Jump to content
270soft Forum

2020 Election (v. 1.0) is now up!


vcczar

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I haven't actually delved into it yet, but looking at the candidates...

1. Trump has a 2 in experience and issue familiarity. I would argue for a 4 in experience and issue familiarity, due to being president the past four years. 

2. Tulsi Gabbard should probably have a 3 in experience, for being a representative. 

3. Most primary and general blurbs are the same. While this is relatively minor, maybe in a future update the general blurbs could indicate that they've actually won the primaries. 

4. Gary Johnson may not run in 2020, I would perhaps take that into consideration. ( http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/libertarian-gary-johnson-says-he-will-not-seek-public-office-again) The Libertarians look like they could have a bit of a fun shakeup with an optional Rand Paul, perhaps? 

5. Jill Stein will be 70 by 2020. You may want to consider primary challengers, or have her not run at all with a different candidate. 

I'm going to simulate a few primaries and elections to get the feel for the scenario, and then probably take a run as Kasich or Gillibrand. I'll keep you posted. It looks fantastic though, and I can see tons of custom events in the files. Good work!

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

I haven't actually delved into it yet, but looking at the candidates...

1. Trump has a 2 in experience and issue familiarity. I would argue for a 4 in experience and issue familiarity, due to being president the past four years. 

2. Tulsi Gabbard should probably have a 3 in experience, for being a representative. 

3. Most primary and general blurbs are the same. While this is relatively minor, maybe in a future update the general blurbs could indicate that they've actually won the primaries. 

4. Gary Johnson may not run in 2020, I would perhaps take that into consideration. ( http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/libertarian-gary-johnson-says-he-will-not-seek-public-office-again) The Libertarians look like they could have a bit of a fun shakeup with an optional Rand Paul, perhaps? 

5. Jill Stein will be 70 by 2020. You may want to consider primary challengers, or have her not run at all with a different candidate. 

I'm going to simulate a few primaries and elections to get the feel for the scenario, and then probably take a run as Kasich or Gillibrand. I'll keep you posted. It looks fantastic though, and I can see tons of custom events in the files. Good work!

I didn't really do much with the 3rd parties yet. I'll probably make the Trump and Gabbard changes you suggest. The blurbs aren't important for this first release. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend strengthening Kasich/Hunstman much more in the Northeast, as it still tends to end up solidly in the other Republican candidates hands with the moderates still far beneath them. Also, I noticed that Warren(admittedly by only 3% to Gillibrand), Kasich (44% Trump to about 7% Kasich), Cruz(by about 12% to Rubio), and Rubio (lost to Martinez by about 3%) all lost their home states. 

The Republican convention was looking to be brokered, with Trump about 50 delegates shy of the nomination. However, apparently Graham had endorsed him earlier in the race and at the convention, Trump got those needed delegates easily. I was surprised about it, to be honest. (Corker vice president)

The Democratic convention was brokered. There was "main four" at prior to the convention who had amassed between 827 to 1044 delegates. In order of most delegates to least of these four, it was Warren, Brown, Booker, Harris. Harris was endorsed by Booker at the very end, and barely edged out Warren. She selected Nelson as her VP. 

Harris destroyed Trump in the general election, and carried the Midwest more or less. Maybe some general election boosting for Trump there? 

Regardless, it was fun to watch how things played out. I think that I'll try a playthrough as Kasich and see where it takes me! I'll attach a picture of the results from observing as well. I spectated with your Bloomberg party. (I don't know if he already is, but maybe you should remove his ballot access)

Untitled.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

Also, I apologize if this would be better suited to a PM, or if it's rude to critique. I can't wait to actually playthrough it now, it's a wonderful scenario!

No worries. Thanks for the feedback. This will help. I'm waiting for more feedback. What did you think of the events?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the events were assuming a Trump that doesn't mature in office whatsoever, and was unable to work with his own party. Essentially what a good half of America is expecting ;) 

They are very frequent and believable. Some made me chuckle a little (but so do half the headlines IRL), but it created a fairly dynamic race. At one point in that simulation, in December, Trump had collapsed to around 16%, and Rubio had shot up to 26%. The events definitely help keep the big players shifting, but also in the game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently playing as Harris in the Democrat Party, The only thing as of right now, in terms of candidates, would be the addition of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for the Republicans. If I remember correctly, you mentioned using a poll at some point, to determine who will be added next. If that is the case, I could simply wait for that chance.

Or, if it would help, I could add them myself and/or provide the information and pictures. Either way, it would be less work. Great scenario! 

