for themselves. It also is not clear what non-essential migration is. Are we going to see tourists prevented entry during this shut down. He called every state a border state, so are airports being closed as well? Because the negative economic impacts of those cannot be overstated, thousands if not millions of people would lose their jobs. That's without even addressing the fact that certain industries rely on migrant workers that will do jobs that Americans do not want to do. Senator Kahiona answered next, and her response was on point stating "That sounds like the bureaucratic version of trying to fix a leaky faucet by turning off the water to the whole house," before going on to say that a closure of the border will create another crisis. She also called the plan straight out of the MAGA movement. Osiris Storm spoke next; he focused on comprehensive immigration reform starting with appeals on DACA and DAPA, and a pathway to citizenship before moving to a line about deporting criminals. He would talk about combating drug cartels as well in his answer. Calloway-Kincaid spoke last starting with a spicy statement calling his plan to close the border un-American. She also was the only candidate to state a strong support for the American legacy of being a nation of immigrants. She called for securing the border while remaining a beacon of hope for those seeking a better life. Coleman would respond by trying to defend his plan against attacks calling for reforms to be made while he closes the border. Storm would respond first against Coleman's rebuttal. He would also call the plan un-American, stating it goes against the very ideals that built this country. He concluded his statement by saying that Senator Coleman doesn't offer a true plan to fix the border or immigration just fox news talking points. Senator Kahiona would join in on the attack further stressing that this policy would create a crisis and does not solve the current one. Coleman would jump in with a quick line about not hearing anything but the same platitude before Storm quickly cut in calling the plan a sellout. Kahiona would soon follow suit stating that Coleman's plan would make things 100 times worse. Coleman then flippantly stated that Storm's plan won't pass before Storm said that Coleman's plan is a non-starter for his own party. Calloway-Kincaid would cut in stating that Coleman's plan goes against what this country stands for. In this section, it was one of the few where I would put Storm in the winning column but only by a little bit. The petty fighting was schoolyard in this section. However, Calloway-Kincaid sits in the winner column more clearly. She got very little heat, and her plan was generally well received. However, the best of both worlds was Kahiona. While getting into the fray she stayed away from the schoolyard nature of the fighting and instead focused on the policy debate. Finally, Coleman lost while his policy might be pragmatic for a general election audience. His flippant responses to criticisms are going to hurt his polling on strong leader and it's hard to undersell how unpopular his plan is likely to be with Democrats. A Pew Research Study found that 64% of Democrats want to make it easier for asylum seekers. But that is just an example. Democrats are much more likely to be pro-immigration. The next topic started with a question by Vox, who asked about the Trump tariffs. Calloway-Kincaid started us off with opposing the Trump Tariffs. She highlighted that they have driven up costs for consumers and manufacturers. They also have severely hurt farmers. In a follow-up she clarified that she would repeal the tariffs but expressed a commitment to renegotiate trade agreements to support American manufacturers. Senator Kahiona went next and started her response off with an attack to the framing of the question. A fair one, the Tax foundation favors Libertarian policy positions. Afterwards she moved on to answering the question in favor of repealing the tariffs before moving on to providing details on her plan to fight inflation. Including a higher minimum wage, a wealth tax and closing corporate welfare tax loopholes. Then she laid out a few of her policies to help working Americans including affordable childcare, healthcare, education, and housing. She also attacked the Trump tax cuts as tickle down economics. While moving off from talking about tariffs, the answer is a great answer for a debate, it hits what the people at home are looking for. People watching want lower prices. Coleman was the one to answer, he promised a review of the tariffs and to negotiate fair trade deals. Overall, an answer is designed not to win votes but to avoid losing any. Following this up Senator Storm spoke next, and it was much of the same as his opponents, hitting the points that the tariffs are bad but that we need fair trade. After the initial responses in one of the only shows of unity of the night, each