France elects president in second-round photo finish

The French presidential election has come to a historic photo finish as Serephin Favre and Antonin Dupond competed to become France’s next leader. The campaign was one of the harshest in history; Favre left nothing on the table, and Duford responding in kind.

Voters split almost evenly in the runoff on who should be the next president of France. This is largely due to Dupond’s appeal to centrists and former President Matthieu Sicard’s implicit endorsement of Duford in his concession speech. However, Favre has done much to contribute to her foe’s success; voters did not appreciate her negative campaigning.

At the end of the election, however, voters selected a president, albeit by an extremely slim margin.

Antonin Dupond (Les Républicains): 50.04 percent
Serephin Favre (Nouvelle Française): 49.96 percent

Despite President Delacroix’s popularity, Favre was not elected as her successor. However, even in the final days of the runoff election, Delacroix distanced herself from her party’s nominee, condemning the partisan rancor that came from the campaigns. “The French people are looking for a leader that has more to offer than attacks on those of which whom they do not agree. I would advise both candidates of that,” said the President of France to reporters in Paris.

This is the first win for Les Républicains (or the Republicans, for our non-French speaking readers) in fifteen years. The last LR president, Manuel Dufort, left office with France reemerging as a world power with decent economic growth. However, in that election, voters opted not to elect the man who now is President-elect of France, instead picking Matthieu Sicard, a member of the French Senate, as Dufort’s successor. Sicard would go on to be defeated in a landslide of 67 percent to 33 percent by current President Delacroix due to a huge distrust of government and a failing economy.

However, in the years post-presidency, Sicard and Dupond became friends, taking pleasure in anything but politics. This ironically became the basis of the biggest shock in the modern era of French politics; despite the fact that the Socialist Party and the Republicans have zero views in common, while Nouvelle Française shares quite a few views with the Socialists, Sicard refused to endorse at all. Many said that he did little to help his friend Dupond. However, by engaging in a denial of any endorsement, Sicard saved himself from the Socialist masses while denying Favre the very thing she needed to be elected without issue, thus propelling his friend to the needed position to be elected as president. Now, the President-elect will join a very exclusive group of individuals that include his mentor and his friend. Only four past presidents of France are still alive today: Fabien Charpentier, the last president from En Marche! before the party disbanded; Manuel Dufort, the mentor of the President-elect under which he served as Prime Minister; Matthieu Sicard, his opponent turned friend; and of course Solange Delacroix, the current president who will leave office in two weeks as President-elect Dupond enters office.

There is much speculation as to who will become Prime Minister under the new President. While President-elect Dupond is a member of Les Républicains, he is known for his bipartisanship and may name a prime minister of a different party to bridge the gap caused by the election. The President-elect indicated that a choice would be made quickly were he elected, but there is no way to predict when that might be.

Some options include:

  • Adrienne Renaud (LR): Renaud is currently the minority leader in the National Assembly of France, leading LR through a period of tough opposition. She is undoubtedly qualified for the role, and a selection of Renaud would indicate that Dupond intends to further the goals set out for France by LR rather than pursuing a compromising approach.
  • Matthieu Sicard (Socialist): The new President could possibly reach far across the aisle and bring his former competitor and friend back into the government. Sicard is well versed in how to do the job, but would bring Socialist views to a LR administration.
  • Bastien Lebeau (NF): If the new President is looking to reach across to mend the country after a bruising battle, Lebeau would be a choice to look at. Lebeau is a member of the French Senate who has become one of the most prominent (and bipartisan) faces of NF since the party’s inception. A choice of Lebeau would indicate that the president wants to mend ties but also believes that he may not be able to win a parliamentary majority in a few months.

UPDATE: Serephin Favre conceded the election to the President-elect from the Louvre:

“Though it pains me that I will not be serving as France’s next president, we must look to our future, not to our past. It is not time for us to become discouraged by the words that have been said, nor is it time for us to mourn for what might have been. It is time for us to come together and support our new president. I have called President-elect Dupond and congratulated him on his election. I also used this phone call, however, to tell him what I have told you: it is time for us to move on and work together. In this call, I have urged the President-elect to move swiftly in naming a new prime minister, specifically one from a party that is not his own in order to mend fences. We are one France. We may not all be Republicans, but we should all have a say in this administration.”

