Jump to content
270soft Forum
mahaadoxyz

All-Star Presidential Race

Recommended Posts

I think I remember seeing a version of this in the old P4E game, but I think the possibilities are much more exciting in the new version.

The basic idea is this: the space-time continuum is basically annihilated, but somehow the American electoral system remains intact. Or, more to the point, the choice of candidates is not limited by time. So all the various parties have all the Presidents they've ever elected available to run. The result is primaries between all the Presidents of a given Party that there have ever been.

Candidates/Parties:

This is the easy part.

Democratic Party: Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama (16 candidates)

Republican Party: Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush (18 candidates)

Democratic-Republican Party: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Q. Adams (4 candidates)

Whig Party: William Harrison, Zachary Smith, Millard Fillmore (3 candidates)

Federalist Party: George Washington, John Adams (2 candidates)

The only problem I can see is, are you allowed to have 18 candidates in one party? I think I remember that there are only 16 colors... If there's a limit of 16, I would have to leave out two...

Electoral Landscape:

I've come up with an allocation of House seats, and therefore EVs, based on the total number of historical House seats allocated. I would assume I would use that.

The bigger question about the electoral landscape would be what the electorate would look like. Would it be the 2009 electorate? Or some approximation of a historical-aggregate electorate? And how would party loyalties be divided up? Would the South be Democratic? Or Republican?

Endorsers:

I have no idea even what the concept is with timeless endorsers...

Primary Dates:

Given that such a primary has never happened and will never happen, there's no model for what the primary calendar would look like.

Candidate Strengths:

Otherwise known as the fun part. Both ideas about strengths within each primary and ideas about how the general election would shape up, or maybe how it would vary with the different candidates (I think you can do that with the bonuses, right?) would be much appreciated. My basic thoughts:

Democrats

I would say FDR would have to be the front-runner. I would think JFK and Jackson would each be fairly powerful candidates, followed maybe by LBJ, Clinton... most of the antebellum Dems would be quite weak. There haven't been any Democratic Presidents from the West, so I don't necessarily know how that half of the country would shake out.

Republicans

Reagan vs. Lincoln as the main match-up, with Lincoln controlling the North-East and Reagan fairly strong everywhere else. Teddy Roosevelt would be strong in the West; the Bushes stronger in the South, along with maybe Nixon? The ones between Lincoln and Roosevelt would probably be pretty weak.

Democratic-Republicans

Jefferson would basically lead, though John Q. Adams would be strong in the North-East since he's the only one of them from there.

Whigs

No idea. They're all weak candidates.

Federalists

Washington would probably be leading every state. Maybe Adams winning in New England.

General Election

It all depends, doesn't it, on the match-up? Lincoln vs. Jackson would be very different from Kennedy vs. Reagan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh: issues. They've changed over time. How to deal with that? Are there any that have always been there? Any that form a neat fusion? (I can imagine, for instance, a Civil Rights issue where the Right and Far-Right positions are explicitly pro-slavery...) Any other ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best way to compare the various Presidents would probably be on their general philosophies. Like, have an issue called "foreign affairs" and you could put Jefferson to the left as a non-interventionist and like, Polk could be to the right. Just judge basic philosophical alignments on various issues, from banking/regulation, to state's rights vs. federalism, foreign affairs, social order, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually got a slate of issues:

Civil Liberties

Civil Rights (includes slavery)

Corporations

Education

Environment

Feminism

Internationalism

Immigration

Labor

Military

Morals and Religion

Native Americans

Regulation

Spending

Tariffs

Taxation

War

Welfare

I think all of those actually work pretty well across time; obviously for some of them, the very most liberal candidates from the early 19th century are well rightwards of the very most reactionary from the late 20th.

Honestly, at this point I think my biggest problem is endorsers and maybe what to make the general election landscape look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking of doing a B-list version next, with competition among failed Presidential nominees. I think it makes more sense to keep them separate; otherwise you'd have thirty-five Democrats! Also, for the failed nominees one, I could include third-party candidates, though I think I would limit it to those who got at least 1% of the popular vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking of doing a B-list version next, with competition among failed Presidential nominees. I think it makes more sense to keep them separate; otherwise you'd have thirty-five Democrats! Also, for the failed nominees one, I could include third-party candidates, though I think I would limit it to those who got at least 1% of the popular vote.

That would still give you a lot, maybe consider only those who won an Electoral Vote. This way less Nader and more Teddy Roosevelt.

