Jump to content
270soft Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/23/2012 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I like the idea of this scenario. Any more progress? Anywhere I can help?
  2. 1 point
    Yes Oklahoma and New Mexico will receive electoral votes. As for the rest they remain in the USA.
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    I am so sorry I completly forgot about this. I'll get back on it starting now.
  5. 1 point
    (Sorry, as this is an old thread) I am very interested on working on a remake of the Alaska 2006 Election. Do you have any idea how the mentionned scenario was constructed?
  6. 1 point
    Her convention speech was better then anyone that Obama could have given but she seems to be repeating it over and over.
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    A new poll has Huckabee as Mccains most favorable VEEP Lieberman 2nd and Romney third. Mccain has to see that and should have huck in the second tier.
  9. 1 point
    Mised that. I think he should be top tier. But it seems Mr. 9 has made no new additions.
  10. 1 point
  11. 1 point
    Any Idea on Reagans/Bushs cabinet at this time?
  12. 1 point
    Well I kind of agree there and it will be competitive. California will probably be in the red colum or a least leaning red since their boy was there for 26 years. The economy is still thriving though Bush hasn't helped. Its gonna be close but some swing states will be solid GOP.
  13. 1 point
    Its not anymore unrealistic than Al Gore winning in Texas in 2004.
  14. 1 point
    I think that might be the most unrealistic part: The LBJ->Nixon->Ford->Carter superfecta spurring America to get rid of Executive term limits. A mulligan amendment might have been more likely.
  15. 1 point
  16. -1 points
    I'm in the process of making a fantasy scenario, and I'm trying to incorporate an airhead billionaire type as an independant candidate. Not really Perot, not really Trump. More like the Klamp character from Gremlins 2. Anyway, if I set his party's block grant amount to zero, does that then just have his starting money from the primaries carry over to the general election? That's what I'm shooting for, though if I have to do $50M+$50M, then I'll do it that way.
  17. -1 points
    Tommy Thompson's positions need to be tweaked. Abortion should be Center-right, Gun control should be Right, and I'd move balanced budgets back over to Center.
  18. -1 points
    Bob Dole should be a candidate. Finally Bob's turn.
  19. -1 points
    Okay, begun some work on Step One. Does anyone know when the debates were? My initial source doesn't even mention them, except to mention Perot was excluded from them and sued.
  20. -1 points
    Okay, I'm done the parties (except for platform and starting %'s) and all the candidates (except for issues and starting %'s). I plan to tackle issues next, but that should be easy, given similar issues from '92. Then I can do party platforms and candidate issues. I'm also going to search for the dates of Republican, Presidential, and Vice-Presidential debates (I would imagine there were no Democratic debates, unless Billy took up talking to himself on TV ).
  21. -1 points
    Okay, done with the issues. I think the big interviewers from '92 were still active in '96 (if anyone knows of any of them retiring or new ones popping up, let me know, please). I have the dates of the two presidential and one vice-presidential debates entered in (to my disappointment, I've found there was actually no GOP primary debate). I'm done the Dem primary dates, types, and number of delegates, and have the GOP ones on hand waiting to be entered. I think I'll just do the 'all primaries on the first day of their convention and 5 delegates per state' system I've seen in most scenarios for the third parties, as info on this matter seems non-existant, even on those parties' websites. Then I need to figure out primary percentages for the two 'default off' Dem candidates and the GOP candidates, though Electric_Monk's advice on the issue should guide me. I also need beginning %'s for the GE, which SHOULD be available somewhere.
  22. -1 points
    Okay, only the GOP candidates' %'s and platforms (and the default party platforms) remain to be done on parties. The issues are done, the ads, political units (with pop adjusted four the passing of four years), and base scenario stats, are also good. Events I was thinking of were the three about Dole Electric_Monk proposed, and the Chinese and monstary contributions allegations on the Dems. Does anyone have any ideas for other events? Also, national endorsers would be much the same as in '92, though I'm sure some governors had changed, and I do need to also look up those governors' parties, as well as which party held their state legislatures, for the check-off boxes in the GOP and Dems' regional info menu.
  23. -1 points
    I would include TWA 800 and the Olympic bombing as events. I'm not really sure how events work, but I would make some small chance that either of them could make terrorism or some related issue more important. Granted that TWA 800 turned out to be an accident and Atlanta was a domestic attack with the Richard Jewel detour, but I'd leave the 10-25% chance of each of them elevating into bigger issues based on us not knowing. Maybe the chance for Atlanta could be tied into whether TWA 800 becomes a big deal. For instance, if the TWA 800 event makes terrorism/foreign affairs a hot issue (we'll say 25% chance, based on the initial "missile" rumors, etc.), then the bombing in Atlanta coming on its heels 10 days later or whatever it was would have maybe a 60% chance of raising it even further. This isn't assuming that either thing was actually caused by foreign terrorism, just modeling the potential impact that two such high profile disasters could have had during the election year.