UPDATE 2: The President-elect of the French Republic, Antonin Dupond, has taken the stage in front of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris in order to speak with the crowd that has assembled.

“What a night it has been! I am honored and humbled that you have elected me to serve as your next president. Ms. Favre called me earlier to concede this election and offer her support to our government. I am grateful for her support, and I promise to every single citizen of France that I will be a president for all people. We have come so far since the founding of this Republic, but our work is not yet complete. We must ensure that we have a working environment that is open to all. We must ensure that our economy remains sound. We must ensure that France rises back to being a major world leader, whether that be in our foreign policy, our infrastructure, or any other imaginable category. We must ensure that this country remains good as a whole- something that we can present to our children in good conscience for them to preserve in the same way. There is no nation like ours, no people like ours. We are France, and as a people, we deserve nothing short of greatness.

Many of you have wondered, especially since Ms. Favre’s speech, who will join me in ensuring that France is the best that it can be. I can tell you tonight, actually, that I have not only made that choice, but that she has gladly accepted and is here tonight. My prime minister will be Adrienne Renaud, and she will serve with dignity and honor in a way that all of France will be proud of. While I know that many will be disappointed that I have not crossed party lines in the selection of my prime minister, I have more to announce. I have selected my three ministers of state as well. As minister of the Interior I intend to nominate Matthieu Sicard of the Socialist Party; as minister of ecology, sustainable development, and energy I intend to nominate Bastien Lebeau of Nouvelle Française; and as minister of justice, I intend to Philippe Villeneuve, an independent. All of these choices do not come from my party, rather coming from parties that may have differing views. We will, however, come together in order to form a government that will work for every single citizen of this great nation.

Again, I thank you for your vote and for your confidence. God bless this great nation of France.”

Tight French presidential election leaves left-wing voters with few options

Voters in the nation of France headed to the polls today in what is being considered the most volatile election since 2017 and possibly in the history of the French Republic.

France, unlike Panem, uses a popular vote system that employs a runoff if the top candidate does not reach the majority marker. This year, the only certain thing has been that France was to elect a new president; the outcome has been nothing that is easily predicted.

The race began last year with the announcement of former President Matthieu Sicard that he would seek to reclaim his former office. Sicard, a Socialist, lost by a large margin to outgoing President Solange Delacroix, who is not eligible for reelection to a third consecutive term. Before long, the entire slate of candidates had assembled itself, detailed further below. Only five qualified under France’s stringent standards.

  • Matthieu Sicard (Socialist Party): Sicard running is considered a major win for the embattled Socialist Party. Sicard is the only candidate polls well from the party, mainly due to the lack of talent due to the ascent of Nouvelle Française and Liberal Democracy, a far-left party that arose due to discontent with liberal options. However, Sicard left under a string of scandals, a terrible economy, and dwindling French influence due to his isolationist policies. His anti-Panem stance is widely unattractive as well, but could pick up steam with the Greek conflict.
  • Serephin Favre (Nouvelle Française): Favre was the chosen successor of President Delacroix. Serving as justice minister under Prime Minister Yannick Olivier, Favre emerged as the favorite following Olivier declining a run for the presidency. Favre is popular, but she currently does not reflect the popularity of Delacroix or Olivier. It currently appears that Favre remains the pollsters’ favorite to end up in a second round, but it would be a resounding defeat for the President should Favre be excluded from a second round. 
  • Antonin Dupond (Les Républicains): The Republicans, having not won the presidency since Manuel Dufort won two terms prior to Sicard’s presidency, is itching for a win after two straight losses and not making the runoff last election. As such, they have drafted former LR Prime Minister Antonin Dupond to run, a political heavyweight who ran to succeed Dufort but lost to Sicard. This could easily lead to a Sicard-Dupond runoff once again, and as Sicard knows, second time is the charm on some occasions.
  • Simone Perrault (Liberal Democracy): During the early days of this most recent French Republic, a party arose named Liberal Democracy. However, this is not that party- this one is much farther left. Simone Perrault has a very loyal following, one that she is struggling to compete with Sicard for- and if she can manage to get enough voters, she may be able to find herself in a position in the second round. However, like Tailler, Perrault’s extreme policies may be a bit too much to stomach for centrist and right-wing voters, who would flock to a more mainstream candidate.
  • Léonard Tailler (Reclaim France): The nationalists of France still remain after many years, despite repeated rejections by the voters of the Le Pen family and those nominated after them. However, with the polls the way they are, Tallier has a real shot at getting a place in the second round. However, that doesn’t mean he will end up in Elysee Palace. His far-right policies likely will alienate voters in a second round.

