Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About lpmandrake

  • Rank
    Political Hack
  1. It's probably not worth going into too much detail about this since I'm sure there are a ton of inconsistencies. Namely, I have trouble buying the notion that a Republican would choose a Democratic partisan like McGarry for a cabinet level position (even as a show of faux bipartisanship), but it is mentioned that Newman was the last Dem president before Bartlet. From watching the Stormy Present, it's clear that Newman is analogous to Carter while Lassiter is Nixon archetype. Indeed, the members of the Lassiter administration shown seem to be quite old, giving the impression that his administration did not immediately precede Bartlet's. But if his didn't, then where is the two-term president that did? Surely he would come to the funeral? And it would have to be a moderate Republican (to have appointed McGarry)--not a hardliner like Lassiter. I think the only thing that we can assume is that the show creators never really considered this chronology a priority, so didn't keep it straight. If one were to attempt to construct a timeline, there are certain criteria that need to be satisifed: 1) 4 Republican presidents in last 30 years (this would include Nixon and Lassiter) 2) Newman the only Democrat in 30 years 3) Bartlet preceded by a two-term Republican president who would plausibly have appointed McGarry Nixon Ford (197?-1979) Lassiter (1979-1987 Newman (1987-1991) Republican X (1991-1999) Bartlet (1999-2007) Santos (2007-???) The other complicating factor is that the cycle is off by two years. Joining up the West Wing chronology with the real history proves problematic. Obviously there's no good explanation for why the cycle would be off, but it makes things murky. Furthermore, there are apparently portraits of Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all shown at various points throughout the show. Clearly they can't have existed in the West Wing universe, so it's probably best to write those off as easter eggs.
  2. Sorry Clark/Bayh: Bayh drops out Guess it's time to default him to off.
  3. I have trouble believing it, but apparently Jeb Bush is opening the door to a 2008 run. If his brother stays unpopular I can't imagine he'd be stupid enough to jump into the race, but you never know. Might be worth adding him as a candidate, but keep him default off. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...0940.shtml?s=tn
  4. The public financed money, however, is just a drop in the bucket. All told, Kerry and Bush raised nearly $700 million and of that spent over $650 million on their campaigns. The public funds made up only 20% of their total receipts. It's just a game so maybe the specific numbers don't matter as much, but the current makeup of financing in the game is not representative of the actual state of affairs.
  5. Is there a list of what historical scenarios will be officially released? Is it the same ones from the last PF? Thanks.
  6. Looks good. It's still possible for a non Hillary candidate to win Bill's endorsement, though, which is just flat out impossible. Something interesting to consider about endorsers: is it possible to make them conditional in their appearance? For example, if Al Gore is not running, his endorsement would be a big boost for a candidate. If he is running, clearly he wouldn't be endorsing anyone else, though. Candidates still to add: Bill Richardson, Tommy Thompson, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich. All have expressed serious interest in running, although Richardson is the only one who could affect the overall outcome much. Obama: I'd replace Rod Blagojevich on Obama's crusader list with his wife, Michelle Obama. She would be a strong campaigner for him, so I'd give her at least a power of 2. His issue familiarity should be higher than 2. Giuliani: He will not have as much money as McCain, I can guarantee that. So far, he's done very little groundwork towards establishing his campaign and contacting donors. He obviously has New York contacts so he'll have some financing, but he simply does not have the national donor base that McCain does. At this point, it's looking doubtful that he'll even have more money than Mitt Romney. Overall, he's being very overrated in the game and in the media currently. At this point, he has to be considered a long shot to win the nomination.
  7. I'm enjoying the game quite a bit, but every single time I've played, I've won huge landslide victories. It doesn't seem to matter who I play as. Al Gore in 2008 shuts out Giuliani (literally). Joe Biden wins 480 electoral votes against Romney. In 2004, Clark takes home 65% of the vote against Bush. And so forth. Is this a common problem people have? Or is there a bug I'm not aware of?
  8. I'd recommend changing this. Public financing of presidential campaigns is dead. Bush opted out of the public system in 2000 and both Bush and Kerry opted out in 2004 (and Dean would have if he had won the primary). The spending limits are simply too restrictive for any candidate who is serious about winning. Give candidates the option to take the public money, sure. But, realistically, I doubt either party's nominee will take the public money in 2008. Even the worst fund raisers could still generally do better than the public spending limits. Along those same lines, I'd recommend introducing a unique fund raising attribute for a candidate. Right now I believe it is tied to charisma? Both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are excellent fund raisers, but I wouldn't call either of them charismatic.
  9. Nice simulation. A very nice improvement on the default game. A few (minor) notes: 1) I think you have Obama and Huckabee underrated on a number of stats (specifically charisma). And there's no way that Bayh gets a 4 for charisma. The guy is a total stiff. 2) Brownback would be a good person to add on the GOP side since it looks more and more like he will jump in. Richardson would be fun to have, but not essential. Tom Tancredo, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd have all pretty much said they are running as well, but I doubt any of them are credible enough to win much support. 3) The endorsements may be a bit overpowered. Gaining 51 footsoldiers is an incredibly huge boost. I'm not sure that accurately reflects the influence of these people. Is Steny Hoyer really powerful enough to swing a primary like that? Maybe Bill Clinton and George W. Bush could, but I think these need to toned down overall. Also, I don't know how to do this, but Hillary absolutely should win Bill's endorsement if she's a candidate. Is there a way to set her default influence number for him to 100? 4) Duncan Hunter is too credible of a candidate. 5) If there's a way to add an independent, Mike Bloomberg would be an interesting option. I doubt he will run, but a guy with cross-appeal and hundreds of millions of dollars to burn could at least match Perot, if not do significantly better.
  • Create New...