Jump to content
270soft Forum

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Oh, here are two related foreign affairs extra events, if you don't have them.

-August 23, 1987 (not sure if your primary cycle goes back that far) and February 16, 1988 - the first and second protest rallies in Soviet history that did not result in violence or arrests are held in Vilnius, in the Lithuanian SSR, organized by the pro-independence group the Lithuanian Liberty League, showing outwardly obvious cracks in the political integrity of the USSR and a possible sign of Mikhail Gorbachev's willingness for genuine reform.

The primary cycle goes as far back as Oct 1st 1987. I'll add the Feb. 16 '88 when I update this. 

Thanks again @Patine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheLiberalKitten

Great work on this scenario! Just some feedback for the candidates:

1. George Bush

- perhaps a color photo, since this is 1988 afterall

- If this were a scenario I made, I would have his campaign and strategic ratings higher, especially since he's an incumbent VP with many of Reagan's campaign staffers. 

- Dan Quayle needs to me on the top of his VP list. Stassen and Robertson would probably not be on his list of VP choices.

- George W. Bush and Jeb Bush could be surrogates; I'd give Reagan a spin of 4 as a surrogate. He's not Trump. 

2. Bob Dole

- Color photo since its 1988

- I'd consider giving Dole a charisma of 2. He's never been an exciting politician. He's just been in leadership positions and ambitious. 

- Dole should probably have a strategy of 2, and probably should have a stronger campaign organization than Bush. 

- I'd research Dole a little further on his stances (I don't have the time to do it myself at the moment). You currently have him center-right on everything, but he wasn't that moderate in everything. He was considered more conservative than Bush. 

3. Pat Robertson

- Color photo since its 1988

- The integrity of 4 might be correct, but I forget if there was some sort of scandal or previous behavior that was somewhat hypocritical in his past. I might research that. It would be on his wikipedia page, most likely. 

- His charisma should probably be 2 in the same way that Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Elizabeth Warren, Dennis Kucinich get a 2 in charisma, and Bernie Sanders only gets a 3. They're extremely charismatic to those that already agree with them, but they are generally very off-putting for the majority of people, who are likely not to be converted. Much of charisma is having such an appealing personal magnetism that you can bring in converts from a demographic that would generally be opposed or on the fence with those ideas. In general, someone that is a fan of these politicians would generally want them to have a 4 or 5 in charisma, unless they can look at them objectively against the entire voting pool. 

- Maybe give him a ground of 3 since his support is more grassroots and proto-Trump

- Stassen would never except being his VP, and should probably be knocked off his list. Actually, many of those VPs probably would refuse. 

4. Harold Stassen

- Color photo since its 1988. Also, is this photo from 1988? If so, he looks good for his advanced age. 

- I'd put Fmr. Gov. as his title. 

- I'd put leadership 2 and integrity 4. He was sort of a fringe Republican at this time, but made no effort to really lead a faction. His integrity is part of the reason he was fringe within this party. He refused to take certain issues for integritous reasons. 

- He might have more left-leaning positions, but maybe he was more conservative by 1988. I'd check, but haven't the time right now. 

- Bush and Robertson shouldn't be VP options. In fact, I don't see Bush taking the VP spot for anyone, except for maybe Dole. 

- Esther Stassen is too strong of a surrogate. Generally, I make spouses and children very weak unless they are a high-profile spouse on a national scale. 

5. Ben Fernandez

- color photo

- Was he a Fmr. Amb. at this time?

- Charisma might be 3. I think his debate should be a 3. It's hard seeing an ambassador with a debate skill of 2, unless he was known to be very inarticulate, which I don't remember if he was or not. 

5. Jack Kemp

- As only a US Rep, I'd give him an experience of 2. I generally do this with all reps, unless they are a Speaker. 

- His integrity could possibly be a 4. He was widely respected on both aisles as a reliable, honest politician. He never attacked people, either. 