Also, the addition of Joni Ernst for the Republicans, would also make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the Kasich says Trump isn't a Republican event, in the same week that I had planned on obtaining the endorsements of Dick Cheney, both Bushes, and Mitt Romney. As you can see, this changed the race significantly in my favor. (Though, due to your events, Trump should make a major comeback soon...)

 

Untitled.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

I got the Kasich says Trump isn't a Republican event, in the same week that I had planned on obtaining the endorsements of Dick Cheney, both Bushes, and Mitt Romney. As you can see, this changed the race significantly in my favor. (Though, due to your events, Trump should make a major comeback soon...)

 

Untitled.png

Did you turn all the candidates on? Just curious. Thanks for showing your screenshots. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only the default candidates on. 

Update, my campaign more or less collapsed. With the "My Mexican" chain of events, Rubio dove up a drastic 10% or so, and Martinez rose as well. Surprisingly Cruz dropped overall. I also took a decent hit, mostly because Rubio took many FPP states from me in the NE and California. 

Untitled.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I won the nomination after Trump was forced to endorse me at the convention. I actually flip flopped on about 4-5 issues to ensure that this would happen, as I figured the rest would probably endorse Rubio, and I wanted my platform to be very close to his, but also able to do well in the general election. Prior to that, they were all endorsing Rubio. I selected Hunstman as my VP. Gillibrand/Schultz was the result of the brokered Democratic convention. Schultz actually had around 700 delegates, which was surprisingly considering he was an early drop out the first time around. 

It started off really lopsided, but by mid October, I had flipped PA, FL, MI, WI, VA, NC, and surprisingly IL light red. Gillibrand was DOMINATING the debates though, you go girl. 

After that I got a crash that I forgot to take a screenshot of. It was one I have gotten many times before but always forget about :P Overall, it was probably even better than the base 2016 scenario, which lacks personal feeling, primarily due to the lack of events and narratives. I didn't autospin the news this time, so it was fantastic seeing the narratives the media had about each candidate, and the supreme court fiasco. It felt far more intriguing than the 2016 scenario, as well as far more challenging.

The fact that events propelled certain candidates up and down made not only a narrative to follow, but threw wrenches in my plans constantly, and made me consider new opportunities. I was originally only out to win FL, TX, NY, PA, and CA, but since Trump was falling and my moderate platform drew in the Midwest, I made a play at the majority of the region and it paid off, winning OH, MI, WI, IL, PA, IN, and even NJ and Connecticut after some primaries finished up (though California was the biggest haul of all). FL and TX ended up bitter battles between Cruz and Rubio, both won by the latter. It felt more like an actual campaign with constant events to consider and react to than the blank slate that is currently the 2016 campaign. 

Now, for critiques, I have few that were not earlier stated. A minor one is that Obama cannot endorse in the primaries, and I for some reason had Mike Pence show up in the national and Florida endorser sections. I would also recommend changing the amount of money that each candidate starts out with to be more representative of how strong their initial campaign is. I'm unsure if it was a mistake, but for the starting percentages in Vermont, Trump and Rubio are tied, with Kasich far behind even Cruz, despite Kasich starting well initially in the remaining NE states. TN is also heavily Trump, but the rest of the South is a battleground of Cruz/Trump (that Cruz seems to very easily lose.). I would also recommend increasing Cruz's starting percentages in TX, as he has lost it by fair margins both play throughs I've had, despite doing well outside of the state. 

Having only played the Republican side, I cannot comment much on the Democratic primary. However, by the time the general election rolls around, the Democrats have a fairly massive EV lead. This is probably intentional due to a failure of a Presidency by Trump, but I figured I'd mention it anyway. I consider it more of a feature :P 

Overall, I was very impressed. This is by far my favorite scenario, and it will be my go-to for quick play from now on. Thanks for all the hard work you did on this!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

I won the nomination after Trump was forced to endorse me at the convention. I actually flip flopped on about 4-5 issues to ensure that this would happen, as I figured the rest would probably endorse Rubio, and I wanted my platform to be very close to his, but also able to do well in the general election. Prior to that, they were all endorsing Rubio. I selected Hunstman as my VP. Gillibrand/Schultz was the result of the brokered Democratic convention. Schultz actually had around 700 delegates, which was surprisingly considering he was an early drop out the first time around. 

It started off really lopsided, but by mid October, I had flipped PA, FL, MI, WI, VA, NC, and surprisingly IL light red. Gillibrand was DOMINATING the debates though, you go girl. 

After that I got a crash that I forgot to take a screenshot of. It was one I have gotten many times before but always forget about :P Overall, it was probably even better than the base 2016 scenario, which lacks personal feeling, primarily due to the lack of events and narratives. I didn't autospin the news this time, so it was fantastic seeing the narratives the media had about each candidate, and the supreme court fiasco. It felt far more intriguing than the 2016 scenario, as well as far more challenging.

The fact that events propelled certain candidates up and down made not only a narrative to follow, but threw wrenches in my plans constantly, and made me consider new opportunities. I was originally only out to win FL, TX, NY, PA, and CA, but since Trump was falling and my moderate platform drew in the Midwest, I made a play at the majority of the region and it paid off, winning OH, MI, WI, IL, PA, IN, and even NJ and Connecticut after some primaries finished up (though California was the biggest haul of all). FL and TX ended up bitter battles between Cruz and Rubio, both won by the latter. It felt more like an actual campaign with constant events to consider and react to than the blank slate that is currently the 2016 campaign. 

Now, for critiques, I have few that were not earlier stated. A minor one is that Obama cannot endorse in the primaries, and I for some reason had Mike Pence show up in the national and Florida endorser sections. I would also recommend changing the amount of money that each candidate starts out with to be more representative of how strong their initial campaign is. I'm unsure if it was a mistake, but for the starting percentages in Vermont, Trump and Rubio are tied, with Kasich far behind even Cruz, despite Kasich starting well initially in the remaining NE states. TN is also heavily Trump, but the rest of the South is a battleground of Cruz/Trump (that Cruz seems to very easily lose.). I would also recommend increasing Cruz's starting percentages in TX, as he has lost it by fair margins both play throughs I've had, despite doing well outside of the state. 

Having only played the Republican side, I cannot comment much on the Democratic primary. However, by the time the general election rolls around, the Democrats have a fairly massive EV lead. This is probably intentional due to a failure of a Presidency by Trump, but I figured I'd mention it anyway. I consider it more of a feature :P 

Overall, I was very impressed. This is by far my favorite scenario, and it will be my go-to for quick play from now on. Thanks for all the hard work you did on this!

 

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully other people respond, too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, you're making a 2020 scenario as well! I'll definitely test this out! :D 

Also, if it was Kasich/Huntsman vs Gillibrand/Schultz, in 2020, I hate to say that my first ever vote would go to the Democrats :|

Looks great so far! I'll have to share mine soon! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks great so far. Don't mean to do some criticizing, as your scenario is, as of this point, much more detailed and advanced than mine, but I have a hard time believing that Ted Cruz could be polling as high as he is right now. Incumbent Presidents rarely lose, and many of his own supporters turned against him (including me) after he refused to endorse Trump at the RNC.

Otherwise, this is a great, detailed, and really fun scenario so far! Keep it up! :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Looks great so far. Don't mean to do some criticizing, as your scenario is, as of this point, much more detailed and advanced than mine, but I have a hard time believing that Ted Cruz could be polling as high as he is right now. Incumbent Presidents rarely lose, and many of his own supporters turned against him (including me) after he refused to endorse Trump at the RNC.

Otherwise, this is a great, detailed, and really fun scenario so far! Keep it up! :D

They rarely lose, but occasionally, when they do, they lose bad - Taft, Hoover, and Carter are instructive in this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed that our two scenario starting maps look the same, the only difference being that mine has a few more undecided states, and congressional districts.

Great minds think alike!

preelectionresults.png

preelectionresults.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's two congressional district maps I made that you can use, @vcczar (or anyone else)

The first one has two dots for Nebraska, and one dot for Maine, to represent their congressional districts, and the second one shows the actual mapped out districts.

I like both of them, whichever one you use, I'll use the other, unless you make a completely different one, or don't include them at all.

MapDots.png

Map.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to spectate again, and this is a lot more interesting than the first time. Trump imploded in December and never got it back, and this shook the race up enough to where Kasich and Martinez were leading the pack. Cruz and Rubio both lost their home states to Kasich, and dropped out after Super Tuesday, followed by Graham and Paul short after. 

Trump and Kasich picked up most of the percentages left, with Trump nearly coming back. It's cool to watch. 

Untitled.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

I decided to spectate again, and this is a lot more interesting than the first time.

Absolutely. His scenario is giving me a lot of inspiration for mine. Wonder if he'll use any of my maps. You're also free to use any in yours, if you're making any. Mine are pretty basic though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any plans to craft the kind of narrative through events for the Democratic primary the same way you did for the Republicans? It's a lot more sandbox than the Republicans, and I've not seen someone get more than 1400 delegates. Maybe you could buff and hurt some the same way you did for Republicans, though to a lesser extent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...