  24. -1 points
    Chugging away at this one. I hope to have it out before school starts again (for those of you that attend school, secondary or post-secondary).
  25. -1 points
    I occassionally get that with other people's scenarios, but usually only with PM4E, not P4E+P. I find P4E+P errors are often cleared by emptying your savegames folder (you don't have to delete them, just move the files elsewhere). Try that.
  26. -1 points
    Oh, yes, I'd almost forgotten. I meant to change that. I will upload it again with an altered name, likely 'United States - 1996 - Patine' or some such.
  27. -1 points
    Can you please post the version you have so people can playtest. I'll have a quick lookover of it, but otherwise I trust your judgement.
  28. -1 points
    Anyone tried this yet? Any comments or criticisms?
  29. -1 points
    I'd agree, EM. I didn't want Perot to have the chance he did in '92, and his starting percentages (based on real sources) and lack of real support from endorsers very much reflect that.
  30. -1 points
    Okay, I'm going to make some adjustments and release a v1.2 shortly. I am going to fix the pictures, a few issues, and a complaint by Sum1 on MSN Messenger about momentum boosts for winning later Republican primaries. I should have the new version soon.
  31. -1 points
    Thanks for the pictures! BTW, does anyone know if there were any Republican primary debates in '96? I meant to ask earlier, as I couldn't find mention of them anywhere on the net. I would like to have as complete a scenario as possible, so if anyone knows about such a debate(s), please let me know.
  32. -1 points
    Secession and Fugitive. Beyond that, no suggestions
  33. -1 points
    I don't know that Habeas Corpus was a big issue until during the war when Lincoln suspended it. If you're short an issue, slavery could be broken up into Expansion of Slavery and Abolition. Not everyone felt the same about both aspects of the debate, though it would also be easy enough to combine them into one scale: Far Left would be for immediate abolition of slavery. Left would be for abolition of slavery, with compensation given to slaveowners. Center-Left would be for containment of slavery, with the idea that it would die on its own (which I believe was where Lincoln stood early on) Center would be for the status quo (Salmon Chase, probably) Center-Right would be for the maintenance of slavery where it exists and in territories that want it (popular sovereignty) Right and Far Right could be various degrees of Hell No. That would of course be if slavery was kept as one single issue.
  34. -1 points
    I think he's saying that should be the results of the primaries going into the convention. Assuming everything shakes down as expected, Seward and Lincoln should usually be the top two candidates, with neither necessarily having an absolute majority. I wish I knew for sure what affects the reapportioning of delegates when either a candidate drops out or during a convention (largely momentum, I'd imagine, with relationship and issue positions maybe playing a part. If anyone knows for sure, that would be an important thing to know for pre-1972 scenarios), so it's hard to say how to model the floor fight. I'd give Lincoln better relationships with the other candidates, to reflect that he was the second choice for supporters of most of the other GOP candidates. Perhaps a big momentum issue right before the convention, too, to reflect the homefield advantage that played a big part. The goal, I'd say would be to model that Seward can win with a big enough plurality going into the convention, but if Lincoln is a close second, he can pull it out. That'll take some trial and error, but it can probably be done. Regarding the dates for caucuses (I don't know if the game models caucuses and primaries differently, but in case it does, I'd just say to set them all as closed caucuses), it'll take a bit of doing, but I think we can find reasonable dates for the state conventions. For instance, I just googled "1860 state convention" and found a link to a letter sent to Lincoln on 2/13/60 inviting him to the Wisconsin state convention. The letter itself is fairly illegible, but it is a starting point, and took me 5 seconds. In the time it took to type that, I found out that South Carolina held their state convention on 4/16-17/1860. I spent an afternoon last weekend poring over the Time.com archives to find better dates for the 1976 scenario, and could do the same for this one. I'm going in for surgery on Wednesday, so I could probably do some digging while I'm recuperating.
  35. -1 points
    Abe, Heat, you two still around? I've got the issues done so far, and the map's coming along. When can you finish the issues, Abe? Also, before I finish with Step One, what should the fundraising and money coefficients be? Things were a lot cheaper back then, and money went a lot farther and was worth a lot more, but was a lot harder to come by.
  36. -1 points
    Do I make it harder or easier to influence an endorser by lowering the PIP effect?
