Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

2020 Scenario Update

Recommended Posts

I've changed the general election % to coincide with the Cook Partisan Voting Index. For the most part, Democrats suffer from this change. Before I post the update, I'll be altering general election bonuses. 

Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Gabbard has both parties even in the PV, but Trump ahead in the EV, at the start of the General Election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, vcczar said:

I've changed the general election % to coincide with the Cook Partisan Voting Index. For the most part, Democrats suffer from this change. Before I post the update, I'll be altering general election bonuses. 

Trump/Pence vs. Biden/Gabbard has both parties even in the PV, but Trump ahead in the EV, at the start of the General Election. 

I'm not at all familiar with this voting index, actually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Patine said:

I'm not at all familiar with this voting index, actually. 

It's an index the ranks competitiveness in districts. It's a simple method that I had used myself in the past (independent of knowing that Cook existed). However, I didn't do district by district, just state by state. The Cook is generally the most or second most accurate in predicting presidential elections, but obviously 2016 was such a strange election that using past comparisons was a losing game. 

I'm more inclined to give Dems more support in MN, WI, MI, PA, OR, NH, ME, WA than Cook is, since Republicans almost never win these elections in presidential elections. Yet, by using Cook, I think I can at least absolve myself of bias in my %s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trade is a complicated issue, but given today's announcements on tariffs (global duties of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum), would it make sense to move Trump from center-left -> left? It's interesting, because the description for far-left ("Protect the American labor market. Punish companies that send jobs overseas and end free trade") seems to fit him better than left ("Increase taxes on companies that send jobs overseas. Free Trade must include labour and environmental conditions."). There are also increasing signs that NAFTA withdrawal might be on the table.

It's an interesting topic. Paleocons/nationalists are happy with the move, but so are guys like Sherrod Brown and Chuck Schumer (and presumably Sanders and Warren, but they haven't spoken out yet), as well as mainstream republicans in the area (Toomey) and unions. Maybe trade is like the "Audit the Fed" debate, where both the far left and far right agree on action, but for different reasons? Just spitballing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, thr33 said:

Trade is a complicated issue, but given today's announcements on tariffs (global duties of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum), would it make sense to move Trump from center-left -> left? It's interesting, because the description for far-left ("Protect the American labor market. Punish companies that send jobs overseas and end free trade") seems to fit him better than left ("Increase taxes on companies that send jobs overseas. Free Trade must include labour and environmental conditions."). There are also increasing signs that NAFTA withdrawal might be on the table.

It's an interesting topic. Paleocons/nationalists are happy with the move, but so are guys like Sherrod Brown and Chuck Schumer (and presumably Sanders and Warren, but they haven't spoken out yet), as well as mainstream republicans in the area (Toomey) and unions. Maybe trade is like the "Audit the Fed" debate, where both the far left and far right agree on action, but for different reasons? Just spitballing here.

I really want to edit the platforms. It would be helpful if you can construct what you think should be Far-Left, Left, Center-Left, etc. on Trade. I can then put it up for discussion on the boards. 

Share this post


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

I really want to edit the platforms. It would be helpful if you can construct what you think should be Far-Left, Left, Center-Left, etc. on Trade. I can then put it up for discussion on the boards. 

Sounds good, would be happy to help. I'm going to read some platforms and statements by candidates across the board, and see what I can come up with on it.

Immigration was kind of tricky for a while too. Bernie actually commented in 2015 to Vox that open borders is a Koch Brothers/right-wing proposal. Traditionally it was viewed as anti-labor (which is a big part of why unions came out against it in 07). However since then, the Dems have moved left, and while many blue collar workers support immigration reduction, service unions are such a big part of the union voting bloc (and union membership is on the decline on the industrial midwest), so they have moved left as well. I don't know when this change happened, but it was definitely in place by 2016 (and possibly earlier).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here are the current positions:

Quote

 

Far-Left: Protect the American labor market. Punish companies that send jobs overseas and end free trade.

Left: Increase taxes on companies that send jobs overseas. Free Trade must include labour and environmental conditions.

Center-Left: Consider new free trade deals carefully, and create incentives to keep jobs in America.

Center: Free Trade is doing fine as is. The American corporate and labor culture is coping.

Center-Right: Outsourcing is not a problem, it is part of a globalized world and helps America. Additional free trade agreements.

Right: By outsourcing the U.S. frees up a lot of laborers to go on to better jobs. Global free trade would only help America.

Far-Right: We need to encourage businesses to do whatever is necessary to generate profit.

I think it depends on what route you want to go. If you want to have one axis pro free-trade, and the other opposed, something like this works:

Quote

Far-Left: Protect the American labor market. Punish companies that send jobs overseas and end free trade. Consider tariffs as often as necessary.

Left: Consider new Free Trade deals carefully, and create incentives to keep jobs in America. Free trade must include labour conditions. Use tariffs as a last resort.

Center-Left: Free Trade both makes products cheaper to Americans by giving access to new markets, but it helps raise other countries out of poverty. 

Center: Free Trade is doing fine as is. The American corporate and labor culture is coping.

Center-Right: Outsourcing is not a problem, it is part of a globalized world and helps America. Additional free trade agreements should be pursued, even with concessions.

Right: By outsourcing the U.S. frees up a lot of laborers to go on to better jobs. Global free trade would only help America and her partners, and multilateral deals will help the most.

Far-Right: The more Free Trade, the better. If we remove barriers, it makes the free market freer. We should actively seek out opportunities for trading blocs.

To start, I adjusted the left and center left positions, and it fits pretty well. I added a portion about new markets to the center-left, and statements about tariffs to the far left and left positions. I removed the environmental portion, I think the best bet would be to incorporate that into the 'Environment' issue (since it's not a concern of anti-free trade republicans). I rewrote the far-right position so it used similar language to the others. I also incorporated some statements about bilateral vs multilateral.