- I think Kemp's platform might be too far right on the whole. He was definitely conservative, but probably slightly left of Reagan, and potentially left of Bush. He was much more tolerant of the plight of African-Americans for existence. 

6. Pierre du Pont

- Color photo

- Fundraising should be a little higher. He was of arguably the leading family in his state's history, which interacted with other old guard East Coast families. 

7.  Alexander Haig

- Color photo

- Experience should probably be 2. 

8. Donald Rumsfeld

- Color photo from 1988. This photo looks like it's from the 1970s, but I might be wrong

- Experience should probably be 2 and debate 4

- Fundraising should probably be less than 3, and his campaign should be weaker overall. 

9. Paul Laxalt

- Color photo

- He was a leading Senator, and sometimes considered the best ever from his state. An issue knowledge of 4 might be appropriate. 

- I'm not sure if Pat Buchanan should be a surrogate for him. 

10. Howard Baker

- Color photo

- Could have a 4 in both issue knowledge and debate. 

11. Michael Dukakis

- Color photo

- I wouldn't call Dukakis a legendary leader. In fact, I'd probably give him a 3 in this category. Perhaps an argument can be made for 4. 

- His experience could be 4

- His charisma should be a 3. His was not charismatic, and this was sort of captured after he was made fun of for that tank ad that backfired. 

- His stamina shouldn't be a 5, since didn't have known legendary stamina, like a Teddy Roosevelt. I'd give him a 4 at best, but probably a 3. 

- He could have his debate skill moved up to 4. He was a Massachusetts man, after all, winning over arguably the most educated state electorate several times. 

- His positions might include some that are further left. 

- I'd try and find some more surrogates for him, since he ultimately becomes the nominee

12. Jesse Jackson

- color photo

- I'd give him a leadership of 4, experience 2, issue familiarity of 3, charisma of 4 (since much of the Democratic voting base were still racist enough to refuse to support him), stamina 4. 

- You could probably find a lot of Civil Rights icons to add as surrogates

13. Al Gore

- color photo 

- I think his leadership at this point would only be a 3

- His campaign ratings should probably be a little weaker

14. Richard Gephardt

- color photo

- Experience should be 2 or 3, since he's a Rep, and not a Speaker at that. I would make him a 2, personally. 

- His issue familiarity should be a 3 or 4. 

- His campaign strength should probably be a little weaker since he's only a Rep

15. Paul Simon

- color photo

- Charisma might only be a 3; debate could be a 4

- Campaign should probably be weaker

16. Joe Biden

- color photo

- Not sure if his charisma would be a 4 at that time. He didn't really appeal to many people in a large way until he became VP. His debate could be a 4. 

- His campaign should probably be weaker

17. Bruce Babbitt

- Color photo

- Leadership was probably a 4, since it isn't legendary

- campaign should probably be weaker

18. Gary Hart

- color photo

- Issue familiarity should probably be a 4, and his charisma could possibly be a 4, despite the scandal from his past

19. Jim Traficant

- color photo

- much weaker campaign

20. Ted Kennedy

- color photo

- integrity should be a 3, and could even arguably be a 2, because of his past

- Charisma should probably be a 4. He wasn't quite as charismatic as JFK, Reagan, Clinton or 2008-version Obama, but was almost there. 

- I would probably put his debate at 4, but I can see an argument for 5. I think a Debate of 4 with an issue knowledge of 5, is probably the more accurate combination. I would not give many non-incumbent presidents an issue knowledge of 5, but post-Reagan Ted Kennedy is probably one of the few that I would. 

- His campaign might be slightly too strong, since it would likely steam roll all the Republican challengers before the General Election began. I would make it the same as Dukakis, but higher in command, fundraising, spin, ads, and research. 

- His platform isn't liberal enough to reflect him

- You have a lot of other Kennedys you could add as surrogates, children, siblings, nephews, nieces, spouses of siblings, etc. 

21. Lloyd Bentsen

- color photo, also, I think the photo isn't from 1988

- Issue familiarity should be a 4. Charisma should be a 3. He was much more conservative than most of the Democratic base at the time, and didn't really add any appeal to Dukakis, who himself wasn't especially charismatic. 

- Debating could be a 4. 

- His campaign is way too strong. He'd probably be running one of 2nd tier or 3rd tier strength, considering he was right of much of the party. 

22. Mario Cuomo

- color photo

- Leadership should be a 4 at best. He had the opportunity to lead, but routinely turned down chances to take the mantel by running for president. 

- Charisma should probably be a 4. Debating might be a 4. Integrity might be a 3. 

- His campaign might be slightly too strong for the same reasons Ted Kennedys campaign is too strong

- He might be further left on some issues

- Andrew Cuomo could be a surrogate

23. Patricia Schroader

- color photo

- experience 2; stamina 4

- Her campaign should probably be a lot weaker since she's only a Rep

- Her surrogate needs a unique ID

24. Ron Paul

- color photo

- He probably should have an integrity of 4

- Rand Paul could be a surrogate

25. David Duke

- Color photo

- And as much as I hate to improve him -- His leadership and experience should be a 2. Issue familiarity a 2. Stamina, probably a 3. Debate is probably a 2. I'd keep integrity and charisma at 1. 

26. VPs

- Dan Quayle's name is misspelled

- Quayle's debate skill could arguably be a 1, since he's legendarily bad at speaking--possibly worse than Sarah Palin. 

- Quayle's Issue Knowledge can probably stay a 3, but could arguably be a 2. 

- Bill Clinton's photo is not from 1988. His hair was much darker in 1988. I'd like to see him as a what-if candidate, and not just as a VP. 

- Clinton's integrity should be a 3, and not a 4. 

- Clinton's charisma should be a 4. He wasn't quite as polished of a speaker yet, but he still had charisma. He isn't the 5 charisma of 1992. 

- Clinton's debate should be a 4

 

Hope this helps. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar We can never forget this

and Obama's 57 states

 

Share this post


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

@TheLiberalKitten

Great work on this scenario! Just some feedback for the candidates:

1. George Bush

- perhaps a color photo, since this is 1988 afterall

- If this were a scenario I made, I would have his campaign and strategic ratings higher, especially since he's an incumbent VP with many of Reagan's campaign staffers. 

- Dan Quayle needs to me on the top of his VP list. Stassen and Robertson would probably not be on his list of VP choices.

- George W. Bush and Jeb Bush could be surrogates; I'd give Reagan a spin of 4 as a surrogate. He's not Trump. 

2. Bob Dole

- Color photo since its 1988

- I'd consider giving Dole a charisma of 2. He's never been an exciting politician. He's just been in leadership positions and ambitious. 

- Dole should probably have a strategy of 2, and probably should have a stronger campaign organization than Bush. 

- I'd research Dole a little further on his stances (I don't have the time to do it myself at the moment). You currently have him center-right on everything, but he wasn't that moderate in everything. He was considered more conservative than Bush. 

3. Pat Robertson

- Color photo since its 1988

- The integrity of 4 might be correct, but I forget if there was some sort of scandal or previous behavior that was somewhat hypocritical in his past. I might research that. It would be on his wikipedia page, most likely. 

- His charisma should probably be 2 in the same way that Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Elizabeth Warren, Dennis Kucinich get a 2 in charisma, and Bernie Sanders only gets a 3. They're extremely charismatic to those that already agree with them, but they are generally very off-putting for the majority of people, who are likely not to be converted. Much of charisma is having such an appealing personal magnetism that you can bring in converts from a demographic that would generally be opposed or on the fence with those ideas. In general, someone that is a fan of these politicians would generally want them to have a 4 or 5 in charisma, unless they can look at them objectively against the entire voting pool. 

- Maybe give him a ground of 3 since his support is more grassroots and proto-Trump

- Stassen would never except being his VP, and should probably be knocked off his list. Actually, many of those VPs probably would refuse. 

4. Harold Stassen

- Color photo since its 1988. Also, is this photo from 1988? If so, he looks good for his advanced age. 

- I'd put Fmr. Gov. as his title. 

- I'd put leadership 2 and integrity 4. He was sort of a fringe Republican at this time, but made no effort to really lead a faction. His integrity is part of the reason he was fringe within this party. He refused to take certain issues for integritous reasons. 

- He might have more left-leaning positions, but maybe he was more conservative by 1988. I'd check, but haven't the time right now. 

- Bush and Robertson shouldn't be VP options. In fact, I don't see Bush taking the VP spot for anyone, except for maybe Dole. 

- Esther Stassen is too strong of a surrogate. Generally, I make spouses and children very weak unless they are a high-profile spouse on a national scale. 

5. Ben Fernandez

- color photo

- Was he a Fmr. Amb. at this time?

- Charisma might be 3. I think his debate should be a 3. It's hard seeing an ambassador with a debate skill of 2, unless he was known to be very inarticulate, which I don't remember if he was or not. 

5. Jack Kemp

- As only a US Rep, I'd give him an experience of 2. I generally do this with all reps, unless they are a Speaker. 

- His integrity could possibly be a 4. He was widely respected on both aisles as a reliable, honest politician. He never attacked people, either. 

- I think Kemp's platform might be too far right on the whole. He was definitely conservative, but probably slightly left of Reagan, and potentially left of Bush. He was much more tolerant of the plight of African-Americans for existence. 

6. Pierre du Pont

- Color photo

- Fundraising should be a little higher. He was of arguably the leading family in his state's history, which interacted with other old guard East Coast families. 

7.  Alexander Haig

- Color photo

- Experience should probably be 2. 

8. Donald Rumsfeld

- Color photo from 1988. This photo looks like it's from the 1970s, but I might be wrong

- Experience should probably be 2 and debate 4

- Fundraising should probably be less than 3, and his campaign should be weaker overall. 

9. Paul Laxalt

- Color photo

- He was a leading Senator, and sometimes considered the best ever from his state. An issue knowledge of 4 might be appropriate. 

- I'm not sure if Pat Buchanan should be a surrogate for him. 

10. Howard Baker

- Color photo

- Could have a 4 in both issue knowledge and debate. 

11. Michael Dukakis

- Color photo

- I wouldn't call Dukakis a legendary leader. In fact, I'd probably give him a 3 in this category. Perhaps an argument can be made for 4. 

- His experience could be 4

- His charisma should be a 3. His was not charismatic, and this was sort of captured after he was made fun of for that tank ad that backfired. 

- His stamina shouldn't be a 5, since didn't have known legendary stamina, like a Teddy Roosevelt. I'd give him a 4 at best, but probably a 3. 

- He could have his debate skill moved up to 4. He was a Massachusetts man, after all, winning over arguably the most educated state electorate several times. 

- His positions might include some that are further left. 

- I'd try and find some more surrogates for him, since he ultimately becomes the nominee

12. Jesse Jackson

- color photo

- I'd give him a leadership of 4, experience 2, issue familiarity of 3, charisma of 4 (since much of the Democratic voting base were still racist enough to refuse to support him), stamina 4. 

- You could probably find a lot of Civil Rights icons to add as surrogates

13. Al Gore

- color photo 

- I think his leadership at this point would only be a 3

- His campaign ratings should probably be a little weaker

14. Richard Gephardt

- color photo

- Experience should be 2 or 3, since he's a Rep, and not a Speaker at that. I would make him a 2, personally. 

- His issue familiarity should be a 3 or 4. 

- His campaign strength should probably be a little weaker since he's only a Rep

15. Paul Simon

- color photo

- Charisma might only be a 3; debate could be a 4

- Campaign should probably be weaker

16. Joe Biden

- color photo

- Not sure if his charisma would be a 4 at that time. He didn't really appeal to many people in a large way until he became VP. His debate could be a 4. 

- His campaign should probably be weaker

17. Bruce Babbitt

- Color photo

- Leadership was probably a 4, since it isn't legendary

- campaign should probably be weaker

18. Gary Hart

- color photo

- Issue familiarity should probably be a 4, and his charisma could possibly be a 4, despite the scandal from his past

19. Jim Traficant

- color photo

- much weaker campaign

20. Ted Kennedy

- color photo

- integrity should be a 3, and could even arguably be a 2, because of his past

- Charisma should probably be a 4. He wasn't quite as charismatic as JFK, Reagan, Clinton or 2008-version Obama, but was almost there. 

- I would probably put his debate at 4, but I can see an argument for 5. I think a Debate of 4 with an issue knowledge of 5, is probably the more accurate combination. I would not give many non-incumbent presidents an issue knowledge of 5, but post-Reagan Ted Kennedy is probably one of the few that I would. 

- His campaign might be slightly too strong, since it would likely steam roll all the Republican challengers before the General Election began. I would make it the same as Dukakis, but higher in command, fundraising, spin, ads, and research. 

- His platform isn't liberal enough to reflect him

- You have a lot of other Kennedys you could add as surrogates, children, siblings, nephews, nieces, spouses of siblings, etc. 

21. Lloyd Bentsen

- color photo, also, I think the photo isn't from 1988

- Issue familiarity should be a 4. Charisma should be a 3. He was much more conservative than most of the Democratic base at the time, and didn't really add any appeal to Dukakis, who himself wasn't especially charismatic. 

- Debating could be a 4. 

- His campaign is way too strong. He'd probably be running one of 2nd tier or 3rd tier strength, considering he was right of much of the party. 

22. Mario Cuomo

- color photo

- Leadership should be a 4 at best. He had the opportunity to lead, but routinely turned down chances to take the mantel by running for president. 

- Charisma should probably be a 4. Debating might be a 4. Integrity might be a 3. 

- His campaign might be slightly too strong for the same reasons Ted Kennedys campaign is too strong

- He might be further left on some issues

- Andrew Cuomo could be a surrogate

23. Patricia Schroader

- color photo

- experience 2; stamina 4

- Her campaign should probably be a lot weaker since she's only a Rep

- Her surrogate needs a unique ID

24. Ron Paul

- color photo

- He probably should have an integrity of 4

- Rand Paul could be a surrogate

25. David Duke

- Color photo

- And as much as I hate to improve him -- His leadership and experience should be a 2. Issue familiarity a 2. Stamina, probably a 3. Debate is probably a 2. I'd keep integrity and charisma at 1. 

26. VPs

- Dan Quayle's name is misspelled

- Quayle's debate skill could arguably be a 1, since he's legendarily bad at speaking--possibly worse than Sarah Palin. 

- Quayle's Issue Knowledge can probably stay a 3, but could arguably be a 2. 

- Bill Clinton's photo is not from 1988. His hair was much darker in 1988. I'd like to see him as a what-if candidate, and not just as a VP. 

- Clinton's integrity should be a 3, and not a 4. 

- Clinton's charisma should be a 4. He wasn't quite as polished of a speaker yet, but he still had charisma. He isn't the 5 charisma of 1992. 

- Clinton's debate should be a 4

 

Hope this helps. 

 

 

Thanks again. I'll update the scenario soon. I really appreciate the feedback. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

@vcczar We can never forget this

and Obama's 57 states

 

This one is better. Obama's was clearly one of fatigue. It's obvious he would know how many states there are. Here's a better Quayle video. His "Hitlerism" monologue is my favorite: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar You also have this 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of when they were debating about whether to put gondolas in Dublin and someone asked "Who would feed them?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to find some 1988 polls. Mario Cuomo would probably be higher in the polls in the primaries than Dukakis, and possibly higher than Kennedy. Some of the Republicans have the same color, and the same %, which means that you haven't set the %'s yet on some candidates, I'm guessing. 

I'm excited about this scenario when it's done. 

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

×