The main issues of the election have bounced around, with the Greek conflict, French-Panem relations, and infrastructure taking the largest roles. Likewise, polls have bounced around; when the candidates were confirmed, it appeared that Favre would make the runoff with no issue and the second spot was up for grabs. Now, it appears that Favre may barely eek out a spot in the runoff with the other four hot on her heels. Obviously, this race is far too close to call at this time.

UPDATE: We can now officially report the final results of the first round of the French presidential election.

In a photo finish, Serephin Favre (NF) and Antonin Dupond (LR) will be heading to the runoff election in two weeks.

Serephin Favre (Nouvelle Française): 20.78 percent
Antonin Dupond (Les Républicains): 20.23 percent
Matthieu Sicard (Socialist Party): 20.18 percent
Léonard Tailler (Reclaim France): 19.83 percent
Simone Perrault (Liberal Democracy): 18.98 percent

Former President Sicard barely missed the runoff by .05 of a percentage point, something that he has claimed as a victory for his party. He declined to comment for this story, and also he has declined to seek a recount.

Above is a image of the first round by department. As shown, Favre was popular on the west coast, some of the area around Paris, Paris itself, and especially overseas. However, her new second-round opponent Dupond is especially popular in the center of the country. The biggest battle now is over the areas won by the other candidates. Tallier was the winner in the north and on around half of the east coast, much needed areas that may tend to swing towards Dupond. However, on the other hand, Favre could gain over the areas won by Perrault and Sicard, which encompass quite a bit of the country and may be able to deliver a win in the runoff. With that scenario occurring, a potential map for the second round may be akin to this:

Such a win would be around 60 percent for Favre and 40 percent for Dupond.

However, in the event that Dupond campaigns well and manages to appeal to the center of French politics, he may be able to secure some of NF’s and the Socialists’ supporters. In this scenario, this would be reflected like this:

As shown, Dupond would have managed to pick up most of the areas that barely broke for Perrault and some of those that voted for Sicard. This would be reflected more in a popular vote percentage of 51 percent for Favre and 49 percent for Dupond- a statistical dead heat.

In the event that Favre is not endorsed by Perrault, Sicard, or both, this could result in a win for Dupond, especially if he is endorsed by Sicard. It’s well known that while the Socialists and the Republicans have major ideological differences that Dupond is at least friendly with Sicard. Favre, on the other hand, has been trading barbs with Sicard the entire campaign, leading many to believe that Sicard may not endorse Favre for a second round. Likewise, Favre’s attacks on Perrault were harsh and sometimes personal; without Perrault’s endorsement, it’s anyone’s guess as to how the vote will break down. A map for this scenario is shown below.

In this particular popular vote scenario, it would be around 63 percent for Dupond and 37 percent for Favre. However, in the worst case scenario that Perrault does not endorse and Sicard decides to make a historic endorsement of Dupond, the popular vote would be around 71 percent for Dupond and 29 percent for Favre.

UPDATE 2: Former President Matthieu Sicard has chosen to withhold his endorsement, stating:

“While I wish the best to my good friend Antonin Dupond, I cannot endorse him as that would be a betrayal to the voters who voted for me. They would not support my decision as that does not reflect what they voted for. However, I cannot bring myself to support Serephin Favre either. While we share some viewpoints, I find that she went far beyond what was appropriate during this campaign, and I find her utterly unpresidential. I hope that the voters of France will elect a good president. However, in this matter, I must remain neutral.”

Simone Perrault, the candidate of Liberal Democracy, decided to endorse Serephin Favre despite the previous spat between the two.