Some of these are a bit wordy, and you've done a tremendous job with the issues in your campaigns, so if you feel the need to edit/cut down, it could improve readability/clarity.

Now, if we go the other route (the kind of 'horseshoe' issue spectrum), I think I'd nominate the following:

Quote

Far-Left: Free Trade often hurts the working class and is at odds with organized labour. Prioritize the needs of our workers, not multinational corporations, and demand language protecting the environment.

Left: Consider new Free Trade deals carefully. We should pursue agreements that improve labour and environmental conditions for both the American and foreign worker.

Center-Left: Free Trade both makes products cheaper to Americans by giving access to new markets, but it helps raise other countries out of poverty. 

Center: Free Trade is of benefit to the worker, the consumer, and the market. It also improves standard of living in developing countries with which we partner.

Center-Right: Outsourcing is not a problem, it is part of a globalized world and helps America. If we remove barriers, it makes the free market freer. Join trading blocs when possible.

Right: We should have Free Trade, on our terms. Our goal should be to pursue tough agreements that benefit the American worker and consumer. Tariffs as a last resort.

Far-Right: Other countries are ripping us off, Free Trade has failed the American worker and business. We should pursue Fair Trade. Only accept bilateral agreements, and consider tariffs often.

This is a bit different. Both ends are skeptical of trade, and have the needs of the worker in mind, but for different reasons (the far-left blames big business, the far-right blames foreigners). I added environmental conditions to only the left and far-left, and tariffs to only the right and far-right.

Either one is fine with me, and you probably have a better feel for which option works. I probably prefer the latter, since it seems more coherent.

This could be an interesting development for the scenario either way, since you can add events about trade war (other countries either changing their ways or applying reciprocal taxes, WTO admonishing the USA, other countries forming agreements with trading partners when our deals fall through - kind of like the other countries ratifying TPP without the USA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2018 at 8:59 PM, thr33 said:

So here are the current positions:

I think it depends on what route you want to go. If you want to have one axis pro free-trade, and the other opposed, something like this works:

To start, I adjusted the left and center left positions, and it fits pretty well. I added a portion about new markets to the center-left, and statements about tariffs to the far left and left positions. I removed the environmental portion, I think the best bet would be to incorporate that into the 'Environment' issue (since it's not a concern of anti-free trade republicans). I rewrote the far-right position so it used similar language to the others. I also incorporated some statements about bilateral vs multilateral.

Some of these are a bit wordy, and you've done a tremendous job with the issues in your campaigns, so if you feel the need to edit/cut down, it could improve readability/clarity.

Now, if we go the other route (the kind of 'horseshoe' issue spectrum), I think I'd nominate the following:

This is a bit different. Both ends are skeptical of trade, and have the needs of the worker in mind, but for different reasons (the far-left blames big business, the far-right blames foreigners). I added environmental conditions to only the left and far-left, and tariffs to only the right and far-right.

Either one is fine with me, and you probably have a better feel for which option works. I probably prefer the latter, since it seems more coherent.

This could be an interesting development for the scenario either way, since you can add events about trade war (other countries either changing their ways or applying reciprocal taxes, WTO admonishing the USA, other countries forming agreements with trading partners when our deals fall through - kind of like the other countries ratifying TPP without the USA).

Thanks! I'm going to look at this deeply when I have time this week to look at it. Much appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've deleted and edited some of the events. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: 

  • I've used @thr33's first suggestion for the Free Trade stances.
  • I have deleted the "Campaign Finance" and the "Electoral Reform" issues, as these issues have been largely ignored the last few months. 
  • "Russia" issue has been renamed as "Russian Interference"
  • I have turned Kasich and Flake ON, as both are warming up to the idea of running against Trump. Although, it will probably be one or the other. 
  • I have turned Deval Patrick and Luis Guttierez ON
  • Additionally, as stated before, I have deleted some of the events, and I have changed the General Election %s

Here is the updated version as I have it currently. I won't post it officially until I have a major update. Please offer feedback to improve this. 

 

United States - 2020-Mar8-2018.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:
  • I have deleted the "Campaign Finance" and the "Electoral Reform" issues, as these issues have been largely ignored the last few months.

Two of the biggest, most glaring, and most harmful flaws in the U.S. government system just ignored, as if they mean nothing. *sigh*

Share this post


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

Two of the biggest, most glaring, and most harmful flaws in the U.S. government system just ignored, as if they mean nothing. *sigh*

I agree. I'm shocked that Progressive Democrats aren't fighting for it. I think everyone is so consumed in the Russian Probe and other Trump drama that they haven't time to focus on anything else. It may come back up if the Democrats take the House. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case it got buried. I've posted the updated .zip for the 2020 Election (two comments above this one) for anyone that wants it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, vcczar said:

I agree. I'm shocked that Progressive Democrats aren't fighting for it. I think everyone is so consumed in the Russian Probe and other Trump drama that they haven't time to focus on anything else. It may come back up if the Democrats take the House. 

Booker and Gillibrand just announced last month they will stop accepting donations from corporate PACs to try to push for campaign finance reform. And there has been a lot of talk about the problems with politicians who are taking money from organizations like the NRA. While it certainly isn't being talked about as much as it should, I don't think it necessarily is being completely ignored to be removed as an issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MysteryKnight said:

Booker and Gillibrand just announced last month they will stop accepting donations from corporate PACs to try to push for campaign finance reform. And there has been a lot of talk about the problems with politicians who are taking money from organizations like the NRA. While it certainly isn't being talked about as much as it should, I don't think it necessarily is being completely ignored to be removed as an issue. 

I'll readd it if it expands as an issue over that. 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×