The Value of a Candidate
Day 521, 19:53
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Tyler Jenkins
"Strong"?
For the past week or so, we, the citizens of the eUSA, have been flooded with various media outlets telling us who we should or shouldn't vote for. Some have told us to vote along party lines, while others have simply told us to vote for any party except a specific one. Some articles have even gone into more depth, singling out individual candidates and assigning them a certain value such as "strong" or "quality". But, what exactly is that value based upon?
In a recent endorsement article, it was said that the state of Montana, a state in which I am running, had no "strong" candidates. Curious to understand why I was not considered "strong", I began to investigate further. The criteria stated for determining who was valued "strong" was defined as: (1) "We based this off how often they are active in their party, the eUS forums, and IRC." and (2) "We also took into consideration how well they'd get along with other congressman and the types of arguments they make". These certainly seemed like fair qualities to base a value upon, but still I needed to break this down a bit more.
(1)Activity:
In my case, I am a citizen less than a month old. However, in that time I haven't missed a day of work, have trained daily, have participated in every resistance war I have been eligible to participate in, sat in my party IRC room for several hours daily, held conversations on #usa-chat, posted articles and thoughts both on my party forums as well as the eUS forums, shared thoughts and ideas in many various newspapers, befriended 68 people, attempted to contact 50+ new citizens, helped find answers to questions a number of said new citizens had, and held conversations with a number of current Congress(wo)men. And so, I seemed to fit all the requirements based upon the activity a "strong" candidate should possess.
(2) Camaraderie:
Next up, I needed to look at the second bit of criteria...how well I would get along with other congress(wo)men? The thing that first stood out to me was that said media source used the word "they'd", which of course is future tense...how well they WOULD get along with other congress(wo)men. This baffled me a bit, because to my knowledge no time machine or magic ball has been invented that would allow anyone, much less this particular media source, to see the future. Just how would they know who would or wouldn't get along?
Now, not being a man with every answer, I could only speculate. Perhaps, they were judging how well these candidates got along with congress(wo)men currently. So, I did my quick self evaluation of this point. Well, as I've previously stated, I've had a number of conversations with current congress(wo)men and nothing has ever turned into an argument. I've even been endorsed by the former congresswoman of Montana and future congresswoman of New Jersey Claire Littleton and another group of congress(wo)men and leaders. Surely, I fit this bill as well, right?
My Analysis:
After dissecting this particular media's points, I came to the conclusion that I actually did meet the criteria when it came to being a "strong" candidate. Obviously, they did not. After some time of finding offense, it occurred to me that there must be others out there just like me...not being considered a "strong" candidate in these upcoming elections. Sure enough, I found after milling through some of the comments of said article that I was not alone.
"Apparently, I'm not active enough here despite tons of comments here and on the forums. I would've understood if the ICCCR endorsed both me and my opponent, or just my opponent, but do not understand how I'm not strong enough." -ligtreb
"I still deem myself as the strong candidate in Utah." -Tormod
Even, Aren Perry, the party president for America's Advancement Party had this to say..."I would like to note that there are members of my party in the "weak" states. They are weak because the members above, atleast the majority of them, have not heard of them"..."I've made as sure as possible they're quality candidates for their states, and I stand behind that."
My Conclusion:
So, after much thought, it is my opinion that the only value a candidate can be given by a party/group/media outlet is subjective at best. One man's Number One is another man's Number Two and with that said, I am able to consider these type of articles as pure speculation and most oftentimes little more than a popularity contest.
With all this said, it is my hope that each and every voter will take the time to explore each and every candidate, his/her platform, make informed decisions when it comes to whom they will vote for tomorrow, and take these suggestions from media outlets for what they are...simple opinions.
And so, to all tomorrow's candidates I wish the best of luck!
======================================== ============================
If you care to learn more about this author's campaign in Montana, please click here or feel free to message Tyler Jenkins personally.
For the past week or so, we, the citizens of the eUSA, have been flooded with various media outlets telling us who we should or shouldn't vote for. Some have told us to vote along party lines, while others have simply told us to vote for any party except a specific one. Some articles have even gone into more depth, singling out individual candidates and assigning them a certain value such as "strong" or "quality". But, what exactly is that value based upon?
In a recent endorsement article, it was said that the state of Montana, a state in which I am running, had no "strong" candidates. Curious to understand why I was not considered "strong", I began to investigate further. The criteria stated for determining who was valued "strong" was defined as: (1) "We based this off how often they are active in their party, the eUS forums, and IRC." and (2) "We also took into consideration how well they'd get along with other congressman and the types of arguments they make". These certainly seemed like fair qualities to base a value upon, but still I needed to break this down a bit more.
(1)Activity:
In my case, I am a citizen less than a month old. However, in that time I haven't missed a day of work, have trained daily, have participated in every resistance war I have been eligible to participate in, sat in my party IRC room for several hours daily, held conversations on #usa-chat, posted articles and thoughts both on my party forums as well as the eUS forums, shared thoughts and ideas in many various newspapers, befriended 68 people, attempted to contact 50+ new citizens, helped find answers to questions a number of said new citizens had, and held conversations with a number of current Congress(wo)men. And so, I seemed to fit all the requirements based upon the activity a "strong" candidate should possess.