As for endorsers:

-National and Statewide Parties (I assume its a 4 party race with Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, and Federalists)

-Other countries' governments. It's an unrealistic scenario, so why not let Britain, Canada, and Mexico endorse?

-Issue orgs. The KKK and NAACP can endorse on civil rights for example.

-Oprah. Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National and statewide parties I like, and hadn't thought of. I don't really think so about other countries, though I could be convinced. Issue organizations, definitely. Oprah, meh.

Another thought I've had goes as follows: I have a list, which of course was just subjectively compiled by me, of an All-Star Congress, which was basically me going through each state's congressional delegations and picking out an appropriate number of most outstanding Senators (2) or Representatives (using the same apportionment formula I'm using here). I've also done the same for Governors. I've liked having Congressmen and Governors be endorsers on other, more realistic versions of the game; I think it might be neat to have that here, using what I admit is the utterly non-authoritative All-Star lists I have compiled.

As for general election strengths, what I'm thinking is, for the Democrats and Republicans, is to make their starting percentages in each state just the average of their popular vote totals in that state each year they were on the ballot, in terms of percentage. This might also work for the Whigs. It doesn't work for Federalists or Democratic-Republicans, who are pre-popular vote. Furthermore, all three "minor" parties here went extinct long before many states were voting for President. Should I perhaps limit parties to those states that they ever competed in? It wouldn't technically prevent, say, Washington from winning the Presidency; the electoral vote totals are such that if he won every state he was eligible for he would win a majority. I think I like that idea, actually... it would make it a nice challenge, trying to win as Washington, though not impossible, probably, since his attributes would be essentially all fives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would still give you a lot, maybe consider only those who won an Electoral Vote. This way less Nader and more Teddy Roosevelt.

As for endorsers:

-National and Statewide Parties (I assume its a 4 party race with Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, and Federalists)

-Other countries' governments. It's an unrealistic scenario, so why not let Britain, Canada, and Mexico endorse?

-Issue orgs. The KKK and NAACP can endorse on civil rights for example.

-Oprah. Why not?

I'd generally agree on B-List scenario Third Party candidates generally having taken electoral votes, like Teddy Rosevelt, George Wallace, and John Bell, for instance, but I would include Perot, just because at one point in '92 he was polling above both Clinton and Bush, and he was well above 5% on election night in both '92 and '96, a big achievement for a modern Third Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had been planning only to include Presidential candidates who were never President. Or maybe, I mean, one could give Teddy a special exemption because he ran and lost under a different Party from the one he ran and won under.

The other thing I wonder about is, like, there are people who competed for nominations many times, or even just one prominent time, like RFK, Ted Kennedy, Gene McCarthy, but never were a candidate in the general election. Maybe a C-list scenario, too? Whatever; for now I'm just working on getting the A-list one finished. I've got the Democratic Party basically set, and most of the Republican candidates in place (only missing the ones with about 2% support...), and I'm doing a trial run-through. After that I'll finish up the GOP, add Federalists, D-Rs, and Whigs, and then put in endorsers and maybe try to figure out how not to wind up with LBJ winning the South against Nixon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty, I just finished my run-through. It ended up being Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy against Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush, a.k.a. the best possible match-up one could hope for (except for the Bush part...). I, playing as Roosevelt, managed to pull out a victory with strong foot-soldier machines in crucial big states and a massive advertising blitz.

FDR States: MA, NJ, PA, OH, MD, WV, WV, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, AR, MO, TN, KY, MN, WI, CA, WA, HI (334 EVs)

Lincoln States: ME, NH, VT, RI, CT, NY, DE, MI, IN, IL, IA, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, MT, ID, WY, CO, UT, NM, AZ, NV, OR, AK (204 EVs)

FDR 64,156,559 (53.4%)

Abe 55,957,025 (46.6%)

...and it called my performance "disastrous"! The nerve! Anybody who beats Abe Lincoln 53-46 did a pretty good job... Though I was a little disappointed not to win New York or Illinois, our home states. Both were down to the wire.

Anyway, basically I think the Democratic side is good, so I'll proceed with the next steps of development.

Also, does anyone have any ideas about events? My feeling is, this is such a extratemporal concept that "events" don't really seem apropos. But I'm open to suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. Maximum number of players allowed is 32. That's going to complicate things, especially since I've got 34 from just the Democrats and Republicans and I still have 9 more from the other three parties. I guess I should include everyone, and let any given player choose whom to exclude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. Maximum number of players allowed is 32. That's going to complicate things, especially since I've got 34 from just the Democrats and Republicans and I still have 9 more from the other three parties. I guess I should include everyone, and let any given player choose whom to exclude?