“For all that is good and wonderful in this world, I implore every single voter in France to vote for Serephin Favre. While I much would have rathered me in that runoff, Serephin is the only candidate that will actually represent the people. Dupond is of the old guard, the one that set our rights back decades and spiraling us into crisis financially. We cannot afford to return to those days. Instead, we must bond together- compromise, do what you must. We cannot afford to let Serephin lose. What was said in the past. We must move forward together for a better France and for a better future for us and for our children.”

23 dead as Panem troops enter first day of war in Greece

Panem troops officially landed in Greece on Tuesday, marking the first day of Panem’s intervention in the Grecorussian conflict. So far, Greece has kept to their threats, resulting in twenty-three Panem military casualties.

The intervention in Greece is intended to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of volatile entities, according to the State Department. However, in regards to further action beyond that, the Panem government has remained silent as to whether troops will come home immediately following achieving the goals of the intervention.

The death toll so far in Greece is higher than that of any war so early on in the conflict next to the Panem Revolution. The Panem military post-revolution has historically been very quick and efficient in their war strategy, preventing mass casualties on the behalf of Panem soldiers. However, with this conflict, President Peeta Mellark puts his reputation (and possibly his presidency) on the line. If the war continues on with such casualties, there is a very high likelihood that Panem would be forced to withdraw from the conflict.

Labor presidential debate shows deep divides

Sen. Iris Canstrom speaks at the Labor presidential debate in District 5.

The Labor Party presidential debate kicked off debate season tonight, showing the deep internal divisions within the Labor Party.

Four candidates appeared onstage tonight, comprising the multiple factions of the Labor Party:

  • Former Transportation Sec. Joan Kindred: represents the mainstream liberal view of the Labor Party, championing the vision set forth by previous nominee Felicia Ren.
  • Rep. Sylvenia Denton: represents the progressive wing of the Labor Party, championing universal healthcare, open borders, and is particularly critical of military intervention by the Mellark administration.
  • Former Agriculture Sec. Walter Delta: represents the populist view of the Labor Party, championing the rights of “middle Panem”.
  • Sen. Iris Canstrom: represents the centrist wing of the Labor Party, championing a vision akin to that of previous Labor nominee and ex-president Rick Canth.

All four of these candidates engaged in a war of words against the others, revealing the deep divisions that Labor is currently engaging in at this moment. Candidates were allowed two minutes per response plus an additional minute of rebuttal time under the condition that their name was mentioned by another candidate. Below are highlights of each of the candidates:


Question: The economy under the Mellark administration has certainly improved from that of the Canth administration. However, debate persists on this topic in regards to the sustainability of this boom and the repercussions of such economic policy. Is this a sustainable policy, and as president, what would you do in regards to economic policy to ensure that Panem never falls into a deep economic crisis again?

Kindred: “This economic boom is certainly not sustainable, and if we do not recognize it, the collapse will be worse than the last. The president’s fiscal policy is nothing more than a bandage slapped on a problem that needs surgery to fix. As president, I plan to reverse the tax cuts on businesses and raise overall taxes to a reasonable amount in order to ensure that our government is funded. We must further regulate our economy in order to ensure our stability. We must also ensure that no corporation or bank is too big to fail and we must make sure that no corporation is able to own our government.”

Denton: “Ms. Kindred is correct that it’s not sustainable, but Ms. Kindred also neglects to tell it like it is, as per usual. We are in dire straits here! If we continue down this path, we won’t have the money to fund our government. We won’t be able to keep our economy up and running without a government! We absolutely need to raise our tax rate, for the good of our people and for the good of our country. And as for the banks and corporations, we certainly need to reduce their influence. The amount of money that goes into our political system is a disgrace, and that’s why my campaign, unlike any other candidate’s up here, only is taking money from individual donors, not corporations.”

Kindred’s response: “In response, Representative Denton doesn’t tell it like it is. She tells us all that she is the only real candidate against the banks and corporations; that is false. I can say for a fact that I am not receiving money from any corporate entity. However, this talk of taxing businesses into oblivion is ludicrous. We cannot afford to destroy our business environment. We can, however, hold our officials accountable and ensure transparency.”

Delta: “The whole deal here is that our government isn’t by the people and for the people anymore. The citizens of this country, despite our so-called boom, aren’t feeling any better. I’ve talked to them. Hell, I don’t even feel better. As president, you can bet that I’ll take on these too-big-to-fail businesses, but you can bet your bottom dollar as well that I’m going to be working to make small businesses great again. The little guy has suffered far too much.”

