2020 Scenario Update (12/21)

[vcczar 0]

This update is only for download on this thread. It includes:

- More what-if candidates

- Updated poll #s, including the new Iowa polls

- Updated VP possibilities for the major candidates

- Updated which candidates are ON and OFF

- Updated the Democratic primary debates to fit the one announced by the DNC.

- Changed the primary start date to June 2019, month of the first debate. 

Download here: 

United States - 2020 (12-21-18).zip

[Caprice 0]

A quick GE observe with the default candidates.

With the two independents added, this happened.

[vcczar 0]

18 minutes ago, Caprice said:

A quick GE observe with the default candidates.

With the two independents added, this happened.

Interesting. I haven't updated the Kasich and Zuckerberg independent parties since Dec 2016. I even considered deleting them for this update. 

[Patine 35]

7 hours ago, Caprice said:

A quick GE observe with the default candidates.

With the two independents added, this happened.

Oh, my! It's the Big Brother-wannabe (who happened, coincidentally, to have been born in the year 1984).

[Sunnymentoaddict 0]

8 hours ago, vcczar said:

Interesting. I haven't updated the Kasich and Zuckerberg independent parties since Dec 2016. I even considered deleting them for this update. 

I feel if you were to add events, that you can weaken Zuck by having events that say, "House orders Sandburg and Zuckerburg to testify again", "EU imposes tighter privacy laws to combat facebook", "Business Insider exposes how facebook shares your data within silicon valley".

I feel he could stay on, since I love playing against multiple parties, but this will be best way to weaken him.

 

[vcczar 0]

6 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

I feel if you were to add events, that you can weaken Zuck by having events that say, "House orders Sandburg and Zuckerburg to testify again", "EU imposes tighter privacy laws to combat facebook", "Business Insider exposes how facebook shares your data within silicon valley".

I feel he could stay on, since I love playing against multiple parties, but this will be best way to weaken him.

 

Thanks for the suggestion

[Caprice 0]

I ran a spectator campaign from June 2019 with default candidates on.

Here's the state of the polls over the course of the campaign. The Democrats nominated Sherrod Brown on the 11th ballot, and Brown's running mate was Gavin Newsom. Kasich got three delegates and Flake none.

Here are the final results.

[vcczar 0]

31 minutes ago, Caprice said:

I ran a spectator campaign from June 2019 with default candidates on.

Here's the state of the polls over the course of the campaign. The Democrats nominated Sherrod Brown on the 11th ballot, and Brown's running mate was Gavin Newsom. Kasich got three delegates and Flake none.

Here are the final results.

Seems like it’s running well. Stein totally outperforming the Libertarians seems odd. Both start off about the same. 

[jnewt 0]

I think Mitch Landrieu should be included as an off candidate in your next update. While it doesn't seem like he's going to run now, 6 months ago he seemed like the Mayor most likely to run. CNN included placed him 9th in their power rankings in this article back in July, when it seemed likely that he was going to run.

[dylansh99 0]

Any way to include Tim Kaine on the next update? I know he said he isn't running, but would like to use him in a hypothetical.

[vcczar 0]

I'd really like to @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @jvikings1 to respond. I need more conservatives to respond to this so I can make a decision. 

@dylansh99 I'll try to remember to add Kaine. @jnewt I'll try to remember to add Landrieu. 

[jvikings1 0]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'd really like to @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @jvikings1 to respond. I need more conservatives to respond to this so I can make a decision. 

@dylansh99 I'll try to remember to add Kaine. @jnewt I'll try to remember to add Landrieu. 

It depends on your objective.  Are you trying to make the most realistic scenario possible?  If so, then smaller events that could happen (so no major impeachment events or anything like that or major economic downturn at this time) could be added to make the gameplay more interesting (with edits as events do/don't happen).  If you are trying to make a hypothetical scenario based upon certain events happening, then it allows for a lot more leeway in creating events.

[vcczar 0]

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

It depends on your objective.  Are you trying to make the most realistic scenario possible?  If so, then smaller events that could happen (so no major impeachment events or anything like that or major economic downturn at this time) could be added to make the gameplay more interesting (with edits as events do/don't happen).  If you are trying to make a hypothetical scenario based upon certain events happening, then it allows for a lot more leeway in creating events.

The problem is that I don't see the point of adding events if I can't have any major events. The problem with major events, is that I see them all being bad for Trump, if they are major events. I could include docile events, but that won't be too much of an enhancement. I feel like I make create some major events for the editor that can be turned on if the player sets the dates for them. 

[Reagan04 0]

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'd really like to @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @jvikings1 to respond. I need more conservatives to respond to this so I can make a decision. 

@dylansh99 I'll try to remember to add Kaine. @jnewt I'll try to remember to add Landrieu. 

My main thing is that there should be a percentage of event's liklihood to happen, you shouldn't be able to write-in impeachment or economic collapse, but you should be able to program a say, 10% chance for it.

[vcczar 0]

1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

My main thing is that there should be a percentage of event's liklihood to happen, you shouldn't be able to write-in impeachment or economic collapse, but you should be able to program a say, 10% chance for it.

Yeah the editor should have more event functions. Also an option at the start menu, before embarking on a game, to turn events on or off, historical, or randomized. 

[Conservative Elector 2 0]

17 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'd really like to @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @jvikings1 to respond. I need more conservatives to respond to this so I can make a decision. 

