Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About thr33

  • Rank
    Political Guru

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Politics (left-wing economically ; centrist socially ; right-wing on immigration ; non-interventionist), Math & Statistics, Economics, Basketball, Golf

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. thr33

    Why is this happening?

    Makes sense. Would you move it to a larger scale (I think org. strength currently maxes at 5 points, so maybe 10)? I ask this because you'd probably want some separation between the majority party, the minority party, and third parties. Though maybe it's unnecessary, and with a quick tweak of org strength value the solid/leaning/undecided tier system would work fine.
  2. thr33

    Why is this happening?

    Would it be possible to add a setting for state party infrastructure attribute (maybe an irl representation of how strong parties are at the state level) alongside campaign infrastructure? Third party candidates who choose to specialize could lower a state's party infrastructure in their pet state(s) (i.e. McMullin, or a regional candidate like Thurmond or Wallace). Either visible or hidden. Not sure if this exists already under the hood, or if it doesn't, how hard it would be to implement (especially given how org. strength and foot soldiers interact with momentum; in reality a candidate could have a high floor performance but low momentum in a state).
  3. thr33

    Why is this happening?

    That's partly what I figured. The AI has gotten really good in primaries, and reacts very well to user state infrastructure and foot soldiers, makes playing as an underdog really difficult. I know that voter blocs/demographics are possibly planned for way down the line, but I wonder how much that could help? I guess maybe not all that much, since it still boils down to each state having definite and persuadable voters. Since a lot of the AI models real life I'd say, I guess the question is, what happens if a candidate puts a ton of money into a state that can't be won? I mean you don't want to go *too far* (recall several of the states Trump targeted were considered out of reach, but in reality the Midwest was ripe to flip). On the other hand, you have examples like Bush putting $10+ million or so into California in 2000, and he only got 41.7% of the vote there. I mean in real life even if you campaign in an out-of-reach state is there an absolute ceiling on momentum? What would be the response (maybe the Super PACs would target it hard)? Just thinking aloud, but I wonder what makes sense here.
  4. thr33

    Why is this happening?

    Oof. I haven't designed scenarios before and I know Anthony said it might be an AI behavior thing that could be fixed, but a few questions: (1) Do you get the same unrealistic results if you turn third parties off (other than the simulation party)? Might be an issue with how they're implemented or the goals or something. (2) Did you have primaries on? Maybe there's an issue with candidates building up infrastructure and foot soldiers in the primaries in certain states in one party, while in the other party those states don't matter. (3) Was there any indication this would happen from the state polling (also does the observer have the max polling attribute) leading up to election day? (4) Is the unrealistic state voting thing just something from the latest version? Or had you been seeing it for a while?
  5. thr33

    Getting new CPU

    I haven't been in the market for a laptop for a few years (though I probably will be soon) so I don't have a particular laptop rec, but here are a couple good sites for deals: https://slickdeals.net/computer-deals/?src=catnav_computers https://www.overclock.net/forum/327-online-deals/ Best of luck
  6. Ah gotcha. I have a pastebin document that I've been adding/deleting from for about a year now (~4000 words), it's all over the place though. Would be nice to organize it a bit (and do research on some topics where I have major holes in my knowledge, like tax policy, our nuclear arsenal in general, Central/South American geopolitics, specific green infrastructure proposals, intricacies of the abortion debate, etc).
  7. lol I'm not quite sure. My foreign policy broadly is probably as follows: • Eliminate engagement absent a direct (military) attack on the US territory • Complete immediate withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan/Syria • Withdraw from international organizations with mutual defense pacts • Meet without preconditions with all nuclear powers to cool tensions/de-proliferate • Reduce military spending to the lowest theshold possible where we can maintain hegemony • Eliminate foreign aid and cease funding of foreign rebels/militias • Have the inspector general conduct a comprehensive analysis/audit of the CIA • End the practice of hot wars, replace with financial sanctions and trade in negotiations • Renegotiate existing trade agreements RE:labor standards and point of origin requirements
  8. That's awesome. How long did it take? I don't want to decide on a length and reverse engineer, but I imagine a proper document would be around 15 pages, give or take (of course I could see it running much longer if someone went country-by-country for foreign policy, or suggested specific legislation to introduce).
  9. thr33

    Most Popular Nominees by State 1856-2016

    It's really interesting to see how the South gradually flipped, and which states held on (AK and LA being the last two I believe). I actually just ordered a copy of VO Key's Southern Politics (in good condition off eBay, for only $7), so looking forward to learning about the counties/coalitions therein.
  10. thr33

    270Soft Forum Hall of Fame of Great Americans

    This is a really cool thread, I appreciate you guys tagging me, but sadly I don't have the requisite knowledge to contribute. I have been reading each page and searching the names with which I'm not familiar. Thanks for doing this - it's a good project.
  11. thr33

    Something to fix

    I've noticed this too. In particular in simulations, I'm seeing a lot of: (1) weird maps like the above (2) third parties consistently doing waaaaaay better than historic precedent (3) massive blowouts in what should be close elections I've never really made a scenario so I'm not sure how the solid/leaning/undecided system works. I've been looking at turnout numbers, if I ever complete the spreadsheet I'm working on, I'll share it here, maybe it'll be of some assistance.
  12. thr33

    Polls randomly incredibly off

    I've seen this too. I've never bothered to pour resources into improving the polling stat, so I don't know if it's a function of fog of war or something. That said, it seems like something that'll be fixed by the favorability update.
  13. thr33

    2020 Election Prediction Map

    Some thoughts: • RE: "Never ____" voters - It's hard to tell, though it's worth noting that there have been movements among the same Bernie or Bust people on Reddit/Twitter from last time against Biden, Harris, and Booker. Though it's worth considering that maybe these voters are no longer reliable Democrats. Regardless, most third party voters, if their candidate wasn't on the ballot, would probably stay home (outside of elections like 68, 80, 92, 96 where someone has significant support). • In the special elections, and in the VA/NJ elections from last year, the biggest constant trend has been that rural/exurban turnout has been way down, while suburban/urban turnout has been close to presidential levels (link). We'll have to see if this continues, or if their turnout numbers climb up to where they were from 2010-2016. • Demographics, as they have since we reached a near-steady state in 2000, will probably keep the map pretty similar to recent elections. Worth noting that both parties have ceilings and floors of support due to increased polarization. It'll be interesting to see ACS figures as we get closer to 2020. • I agree CO is out of reach for Republicans for the most part. It went to full vote-by-mail in 2014 (like OR in 2000, WA in 2010, and CA in 2018), so lower propensity voters tend to have higher turnout, and in particular they trend very young (and younger voters vote disproportionately Dem).
  14. Has anyone here ever attempted this? I figure it would be a worthwhile and challenging exercise, and might be a good way to hash out exactly where you stand on certain issues (and could force you to do research on issues you're not incredibly familiar with). I'm considering doing this (playing around with my House midterm model dataset at the same time so I don't think I'll finish all that soon). It might take a while to put together a proper document, but after it's done, it would probably be easy to update in the future. Some links that might be useful to people interested: Historic Party Platforms from The American Presidency Project (mostly Dem/GOP, though has other older parties that received electoral votes as well): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php Historic Libertarian Party Platforms: https://lpedia.org/National_Platform Historic Green Party Platforms: http://www.gp.org/platform The first link omits platforms a few recent candidacies of note by design (1980 National Unity/Anderson, 1992 Independent/Perot, 1996 Reform/Perot), so if anyone has links to share, would be a welcome addition.
  15. thr33

    Are you renewing your PI subscription?

    I did a few weeks ago