Canstrom: “My plan is this: work to improve small businesses, raise the corporate tax by ten percent, and keep our tax rate low. That’s a winning strategy to economic growth.”


Question: President Peeta Mellark promised that as president he would tackle major foreign policy threats from the Oceanian Empire and other terrorist groups. However, he now faces the nuclear threat of the rebels in Greece and other entities that have stolen nuclear weapons from their stockpiles. Do you support military intervention in Greece, and what would you do in this situation as president?

Denton: “I would absolutely not intervene in Greece, and the President is out of his damn mind for asking Congress for intervention. Not only is it none of our business, it’s another war to involve our troops in. It’s another chance for the Liberty Party to please their warmongering donors. It’s another chance for the President to raise his approvals before we get to face off against him. As president, we’d stay out of it.”

Delta: “I would need to see all the information on the table and then make a decision. War is something no one takes lightly, and I’m not going to feel comfortable sending troops to war until I know for certain we need to.”

Canstrom: “I personally believe that the President was correct in asking for intervention, and I would have done the same. It’s far too risky to allow such dangerous weaponry from falling into the hands of a maniac.”

Kindred: “If we are going in for an extended period of time, I do not support intervention. If we are going in solely to collect the nuclear weapons and then leaving, I would support that decision.”


In this section, candidates were asked individualized questions and allowed three minutes for response. If a candidate’s name is mentioned in a response, they are not allowed to respond as with the rules for standard debate.

Question for Mr. Delta: Secretary Delta, you have a long history in Panem’s government, serving as a governor and as the Secretary of Agriculture. However, your opponents have campaigned against you on the grounds that you have little to no foreign policy experience. What is your response to this?

Delta: “Well, let me put it this way. As secretary, I was deeply involved with coordinating with the Commerce Department in order to get trade done with foreign nations. This idea that I’m not aware of what the United Kingdom or South Africa is like is simply dumb. In fact, I’d say that virtually all of our candidates this election are good with foreign policy- except for Ms. Denton. She’s probably the least qualified candidate here.”

Question for Sen. Canstrom: Senator Canstrom, your opponents have characterized you as an ineffective Senate leader who doesn’t fight for the platform of the Labor Party. What is your response to this?

Canstrom: “I’ve gotten a lot done as leader, far more than any of my opponents would care to know. However, they also don’t see the grueling process of the Senate. They have never had to deal with so many one-track minded people at once. As for their comments regarding my supposed disloyalty to the party line, that is their way of saying that I am bipartisan. I have not abandoned the Labor Party. In fact, I’m a staunch defender of its values, and I’m also a believer that anyone is welcome in this party. Bipartisanship should be a virtue, not a vice.”

Question for Ms. Kindred: Secretary Kindred, you have a long history in the Labor Party, having been the previous vice presidential nominee twice and the subject of constant speculation as to when you would launch your run for president. However, with that comes the attack that you represent a failed approach to Labor politics and that you are too much of the “Old Guard.” What is your response to this?

Kindred: “Just because I am a former nominee does not mean that I am not able to lead Labor into a new era. If you don’t remember, Walter Delta over there is also a former vice presidential nominee. Under this definition, he also is a member of the “Old Guard.” So is Iris Canstrom to my far left. The only person here who doesn’t represent the so-called “Old Guard” is Ms. Denton over there, and she’s hardly fit to be dogcatcher. Just because I was VP nominee to Felicia Ren does not mean that I can’t bring a new version of the Labor Party to voters. I can do that, and I will do that.”

Question for Rep. Denton: Representative Denton, as stated by two of your opponents here, you entered the race as the candidate with the least governmental experience. You are also attacked for what your opponents call “hot-headedness.” What is your response to this?

Denton: “My opponents would say that I eat babies in order to get themselves across the finish line. Look, experience isn’t what is needed for this job. We need someone with a solid head on their shoulders. My opponents are exactly what’s wrong with the party today. They are so incredibly out of touch with what voters are wanting in the Capitol. So excuse my passion and “hot-headedness,” if you will. I don’t think that the scum that resides in the Capitol is used to anything that isn’t a cold carcass.”