I would include everybody, giving the option to exclude whatever 11 you want. The other option would be excluding the presidents who were never elected President. Ford, Arthur, Andrew Johnson, Fillmore, and Tyler. This cuts it down to 38, still over the limit however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I like the "include 'em all, let the consumer sort it out" approach. Why make peoples' choices for them when I don't have to?

Speaking as a potential consumer of this scenario (which sounds like a GREAT idea, by the way!), I concur: leave everybody in, with some off by default and let the player pick who to put in play. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I can leave the Whig Party as off by default? They're a really pathetic bunch of candidates: William Henry Harrison (died), Zachary Taylor (died), Millard Fillmore (the comic relief of American electoral politics; never elected). In fact, the Whigs have a considerably stronger B-list (Clay, Webster) than their A-list! It also seems kind of silly to bother having John Adams running against Washington for the Federalist nomination (again, speaking in terms of default option), since after all I think John Adams would've voted for Washington over himself. From there, maybe Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Gerald Ford, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, John Tyler, James Buchanan? I think that would be enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, this is a little suspicious. I've now played this scenario twice as a Democrat (FDR, JFK) and I'm in the middle of a run-through as Teddy Roosevelt (this is all before I've added in the other parties). Each time, the general election map has been nice and reasonably balanced, until the conventions, at which point the opposition party got a massive bounce. Or rather, my party got a massive negative bounce. The Republicans just lost 31 points after their own convention. Similar effects happened to the Democrats, too, and I had to fight hard to pull back to a roughly even situation by the election. What gives? And how do I prevent these massive negative convention bounces? Or are they supposed to be there? Are they there to make the game challenging somehow? I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mahaadoxyz, I am trying a similar scenario, but only including 1912-2000 presidents to limit candidates,Dems have 7, GOP has 8. I am further using the authors of the Leaders We Deserved ratings of those presidents, found here

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/the-presidents-ranked-and-graded-a-qa-with-the-author-of-the-leaders-we-deserved/

Not sure about fair way to assign funds, PIP, or percentages yet, how well known=avg score 1.0-1.9 low, 2.0-2.9 medium, 3.0-3.9 high, 4.0-4.9 very high (Reagan, Eisenhower, FDR) how well established 1 point for each term elected to, 4 for Roosevelt, 2 for two-termers, 1 for one-termers and Ford since 0 is not an option.

Based on Felzenberg's ratings character=integrity, vision=leadership, competence=experience, policy ratings averaged for issue fam scores, and the right column is basically my interpretation of that presidents skills. Selected VEEPs are the presidents historical VEEP, some have more than one option. Using 1996 electoral map for ease and schedule, but moving it to 2010 dates, no clue on issues or events at this point, was thinking of endorsers just being vague like (Pennsylvania Governor)

Very much a work in progress, more than welcoming to hear ya'lls feedback at this point.

I think I remember seeing a version of this in the old P4E game, but I think the possibilities are much more exciting in the new version.

The basic idea is this: the space-time continuum is basically annihilated, but somehow the American electoral system remains intact. Or, more to the point, the choice of candidates is not limited by time. So all the various parties have all the Presidents they've ever elected available to run. The result is primaries between all the Presidents of a given Party that there have ever been.

Candidates/Parties:

This is the easy part.

Democratic Party: Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama (16 candidates)

Republican Party: Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush (18 candidates)

Democratic-Republican Party: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Q. Adams (4 candidates)

Whig Party: William Harrison, Zachary Smith, Millard Fillmore (3 candidates)

Federalist Party: George Washington, John Adams (2 candidates)

The only problem I can see is, are you allowed to have 18 candidates in one party? I think I remember that there are only 16 colors... If there's a limit of 16, I would have to leave out two...

Electoral Landscape:

I've come up with an allocation of House seats, and therefore EVs, based on the total number of historical House seats allocated. I would assume I would use that.

The bigger question about the electoral landscape would be what the electorate would look like. Would it be the 2009 electorate? Or some approximation of a historical-aggregate electorate? And how would party loyalties be divided up? Would the South be Democratic? Or Republican?

Endorsers:

I have no idea even what the concept is with timeless endorsers...

Primary Dates:

Given that such a primary has never happened and will never happen, there's no model for what the primary calendar would look like.