of them agreed that they support the other candidates economic plan and that the Republicans have no plan. This was a minor missed opportunity; we really could've seen on of the candidates show a bit of aggression against the other party because Senator Koenig backed across the board tariffs on everything. Which would make inflation much worse not better. This would've really helped contrast with a Republican and showed that someone is ready for the general election. However, on the topic I don't think that anyone really lost, it was all decent answers. Maybe will cause a bit of blowback in sections of the rust belt but also fair trade really works there so it is a real missed bag. However, Kahiona's movement to an economic issue, that the whole country cares about, is likely the best answer of the four. We then moved onto my second question of the night, which was about healthcare and was directed at Senator Calloway-Kincaid. In her answer she backed expanding Medicare and a public option. Two proposals that were not in her platform. But she did make an appeal to achieving universal coverage. Osiris Storm introduced a Catastrophic coverage card system that I noticed didn't seem to get a reaction. It is likely that's because people are unsure exactly what he's talking about. He certainly already has an uphill battle on just getting people to understand what his plan actually is. Coleman responded afterwards backing a public option through Medicare and sticking with the union health plan line. To his credit Coleman's answer was much more measured in his disagreements with his colleagues than his other answers. From the point that everyone answered two battles started to take place between Senator Storm and Coleman, no surprise there, but also between Calloway-Kincaid and Kahiona. For the latter the batter was over the existence of private insurance companies operating as middlemen who are driving costs up vs Calloway-Kincaid's trying to see a wholesale fix. I found this exchange a bit odd from Calloway-Kincaid because she seemed to go on offense against a public option despite supporting a public option and attacking a supporter of Medicare-for-all. For the other healthcare exchange between Storm and Coleman, who were this time trying to be more respectful, until the final jab from Senator Storm. Both basically tried to attack the other for not having plans grounded. Though the final jab from Storm about offering cynicism brought back the nasty fighting. The healthcare debate is probably the biggest example of speaking to your base. Calloway-Kincaid and Coleman fighting for the general reform option, Kahiona sweeping up the progressives, and Storm left on an island proposal a policy that doesn't resonate with anyone. Then we moved onto Gaza, Senator Coleman would start. His statement was designed to invoke the ideas of supporting Palestine but carefully worded that he didn't immediately seem anti-Israel. Storm followed up immediately going on offense against Coleman, surprising no one, but he attacked Senator Coleman's lack of foreign policy in his platform and insinuated that Coleman is unprepared for that part of the job. While he made a strong support of Israel he called for a humanitarian ceasefire and that he'd pursue a two-state solution. Kahiona spoke next immediately making an appeal to two of the more important senate endorsements in Sarah Avraham and Truman Sizemore by referencing October 7th, she did the strongest immediate defense of Israel of all the candidates while also covering her tracks with support of innocent Palestinian civilians that have been caught in the crossfire. Calloway-Kincaid was the last to speak and overlapped considerably with Senator Storm on diplomatic push for a two-state solution and aid. Though like Senator Coleman made references that could be read as Israel breaking international law. Senator Storm made references that him and Calloway-Kincaid and Kahiona agreed with him a lot. Though immediately afterwards the Coleman entered with one of his strongest attacks on Storm of the night and did make an appeal that certainly is going to make the Palestinian crowd happier than the Israeli crowd. Senator Storm then expanded on his comments about support, taking another shot at Coleman by stating the other two candidates had a plan. Clearly implying that Coleman did not. From there the two candidates devolved into a squabble. Storm insisted that Coleman wait his turn, while Coleman stated that Storm was blowing a lot of hard hair. Calloway-Kincaid then cut in to insist that her and Kahiona be giving some time. Kahiona then spoke next, with her strongest attack line of the night pointing out that she was the only candidate to speak at the Stand with Israel Rally at the University of Pennsylvania, and stated "[M]ost of the candidates on this stage up until this point have been silent on the Israel-Palestine conflict because they’re afraid of offending