HEM
i did a thing on march 6 2007 and now we are here
Assembly Chair
Honoured Citizen
Citizen
Jorts Connoisseur
- Pronouns
- he / him / his
HEM @ 2:57pm ET: The more things change, the more they stay the same. We are just minutes away from the October 2024 Presidential Debate, and ENN will be covering every minute with snark erm, sharp insights. Do you want to be featured on the liveblog? Just DM your comments on Discord!
HEM @ 3:00pm ET: Okay, the starting gun has gone off! Candidates are working on their opening statements!
HEM @ 3:05pm ET: Vor is the first to submit an opening statement, praising the "stable and competent" current administration but emphasizing that there needs to be "course correction."
President UPC follows, with a very interesting statement. After very softly laying the groundwork for an unprecedented fourth consecutive term (almost sheepishly at times), UPC tacts in a little bit more of a bold direction — claiming that a 4th term would be historic, but that their "Presidency has already been historic."
Ellenberg posts the last closing statement, reminding voters about past electoral bids and leaning very heavily on the platform theme of fixing the war effort.
HEM @ 3:05pm ET: I would summarize the opening statements as so...
Vor: "Anything UPC can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than UPC"
UPC: "Instead of thinking about my unprecedented fourth term, maybe think about how great I am already!!!!"
Ellenberg: "You voted for UPC over me before, and everything actually turned out great. So, elect me this time to fix this damn war."
HEM @ 3:13pm ET: First question is asking each candidate what they bring over all of their opponents. Please take a shot every single time UPC says "210 days" in this debate.
Vor whiffs this question, in my kind opinion, saying that they bring fresh leadership. After three terms of UPC, pretty much any candidate can bring fresh leadership. Pivoting to places where a Vor Administration will do better is promising, but was too vague to really move the needle.
Ellenberg emphasizes experience across the game, but mayyybbee overemphasized.
HEM @ 3:14pm ET: So thankful that Sopo came out of retirement to contribute the most predictable debate question possible, asking about the pros/cons of such a long UPC Presidency.
HEM @ 3:16pm ET: UPC: "I think that supporting me is supporting the next generation of Europeian leaders."
HEM @ 3:17pm ET: On the question of change in the Presidency, Ellenberg directly says the region needs fresh ideas, while Vor contributes a vacuous and twisty answer that could've been generated by ChatGPT.
HEM @ 3:20pm ET: In my view, UPC walks into a little bit of a trap here. Directly asking tickets to explain what their problems with the current administration is only going to guarantee that the next bit of back and forth is focused on the UPC/GK administration and highlighting potential flaws. Bit of an unforced error, unless UPC truly believes there is that little room for improvement.
HEM @ 3:23pm ET: A very feisty exchange. UPC capably handles the incoming and even parries a revealing question to Ellenberg, but presents as a little sensitive to criticism. It's clear that this debate, for UPC, will be a bold and brash defense of their record.
HEM @ 3:24pm ET: The next question is about Cabinet composition, and it's pretty boring tbh. Going to focus on following (and staying caught up with) the various back and forth.
HEM @ 3:29pm ET: UPC directs his question toward Ellenberg in this section, allowing Vor to come up from behind and also question UPC. This could prove to be folly because Vor is presenting as a slightly better debater. Overall, UPC is guiding the debate and coming across as strong (e.g. in questioning Ellenberg and Cord's executive experience) — but also very testy toward criticism.
HEM @ 3:31pm ET: The debate now shifts focus to the WAR WAR WAR
HEM @ 3:36pm ET: This question should be huge for Ellenberg, because a huge portion of their platform is focused on the war and improving the war effort. The answer is pretty underwhelming. Overall, I am not convinced the war *can* be prosecuted better or that the Ellenberg ticket has the strategy to do it. Contrast this with Vor's answer, which is packed with insights — I feel like as a reader I am learning something.
HEM @ 3:38pm ET: UPC has perhaps been reading the liveblog and added "testy" to their Discord display name. They continue to live up to this descriptor, spilling the tea about private conversations conducted with Vor in the term.
HEM @ 3:44pm ET: In the question about focusing on Independents vs. Defenders, UPC makes a very strong case for his record. Frankly, Ellenberg probably would've been wise to let UPC answer first and respond to that. Vor wisely went over the time limit to write a response to UPC, and was able to make some keen points in reply.
HEM @ 3:49pm ET: UPC keeps hitting very hard across the board, this time directed at Vor. Vor asks UPC about why TWP supported TBH repeal, and in reply, UPC says: "I guess I can't be surprised that people who aren't in the room are surprised that we are indeed continuing to have conversations with our I/independent friends and allies, but nonetheless."
It's an approach that so far, has ensured UPC hasn't lost the upper hand, but an era of softer politics in the region, it does stand out.
HEM @ 3:54 PM ET: Unfortunately I am now driving to a Chilli’s restaurant for dinner so am on mobile and will be commenting more slowly.
HEM @ 4:00 PM ET: As I catch up, I think one of UPC’s strongest points so far was in the TWP/LWU back and forth where he shared his “unpopular” truth that sometimes we can’t do it all and have to bide our time when it comes to FA.
HEM @ 4:04 PM ET: Next question was about which domestic area that needs help and we almost got to move on without discussion before Vor ruined everything!!!!!
HEM @ 4:07 PM ET: Vor talking about including citizens in “low key fun” has me
HEM @ 4:09 PM ET: UPC has a much more zen approach to the discussion portion here when Vor simply applauds him without equivocation or notes.
HEM @ 4:13 PM ET: UPC taking a break to mingle with the citizenry, telling one voter critical of his performance: “you have no clue what you're talking about!”
HEM @ 4:23 PM ET: PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NO MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT FOURTH TERMS OR GENERATIONS OF LEADERSHIP AAAAAAA
HEM @ 4:28 PM ET: Who would’ve thought so much of this debate would focus on UPC’s DMs. Multiple mentions of secrets within UPC’s DMs that prove Vor is incapable at FA, DMs where UPC is personally talking with the Future Leaders of Europeia. So much fire in the DMs.
HEM @ 4:32 PM ET: UPC makes sure to tag Sopo as an example of an old hand failure. Pls don’t tag me Im just a little
HEM @ 4:37 PM ET: A bit of a moment of Vor and Ellenberg teaming up to criticize UPC’s record on priming new members for leadership. It came across as effective, especially Vor’s question of why 2-3 terms is needed to get the ball rolling on this front. UPC’s reply is positive affirmations with exclamation points (“i am doing it! i am great!”)
HEM @ 4:40 PM ET: unfortunately i have just been seated at Chilli’s and need to focus on my order. I will return this evening with final, high level thoughts.
Rand @ 4:55 PM ET: Now that the debate is winding down, I have a few takeaways.
UPC seems to be in a delicate balancing act of promising to pass the baton, while also attacking his opponents for their lack of experience, even making a reference to how one of his opponents "isn't in the room."
Meanwhile, the contenders Ellenburg and Vor seem to be struggling to differentiate policies from the popular and uncontroversial incumbent. While these candidates have both taken bold stances against the administration, I imagine the question in people's minds is: Can they achieve everything they're promising? Is now the right time to pass the torch, even with UPC claiming he is more energized than ever?
Last edited:
