Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mischaDC

  • Rank
  1. Something wrong in my game. I played with McCarthy and won the primaries, but then I didn't get matching funds. So the general election bankroll was: Nixon: $20 million McCarthy: $150,000 I wasn't sure why this happened, so I played again. Didn't win this time. Played a third time and did. AGAIN, no matching funds. Rockefeller this time: $20 million McCarthy: $200,000 I'm playing this most recent version, I'm pretty sure I've matched the settings properly. Any takers to explain this?
  2. when there's people with screennames like "hardrightconservative" here, i dont see why everyone should get all indignant at someone's political ideology being apparant. that shouldnt exempt someone from having a question answered. i havent got any answers offhand, but that's just me.
  3. "and if you disagree, regardless of the points you make, you are wrong." oh man. that's all i gotta say. oh man.
  4. i definately won the electoral college with Debs with all 4 candidates, but came up with only a plurality and Congress threw it to Wilson. Damn. I like 1968, especially because I added Gene McCarthy and whipped Nixon
  5. just a word in defense of Carter here...not to call his presidency a success overall, but to point something out. in terms of IR, people bash Carter for being weak with his talk of human rights, etc. For one thing, remember that his man Brzynski (sp.?) was the godfather of the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan. More importantly, the human rights talk DOES matter. The fall of the soviet union was not a military victory, and in fact took many in the military and intelligence community by surprise. It was brought about, in large part, by the crisis of legitimacy in the soviet sphere, domestic failings which could've been noticed more in the writings of dissidents and authors than Soviet military statistics. Charter 77, Solidarity, etc were representative of this collapse, and Carter's focus on human rights put that issue on the forefront of the world stage, giving America a stronger moral high ground than Nixon's method of picking Peking over Moscow or Reagan's just calling the USSR an "evil empire." Jimmy Carter's Presidency, while certainly not a success overall, deserves a word of praise for helping pitch the human rights issue in the Soviet bloc and elsewhere, thus giving some additional global legitimacy to dissidents. This helps to set the stage where Reagan can be more belligerant towards the USSR in the 1980s. That's my brief word in defense of Carter!
  6. same problem with Debs on the electoral college, won a plurality of the votes, but Congress refuses to give the election to a socialist. Dammit!
  7. Another fun challenge is the 1912 election scenario with Eugene V. Debs. That's a terrific one, I managed to win the electoral college after a few tries. All 4 candidates got +20% of the popular vote, and all got over 100 electoral votes. I was 3rd in the popular vote (TR won with 25%,) but managed to win New York and enough key states to take a plurality in the electoral college. Sadly, it went to congress and they handed it to Woody Wilson instead of my Socialist Party candidate.... "people seldom do what they believe in, they do what's convenient, then they repent." -bob dylan
  8. I would think Lincoln and any Illinois presidents could pass as "north," as opposed to "New England" -- instead of "Northeast" going all the way out past Pennsylvania, make it "New England" and include mainly the guys from Mass. & NY.. There's also inclusion of losing candidates, the which the Midwest has plenty of--Hubert H. Humphrey (from Minnesota,), McGovern from Dakota, "Clean Gene" McCarthy from the 1968 Democratic Primaries, even Bob Lafolette the old progressive from Wisconson. I'd love to run McGovern against Nixon again, but with Jefferson Davis and FDR in the race! Hope that helps a bit! (or just add some Canadian politicians!)
  • Create New...