We took a flash poll following the debate regarding who won this debate and who lost it.


  • Going into this debate, who were you planning to vote for in your respective district primary?
  • Who do you think was the overall winner of this debate?
  • Who do you think was the overall loser of this debate?
  • Following this debate, who are you planning to vote for in your respective district primary?

The results are below.

Going into this debate, who were you planning to vote for in your respective district primary?

Sec. Kindred – 24 percent

Rep. Denton – 20 percent

Sec. Delta – 19 percent

Sen. Canstrom – 17 percent

Undecided – 20 percent

Who do you think was the overall winner of this debate?

Rep. Denton – 30 percent

Sec. Delta – 27 percent

Sen. Canstrom – 24 percent

Sec. Kindred – 11 percent

Undecided – 8 percent

Who do you think was the overall loser of this debate?

Sec. Kindred – 41 percent

Rep. Denton – 30 percent

Sec. Delta – 17 percent

Sen. Canstrom – 5 percent

Undecided – 7 percent

Following this debate, who are you planning to vote for in your respective district primary?

Rep. Denton – 22 percent

Sen. Canstrom – 21 percent

Sec. Kindred – 20 percent

Sec. Delta – 20 percent

Undecided – 17 percent

ANALYSIS: The results of this debate are largely inconclusive. Voters from the Labor Party have been left with the same divisions and less answers from their candidates than when they started. However, some details can be deduced from our polling.

First, Joan Kindred bombed with viewers. Her response to representing the “Old Guard” did not play as she had hoped. Instead, it played to Sylvenia Denton’s advantage with our focus groups. However, Denton still perturbs many in focus groups with her demeanor. Nonetheless, Denton’s performance tonight helped her, moving her to the top of our post-debate flash poll.

In addition, Sen. Canstrom and Sec. Delta had successful nights tonight. Both played well (Canstrom for her bipartisanship, and Delta for his overall folksiness and his talk of protecting the little guy) on screen with viewers, and both were bumped in the polls as a result. However, Canstrom had the most to gain, rising to second while Delta tied for third.

This debate, if nothing else, complicated matters. Now, polling shows a very tied field for the nomination with the leading candidate, Denton, only two points away from the last place candidates, Kindred and Delta. This race is anyone’s game at this point.

BREAKING: Greek rebels threaten Grecorussian Empire with “nuclear destruction”

BREAKING: Rebels from the region of Greece are threatening to use the nuclear weapons obtained from the stockpile they claimed at the beginning of their civil war with the Grecorussian Empire, threatening “nuclear destruction.”

The rebels, who have declared unilateral independence from the Grecorussian Empire, obtained the weapons upon gaining control of the compound that contained the stockpile. The use of Grecorussian nuclear weapons has been of great concern for the Western world as the Empire remains Panem and other countries’ closest ally in the East. The escalation of the conflict has led to greater concern over the potential use of the weapons, but there had been no explicit threat until now. Should the conflict result in the launching of the weapons by Greece, it is likely that the Grecorussian Empire would follow suit with their own nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, the president of the disputed nation of Greece, Pavlos Katsaros, stated today in a televised statement that “Greece will not back down against the Grecorussian regime. It is time for Grecorussia to become just Greece and Russia once again. What is good for Moscow is not good for Athens. It never has been, and it never will be. Since war is what it takes to get Moscow’s attention, we will use war. If nuclear weapons are what it takes to get Moscow’s attention, we will use these weapons. We are not afraid to employ nuclear destruction against the tyrants in Moscow.”

Furthermore, the rebels issued a stark statement for the Western world, particularly Panem: “This is a conflict between Greece and Russia. This is not a conflict that involves you. Back away, and we will make sure that we do not start another world war. We will not hurt you unless you involve yourselves in a conflict that you have no standing to be involved with.”

