Presidential Debate Results and Anaylsis

Strangely, I saw mostly the foreign policy half of the debate, and I thought Kraken won with room to spare. Ogastein really seemed to hammer him on a lot of the issues, yes, but where was his vision? It reminded me of what I used to do when I ran for President. Finding the weaknesses of my opponent and doggedly going after those. That's no good when you actually get down to the brass tacks of governing.
 
Not referring to Ogastein specifically, but I think there are a lot of people who have never been President who genuinely underestimate the amount of extra work it is. It is certainly greater than the sum of the parts. There is no synergy to be had flail.gif
 
McEntire said:
Strangely, I saw mostly the foreign policy half of the debate, and I thought Kraken won with room to spare.
Click to expand...
Wow. Yeah, no. No way. :p

The actual FA question didn't produce strong results from either candidate since they just ended up questioning each other's FA experience, which is a weak point for both. Same goes for the Navy questions, really, although I still think OO edges out Kraken a bit there. More importantly, Kraken fumbled hard in the questions on the NS forums and FC, basically allowing OO to beat on him for long periods without making a coherent defense.

Ogastein really seemed to hammer him on a lot of the issues, yes, but where was his vision? It reminded me of what I used to do when I ran for President. Finding the weaknesses of my opponent and doggedly going after those. That's no good when you actually get down to the brass tacks of governing.
Click to expand...
When you're campaigning against an incumbent, you have the added bonus of being able to criticize the weaker parts of his last term, which OO took full advantage of here. Likewise, the incumbent has the benefit of a unique, Presidential perspective on the region's issues...which Kraken also took full advantage of, especially in the Interior portion of the debate. Both candidates were at times too eager to attack each other and leave the ideas at the door - OO could be overzealous in his criticisms of the last term, while Kraken was clearly overcompensating for the poor showing at the last debate. Because of that, I didn't get nearly as much out of the debate as I expected, although each candidate's strengths and weaknesses are maybe a little clearer than they were a week ago.
 
The strangest part for me was that Ogastein has a chief domestic focus personally while Kraken leans towards foreign affairs, yet each won their opposite. I agree that more questions on Foreign Cultivation might have netted an overall victory for Ogastein, but I also think had the focus been on pure foreign affairs without FC, Kraken would have won both halves, because he has had to attend to both over this term and this gained a greater balance.

The energy and drive both sides have for FC - especially Ogastein, who in the debate rightly capitalised on praise for his good work there so far - is excellent, and I think we can feel fairly confident that that Ministry will receive a solid boost in attention and therefore hopefully success in the next term, with either candidate in the Goldenblock.
 
I also think had the focus been on pure foreign affairs without FC, Kraken would have won both halves, because he has had to attend to both over this term and this gained a greater balance.
Click to expand...

I think it might be because one has been perceived as a disappointment / failure of his administration while the 'pure foreign affairs' (of which I'd argue GAP is a part, but you mean MoFA itself) has been much more successful especially relative to the MoFC.
 
Yes. In essence, it seems Kraken won outright on domestic issues, but while having a stronger showing in general foreign affairs, had a weak spot in FC which Ogastein could hit.

Again what is strange is that these seem the opposite of their personal foci.
 
Anumia said:
Again what is strange is that these seem the opposite of their personal foci.
Click to expand...
Are you under the impression that Krak has an overriding preferential interest in foreign affairs as opposed to domestic issues? I haven't observed that. I think there's an effort to represent the President as some kind of FA hawk to stand against Ogastein who is perceived (in general, fairly) to have a domestic career focus and I think it's pretty disingenuous.
 
Kraken basically grew up in FA stuff as MinComm then MoFA; the domestic stuff he has done has mostly been this term as President but not much before. By comparison, Ogastein has always had that domestic focus, with less emphasis on FA. Neither are FA hawks :p and both have people to rely upon in that area. I would have expected Ogastein to win on domestic issues and Kraken on foreign ones therefore, but it went the other way.
 
Maybe it's just me, but ever since we began aggressively asserting ourselves in the Foreign sphere I've (almost) always purposely voted for Presidents with some strong Foreign Affairs experience (and for that same reason, I've shied away from the Presidency because I just don't have that presence in the NS world).
 
I noticed that too, but CSP shores up that side immensely anyway - undisputed winner on Naval affairs of the four, and a stronger general FA focus than either on Kraken's side. Maybe we should have had a VP debate too. :p
 
CSP's FA experience also knocks his own Presidential candidate's experience out of the water - and absolutely surpasses the current President's experience as well.
 
You said that about Naval affairs though? Whatever the case, CSP is a FA star much more than Kraken so, eh.
 
I can see CSP being a huge assest to Europeian Foreign Affairs as VP. I think his experience and current standing far surpasses anyone on either ticket.
 
Lex has done stuff back in the day, let's not diminish that :p

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top