@dylansh99 I'll try to remember to add Kaine. @jnewt I'll try to remember to add Landrieu. 

I voted No, because we don't know what is going to happen. Personally I do not like predictive scenarios, it is okay for me when they are labelled as fictional, but otherwise I am not a fan of saying something is definitely going to happen. For example, although it seemed obvious that Newsom would get elected as new Governor of California I would have not called him necessarily Governor in a future scenario until he was really elected. That is my approach, I hope it helps you a bit sorting the things.

[vcczar 0]

5 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I voted No, because we don't know what is going to happen. Personally I do not like predictive scenarios, it is okay for me when they are labelled as fictional, but otherwise I am not a fan of saying something is definitely going to happen. For example, although it seemed obvious that Newsom would get elected as new Governor of California I would have not called him necessarily Governor in a future scenario until he was really elected. That is my approach, I hope it helps you a bit sorting the things.

I'll probably not include any events then. If @admin_270 creates a start menu button that says, "events off" or "events on" then I'll make events with the default as "off"

[Conservative Elector 2 0]

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'll probably not include any events then. If @admin_270 creates a start menu button that says, "events off" or "events on" then I'll make events with the default as "off"

I support that request @admin_270 and I am wondering why this great idea was not already an idea from someone including myself... strangely I never considered this feature.

[Wiw 0]

The way things are looking, there won't BE an election in 2020.

[Reagan04 0]

5 hours ago, Wiw said:

The way things are looking, there won't BE an election in 2020.

What did the author mean by this?

[vcczar 0]

10 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

What did the author mean by this?

I think he think GOP will nullify an election or something. While I agree with much of @Wiw political issues, I think he's often subject to extreme beliefs within those beliefs. I think one of the more heartening things about the Trump presidency is how the courts and congress, and even his own aides (at times) have checked the tendencies we most fear. Now, just to get him out of office for good. 

[Patine 35]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think he think GOP will nullify an election or something. While I agree with much of @Wiw political issues, I think he's often subject to extreme beliefs within those beliefs. I think one of the more heartening things about the Trump presidency is how the courts and congress, and even his own aides (at times) have checked the tendencies we most fear. Now, just to get him out of office for good. 

And I find his lack of hawkishness (probably the least among U.S. Presidents in this regard since Carter) one of the redeeming aspects of Trump's presidency as well. He's the only sitting U.S. President whose met with a sitting North Korean Leader to discuss peacemaking. I'll give him that.

[Wiw 0]

Yeah... we were all expecting him to fire everything we have and be done with it, weren't we?

[WVProgressive 0]

10 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think he think GOP will nullify an election or something. While I agree with much of @Wiw political issues, I think he's often subject to extreme beliefs within those beliefs. I think one of the more heartening things about the Trump presidency is how the courts and congress, and even his own aides (at times) have checked the tendencies we most fear. Now, just to get him out of office for good. 

Oh really? I must have have missed this, what exactly have the GOP controlled congress and court system stopped Trump from doing? What exact tendencies that you feared, have been checked?

[vcczar 0]

5 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

Oh really? I must have have missed this, what exactly have the GOP controlled congress and court system stopped Trump from doing? What exact tendencies that you feared, have been checked?

Do you even keep up with politics? 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/24/five-times-republican-appointed-judges-ruled-against-president-trump/2083399002/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/08/18/trump-administration-keeps-losing-environmental-court-cases/?utm_term=.206bdd3055ec

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/22/trump-judicial-fantasy-what-chief-justice-roberts-could-have-told-him-didnt/?utm_term=.431333559ac3

As for Congress: McCain, Flake, Collins, Murkowski, and sometimes others have stymied Trump on occasion. Romney and others will follow suit, most likely. 

Trump, despite his loudness, is probably the weakest 21st century president. He seems to come up against a roadblock every time, even when he had control of Congress. I feared the worst---basically everything that @Wiw fears about Trump currently are what I had feared during Trump's for 100 days. After those 100 days, I realized that our system of government has enough checks to prevent an outright totalitarian regime, Republican or Democrat led. Most of Trump's totalitarianism is rhetoric because he can't do otherwise. I believe he wishes to be totalitarian--finds it appealing an such. I think a Democratic Congress will make it much harder for him to act on his impulses. I feared most--a banning of immigrants from the middle east, overturning roe v. wade, a wall on Mexico, elimination of student debt forgiveness, repealing Obamacare, and things along those lines. He's failed or been overturned on every one of these. If he were a totalitarian leader, he would have had accomplished these goals of his. He did not, and he unlikely will not. This is not to say that I still don't have fear of a Trump presidency--I think he's the worst and potentially most dangerous modern president--but my initial apocalyptic prognostications of a Trump presidency have faded away. I also feel more confident than not that he won't be reelected. 

I agree with @Patine on some of Trump's foreign policy. I also give him credit for opening dialogue with North Korea and for backing away from our more overt bellicose and imperial traditions on the globe. If only he could balance this with a more respectful and diplomatic tone abroad. Part of me thinks the Syria withdraw is more rhetoric than realistic. For instance, Graham is on board with Trump after a meeting. Graham went in angry and came out happy. Graham wouldn't be happy if the withdraw was anything like what a Kucinich/Sanders/Warren Progressive like me would want to see or what I assume a Libertarian would want to see.