This statement received sharp criticism from the majority of Europe and certainly from Panem. Below are a few statements:

Panem (Secretary of State Celine Oswald): “The Grecorussian Empire remains an ally of the nation of Panem, and we deeply condemn the statements made today by Pavlos Katsaros regarding potential use of nuclear weapons. We urge for a peaceful resolution to this conflict. However, in regards to Mr. Katsaros’s statement regarding outside military action, let me be completely clear: we will be entering the region of Greece. We will be locating the lost nuclear weapons, which were either negligently lost by Mr. Katsaros’s forces or maliciously given to terrorists by Mr. Katsaros and his forces. We do not seek to wage a war with anyone, but considering the hostility that has been conveyed by the Greek rebels, we have no choice. There is no separate Greece or Russia. There is only the Grecorussian Empire. Any separation is not recognized by Panem, and it would be contrary to our interests to insist otherwise.”

United Kingdom (Prime Minister Edith Felton): “If the conflict continues to escalate and nuclear weaponry is used by the Greek forces, we simply must intervene. We cannot afford yet another world war. We cannot let the Greek region devolve into a nuclear wasteland. There is simply too much at stake for humanity. So, Mr. Katsaros, be warned: we will be coming for you. Make intelligent choices.”

Grecorussian Empire (President Rostislav Alexeieva): “There is one Grecorussia. There is not a Greece and a Russia. We are united as one. These separatists are not legitimate in the slightest, even if they have procured nuclear weapons. However, let me make something clear: if attacked, we will strike back harder. The traitors will not be able to attack again following what we will respond with.”


Primary debates swiftly approaching as candidates scramble for coverage

The primary debates for the Labor, Civic, and Conservative Parties are swiftly approaching as each party’s candidates scramble to make a strong impact in their runs for office.

The Labor presidential debate will be held first, being held in District 5. The debate, held in a standard format, will feature all four main candidates, the order of which is determined by standing in the most recent polls and will be detailed below.

Delta — Kindred — Denton — Canstrom

This debate will be focused on a range of different topics, but most focused on the economy, foreign policy, and candidate’s records.

Next will come the Civic presidential debate, to be held in District 8. This debate will be held in a traditional style much like the Labor debate and will be the first of two. The second debate will be held during the primary season. As there are only two candidates, no specific placement will be made in regards to podium usage. The debate, like the Labor debate, will focus on many issues.

The Labor Party will then hold its vice presidential debate following the Civic debate. This is the only planned debate of the VP candidates, and will be held in District 11. The debate will be focused mainly on candidates’ qualifications and previous records, in addition to plans for a potential administration. Candidate order is featured below.

Murray — Stemp — Wendle

The final debates to be held prior to primary season will be the Conservative presidential and vice presidential debates. These debates will be held back-to-back on the same night with one being aired at 6 PM CST and the other aired at 8 PM CST. As with the Labor VP debate, the topics of the VP debate will be focused on party issues and qualifications for the vice presidency while the presidential debate will be a catchall of many topics. The order of the VP debate is below.

Oliver — Germaine — Sutherland

The order of the presidential debate is below.

Pierce — Maxwell — Jones



Senator Julie Roydon makes presidential run official

Senator Julie Roydon, the junior senator from the Capitol, made her run for president official today on the steps of the Panem Capitol.

“I will not stand by any longer,” Roydon remarked in her announcement speech. “We have many choices for president here in Panem. What we currently do not have is the right choice. We don’t have a common-sense candidate, one that will stand up for all individuals, one that will make sure that the government is not for the corporations but by the people and for the people. We currently do not have a single candidate who is not an ideologue. We must have a candidate who is prepared for the presidency and also is prepared to listen to the people of this great nation. That is why I, Julie Roydon, will run for president this election, and that is why I will be seeking help from all of you in restoring this great nation and giving it back to the people. Enough of the politics. Let’s have some real citizen governance.”

Roydon is the first Centre candidate to enter into the presidential ring, and likely will be the only one. Other Centre politicians, specifically Senators Clarke Randall and Joseph Garrett and former Representative Sextimus Dalton, have declined to run for president in order to give way to Senator Roydon. If no one contests the primary, Senator Roydon will become the party’s first presidential nominee and will make her pick for vice president.

Roydon’s entry is also notable as it cements the rise of the Centre Party in Panem politics. While the Centre Party has been making large congressional gains over the past two elections, this is the first time that they have contested a presidential election, and according to recent polls, Centre is set to make the largest splash against President Mellark and Vice President Tarson in a general election scenario.