one side or the other. But leadership isn’t about playing it safe. It's about having the courage to stand up for what's right, even when it’s complicated. The Next President of the United States cannot be silent on these issues like they all have been. " A very good line targeting the other candidates' decision to stay on the sidelines. In fact, Kahiona was the only candidate, republican or democrat to attend the rally. We finished up with both Storm and Calloway-Kincaid reiterating their positions. On Gaza I think Kahiona stood out because she had credentials that stood out and already is associated with the Israel side of the issue, it also helped that while Senator Storm's answers were good his fight with Coleman undercut both of their positions. Calloway-Kincaid did well and seemed well measured. Then we moved onto another question from Vox, about legalization of marijuana certainly a policy that polls well. Kahiona started her answer first agreeing to legalization and calling the war on drugs a failure. She took the time to stress that she would crackdown on hard drugs like fentanyl and the drug traffickers that are bringing them here. Calloway-Kincaid quickly answered next, committing to ending the war on drugs, and pointing out how it has disproportionally affected Hispanic and African American communities. She also committed to declassifying marijuana. Storm followed suit and took a similar vein to Kahiona in agreeing to ending the war on drugs and legalization but took the opportunity to state he would work hard to crackdown on the fentanyl trade. He also pledged SBA support to weed dispensaries. Finally, Senator Coleman agreed with the above. Making it the least divisive topic of the night. Though I did notice he excluded Senator Storm in praising policy positions, I'm sure this was just a mistake. I do not think there was really a winner for this section. With my final question, I pushed us to the minimum wage. Pointing out that Senator Storm's fifteen-dollar minimum wage proposal is lower when adjusted for inflation than Hillary Clinton's in 2016. He avoided answering the questions but instead chose to endorse the fifteen-dollar minimum wage and then pivot towards inflation and making things more affordable. I think the pivot is a little weaker when discussing the minimum wage because it is an issue that at least democratic voters care strongly about. Calloway-Kincaid followed it up and endorsed a divided minimum wage with a different rate for large businesses at twelve dollars, and nine dollars for small businesses. A choice that is going to need more details on how you prevent large corporations from exploiting. Kahiona immediately followed by supporting the seventeen dollar minimum wage. She took a chance to call the current minimum wage a poverty wage and talked about the economic positives of a higher minimum wage. Coleman spoke next and directly took the chance to attack Calloway-Kincaid's position calling for us to do better, and to be fair to him. The Senate is debating a thirteen dollar minimum wage currently. Coleman also called for aiming higher for fifteen, a much more measured attack on Senator Storm. Kahiona and Storm each took their chances to attack Calloway-Kincaid's position. While her defense would've been okay, she undercut her position considerably given a Republican proposed the thirteen dollar minimum wage amendment, and bills don't need two-thirds of the Senate to support it to pass. A little head scratching and a point that will pass around Democratic circles for a bit. In this section, Calloway-Kincaid is the loser due to being attacked by all the other candidates and undercutting her own defense. Overall, the debate was one with two stories. The constant clashes between Senator Storm and Senator Coleman and the dignified, even Presidential performances of Calloway-Kincaid and Kahiona. There was some space between the women and the men. Kahiona won the debate with Calloway-Kincaid a close second. In the clash between Senator Storm and Senator Coleman I think that Senator Coleman does come out slightly ahead, while especially early on his clashes with Storm have him coming off very flippant and dismissive, and he lost the immigration section, his performance improved in the second half where generally Storm was the more flippant of the two. Storm's also lack a base of support on the healthcare issue also backfires on him a bit. Also factoring in the Gaza answer where Storm is competing with the other two candidate for the Israel crowd, whereas Coleman basically swept up ones more inclined to support Palestine. As we look forward to the convention how will the candidates adjust their campaigns based on their debate performances?
      • 1
      • Like
      Blake in The Fourth Estate
    3. 1

      Allergic to Adulting

      Song Quality: 44 Starting Song Buzz: 69.5
      TedderBear in Songs

  • Upcoming Events

×
×
  • Create New...