  37. -1 points
    So, has anyone tried this, yet?
  38. -1 points
    That certainly could be an issue. I'm not sure what could be causing it though. Anyone have any ideas? I've noticed my own issue, at least in the GOP primaries. Now that I've dropped PIP effect to 0 for the RNC endorsement, it seems to be bestowed at random. I was playtesting as Dole, and Gramm was suddenly given the endorsement. Suddenly, he had 20+ momentum, 50+ ads, and, whereas I had previously been leading in all but one state, suddenly in one turn he was tied with me in a bunch, and in the next he was leading in most of those and tied in a bunch more. I think I'll have to nerf the RNC endorsement, unless anyone has a better idea.
  39. -1 points
    This is the total agreed upon list, though I later thought perhaps having Homestead Act in place of Popular Sovereignty. These are the ones that are done: I appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks!
  40. -1 points
    I agree; Johnson in the Southern Dems is a mistake. I'll edit that, and I've mentioned it in an e-mail to heat.
  41. -1 points
    Okay, how do I go about submitting this to TheorySpark? I think it's as finished as it's going to be.
  42. -1 points
    Actually, that's already covered as counter-stances to the British Relations Issue; basically one wing leads closer to the Brits, the other to the French. Thanks for the idea, though.
  43. -1 points
    That's awesome news. I look forward to seeing the results.
  44. -1 points
    I suppose you're right, Abe. I've nerfed it twice already, and playtesters still complain it unbalances the GOP primaries. I'll get rid of it before the final version.
  45. -1 points
  46. -1 points
    Haven't heard from you in a while, heat. How are the candidates for this going?
  47. -1 points
    I had a thread a while back where I toyed with the idea of New England having seceded in the War of 1812 and, needing military support, joined the British. Then I fast-forwarded to the 2006 Canadian federal election (this was before the 2008 one had been announced) where this election proceded with the former New England states as six additional provinces, and some prominent New England politicians as alternate Liberal and Conservative leaders. It got some interest, but nothing ever really came of it.
  48. -1 points
    Here's a version where I've DRASTICALLY reduced Clinton's initial funds, from 54.5M to 18M. Could anyone see if they have any better luck with this? http://drop.io/rpkpftx#
  49. -1 points
    So 252 delegates. I've gathered that only 20 of 33 states sent delegates to the Constitutional Union National Convention, but I can't for the life of me find a complete list of the 20 participating states, or how many delegates each sent. It would be very sloppy just to divide 252 delegates roughly evenly among 20 randomly-selected states. Does someone know where to look for more accurate information?
  50. -1 points
    I'm maybe 50% of the way through a 1952 scenario, using actual delegate totals and selection dates (thanks to an invaluable source called Presidential Nominating Politics in 1952. Could have been written specifically for this purpose, had it not come out in 1954). Candidates are: GOP Dwight D Eisenhower Robert Taft Earl Warren Harold Stassen Theodore McKeldin (favorite son) Thomas Werdel (ran against Warren as stalking horse for Taft) Dem Adlai Stevenson Estes Kefauver Richard Russell Alben Barkley Averell Harriman Robert Kerr Hubert Humphrey (favorite son) Paul Dever (favorite son) J. William Fulbright (favorite son) James Murray (favorite son) Pat Brown (anti-Kefauver candidate in California) I will likely add General Macarthur, since he had some minor delegate strength. And probably Truman, turned off by default. The GOP side I've managed to get to be fairly balanced and reflective of the way it happened, so I just need to tweak some issue positions and starting money (if there are any reliable sources of campaign spending from that year, it would be a huge help). The Democratic side is tougher, since the South is tough to model, so I've been having to go state-by-state for most candidates, toying with their committed/leaning/undecided/alienated percentages. And if my assumptions of how those work are wrong, it'll take longer. I'm modeling Truman's participation in New Hampshire by just giving VP Barkley his strength there. My goal is for the Democratic nomination fight to come down more or less how it did: Kefauver sweeps most of the primaries, but not much anywhere else; Russell controls the South; everyone else parcels up the rest. Ideally, it should go to an open convention at least 60% of the time. That might take some doing. I used the 1960 scenario as a base because the electoral votes are the same (minus Alaska and Hawaii), and I've been working on some new issues (Korea, Joe McCarthy, etc). I will hopefully have everything ready for playthroughs by the middle of next week. It can be space-barred as a Democrat to get a decent GOP nomination, but there are still things I am trying to fix. If anyone has good info on anything from that election that would be of use, I appreciate the help.
×
×
  • Create New...