(2) Camaraderie:
Next up, I needed to look at the second bit of criteria...how well I would get along with other congress(wo)men? The thing that first stood out to me was that said media source used the word "they'd", which of course is future tense...how well they WOULD get along with other congress(wo)men. This baffled me a bit, because to my knowledge no time machine or magic ball has been invented that would allow anyone, much less this particular media source, to see the future. Just how would they know who would or wouldn't get along?
Now, not being a man with every answer, I could only speculate. Perhaps, they were judging how well these candidates got along with congress(wo)men currently. So, I did my quick self evaluation of this point. Well, as I've previously stated, I've had a number of conversations with current congress(wo)men and nothing has ever turned into an argument. I've even been endorsed by the former congresswoman of Montana and future congresswoman of New Jersey Claire Littleton and another group of congress(wo)men and leaders. Surely, I fit this bill as well, right?
My Analysis:
After dissecting this particular media's points, I came to the conclusion that I actually did meet the criteria when it came to being a "strong" candidate. Obviously, they did not. After some time of finding offense, it occurred to me that there must be others out there just like me...not being considered a "strong" candidate in these upcoming elections. Sure enough, I found after milling through some of the comments of said article that I was not alone.
"Apparently, I'm not active enough here despite tons of comments here and on the forums. I would've understood if the ICCCR endorsed both me and my opponent, or just my opponent, but do not understand how I'm not strong enough." -ligtreb
"I still deem myself as the strong candidate in Utah." -Tormod
Even, Aren Perry, the party president for America's Advancement Party had this to say..."I would like to note that there are members of my party in the "weak" states. They are weak because the members above, atleast the majority of them, have not heard of them"..."I've made as sure as possible they're quality candidates for their states, and I stand behind that."
My Conclusion:
So, after much thought, it is my opinion that the only value a candidate can be given by a party/group/media outlet is subjective at best. One man's Number One is another man's Number Two and with that said, I am able to consider these type of articles as pure speculation and most oftentimes little more than a popularity contest.
With all this said, it is my hope that each and every voter will take the time to explore each and every candidate, his/her platform, make informed decisions when it comes to whom they will vote for tomorrow, and take these suggestions from media outlets for what they are...simple opinions.
And so, to all tomorrow's candidates I wish the best of luck!
======================================== ============================
If you care to learn more about this author's campaign in Montana, please click here or feel free to message Tyler Jenkins personally.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
You're a smart man Tyler. You are a valuable player. If you vote, vote Tajori for Florida. Best canidate. Don't vote Anianas he is being retarted and helping win Baja back their independence.
Scratch the last part.
You're only stong if you've been in the game long enough for the ICCCR to know your name.
I agree with this article 100%
I have also been active on the eUS forums, registered and participated in limited discussion with the party forums, have held conversations with leading businessmen, congressmen, and even both presidents i have lived under. My opponent in Virginina has more experience points than I, but I have never heard of him before the ICCCR endorsement.
Tyler, I was on the ICCCR, and I voted in favor of you, if it means anything to you. In their defense, you aren't exactly wicked active on the eUS forums. You only have five posts there. You also only have two articles (this and your platform), and you have zero posts on the UIP forums. It is understandable why you haven't been noticed. The best way to get noticed early on is being active in your party and gaining the attention of those leaders. The leaders of your party can help get your name out there.
Nonetheless, I hope you win tomorrow. You are clearly very ariculate and intelligent. Correct me if I am wrong with anything I said above.
@ Joseph Schmo: While I can't argue with the number of posts on the eUS forum (mostly due to the fact that the first part of my existence has been to learn...then speak), I do pop by from time to time and have logged over 3 hours of time spent on there. As for the UIP forum, I joined the party yesterday, and registered today. My previous party was the CvP and you will find that I have a few posts on there.
Even with that said, I have been endorsed by the UIP party president and many members of my former party. While my numbers may not be considered "wicked", it goes to show that I have been active in my dealings with both party leaders, members, and ordinary citizens on a daily basis. Considering my mere 29 days of existence, I'm quite proud of all I've accomplished and would do nothing any differently. That said, I haven't had a chance to meet everyone I hope to meet, say everything I hope to say, or accomplish everything I hope to accomplish.
Of course the point of my article wasn't to whine about why I wasn't included on the ICCCR's list of recommended congress(wo)men either. It was to point out that people should not base their votes on the opinions of others, but rather take the time to seek out who is/isn't the best candidate with their own eyes.
P.S. I thank you for your support, Joseph, and it's nice to finally meet you.
Fair enough. I wasn't aware you were in the CVP before. I simply wanted to point out the reasons why my fellow council people may not have recognized you as a viable candidate. I don't have those feelings at all, since I was rather quiet and took in all the information I could in my first month or two as well.
I will also say that, although I haven't sat on any other ICCCRs, it seemed this month's council was much more selective. I was surprised how many states were considered "weak".
Tyler - you left the CvP? Come back, bro! We need you!! 🙂
Good luck tomorrow, bro...