Candidate Strengths:

Otherwise known as the fun part. Both ideas about strengths within each primary and ideas about how the general election would shape up, or maybe how it would vary with the different candidates (I think you can do that with the bonuses, right?) would be much appreciated. My basic thoughts:

Democrats

I would say FDR would have to be the front-runner. I would think JFK and Jackson would each be fairly powerful candidates, followed maybe by LBJ, Clinton... most of the antebellum Dems would be quite weak. There haven't been any Democratic Presidents from the West, so I don't necessarily know how that half of the country would shake out.

Republicans

Reagan vs. Lincoln as the main match-up, with Lincoln controlling the North-East and Reagan fairly strong everywhere else. Teddy Roosevelt would be strong in the West; the Bushes stronger in the South, along with maybe Nixon? The ones between Lincoln and Roosevelt would probably be pretty weak.

Democratic-Republicans

Jefferson would basically lead, though John Q. Adams would be strong in the North-East since he's the only one of them from there.

Whigs

No idea. They're all weak candidates.

Federalists

Washington would probably be leading every state. Maybe Adams winning in New England.

General Election

It all depends, doesn't it, on the match-up? Lincoln vs. Jackson would be very different from Kennedy vs. Reagan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I mean, I'm not sure what the point of your mentioning that is. To be completely honest, we're working on somewhat different scenarios, and as I rather like my more extensive version I will continue to work on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But good luck with yours, too. It sounds quite interesting as well. I have some ideas for issues, if you like; there are a lot that have run pretty neatly through the twentieth century, let alone the entire history of the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was merely sharing, not implying mine was better or should be used by you. I just dont have the patience to do that many candidates, your a warrior. While we have different ways of getting there, we both have good ideas.

mahaadoxyz, I am trying a similar scenario, but only including 1912-2000 presidents to limit candidates,Dems have 7, GOP has 8. I am further using the authors of the Leaders We Deserved ratings of those presidents, found here

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/the-presidents-ranked-and-graded-a-qa-with-the-author-of-the-leaders-we-deserved/

Not sure about fair way to assign funds, PIP, or percentages yet, how well known=avg score 1.0-1.9 low, 2.0-2.9 medium, 3.0-3.9 high, 4.0-4.9 very high (Reagan, Eisenhower, FDR) how well established 1 point for each term elected to, 4 for Roosevelt, 2 for two-termers, 1 for one-termers and Ford since 0 is not an option.

Based on Felzenberg's ratings character=integrity, vision=leadership, competence=experience, policy ratings averaged for issue fam scores, and the right column is basically my interpretation of that presidents skills. Selected VEEPs are the presidents historical VEEP, some have more than one option. Using 1996 electoral map for ease and schedule, but moving it to 2010 dates, no clue on issues or events at this point, was thinking of endorsers just being vague like (Pennsylvania Governor)

Very much a work in progress, more than welcoming to hear ya'lls feedback at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, cool. Yeah, I like making lots of candidates. It makes for nice chaotic elections, which can be fun. And of course, the player can always turn them off if they want.

Some issues ideas:

Civil Rights

Labor

Taxation

Internationalism

Conservation

Spending

Welfare

War

Regulation

Immigration

Civil Liberties

Education

Feminism

You might be able to include several of the so-called "values" issues as their own issues, like abortion or gay rights; I felt that I had so many issues from the 19th century that I just lumped all of those under "Morals & Values". Of course, a big issue in the first two decades of your time frame was Prohibition; it seems kind of a pity to leave that out entirely, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great ideas! One that I just thought of was Supreme Court selection philosopy, sine most presidents have had to tackle this at one or more points during their term.

Okay, cool. Yeah, I like making lots of candidates. It makes for nice chaotic elections, which can be fun. And of course, the player can always turn them off if they want.

Some issues ideas:

Civil Rights

Labor

Taxation

Internationalism

Conservation

Spending

Welfare

War

Regulation

Immigration

Civil Liberties

Education

Feminism

You might be able to include several of the so-called "values" issues as their own issues, like abortion or gay rights; I felt that I had so many issues from the 19th century that I just lumped all of those under "Morals & Values". Of course, a big issue in the first two decades of your time frame was Prohibition; it seems kind of a pity to leave that out entirely, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, true, though it's almost never made an issue of at any campaigns. Also, since this is a kind of timeless affair, I dunno, I guess it just seems like some of the normal rules about the relations between the branches of government might not hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it may be hard to come upwith five positions on it, but I would disagree that it doesn't play a part in campaigns. I remember McCain and Bush both made it parts of the debates.

Hmmm, true, though it's almost never made an issue of at any campaigns. Also, since this is a kind of timeless affair, I dunno, I guess it just seems like some of the normal rules about the relations between the branches of government might not hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×