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

Major Update to 2008 election

Recommended Posts

Sorry to do this again, but can you send the scenario to jimservo@aol.com

I concur on Sharpton and his debating skills. It's not really that I think he's an expert on most of the issues (or that he has a chance of winning), but he comes across as so much more personable then any of the other candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illinois House speaker wants to help Obama by changing primary date

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- The powerful speaker of the Illinois House said Wednesday he wants to help Sen. Barack Obama's possible presidential bid by moving up the state's primary, figuring it will give the Democrat an early win.

Democratic Speaker Michael Madigan proposed moving the March 18 Illinois primary to Feb. 5. A long list of states have primaries scheduled that day, but only four states -- Iowa, Nevada, New

Hampshire and South Carolina -- would be earlier than Illinois.

"These states are not representative of mainstream America They're clearly not as representative of America as Illinois would be," Madigan said. "But if Barack is a candidate, recent history tells us the selection process may be finished before it reaches the Illinois primary."

Madigan said he has not spoken to Obama nor his aides about the proposed change. He also denied any inside knowledge about whether the freshman Illinois senator has decided to run.

What do you guys think about me changing the pirmary date on Illinois Primary

Oh yea am adding Dodd as candidate cause he annoucing thursday that he running for President

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Associated Press says that former Libertarian presidential candidate, and current Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul is preparing of a possible Presidential run as on the Republican ticket.

His positions are mostly are the same as the libertarian party and the CATO Institute: No governmental interference in economics, domestic affairs, and opposes military ventures. The only unusually aspect is that he is strongly pro-life.

link to article

He seems like a very weak candidate to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it usually occurs on the day an ad is about to be completed. The list out of bounds error comes up, then I hit OK and it says some stuff about Num Ad making:1. I've gotten into the habit of periodically saving my games whether I'm going to come back to the game or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that in a game with Richardson/Ford Jr. (I made Richardson myself in editor) vs. Romney/Gilmore, neither got 270 ev's, and Romney won VIA a Republican Congress.

Might want to make Congress more Democratic-leaning if possible.

Edit:<percent_to_qualify>15</percent_to_qualify>

IMHO that's a bit too high. You should lower it to 8 (It's in scenarios, it's how much % nationally a candidate need to enter thee debates)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might want to make Congress more Democratic-leaning if possible.

It's not as much that Congress isn't "Democratic-leaning" enough, it's that Congress is defined as being controlled by the republicans in political_units.xml. You can change it yourself if you want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I noticed that in a game with Richardson/Ford Jr. (I made Richardson myself in editor) vs. Romney/Gilmore, neither got 270 ev's, and Romney won VIA a Republican Congress.

Might want to make Congress more Democratic-leaning if possible.

Edit:<percent_to_qualify>15</percent_to_qualify>

IMHO that's a bit too high. You should lower it to 8 (It's in scenarios, it's how much % nationally a candidate need to enter thee debates)

For the primaries, debates are negotiated by the candidates themselves. For example, if Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Gore were to decide that they wanted their own debate, agree on terms, and agree to leave Clark, Sharpton, Dodd, Kucinich, etc. out, then they'd have one. Nationally, the Commission on Presidential Debates has mandated ever since Perot that in order to qualify for the "real" debates, that candidates must have 15% in public polls in order to qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary debate thing Mr. November said isn't really true. For example, the Democratic party, not any candidate, is organising a debate in South Carolina for next April.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nationally, the Commission on Presidential Debates has mandated ever since Perot that in order to qualify for the "real" debates, that candidates must have 15% in public polls in order to qualify.
That's a pretty dumb requirement. Ah well. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's correct, oxymoron, but those events have been the exception rather than the norm. The April 27 debate @ SCSU was organized independently by the SCDPXC, and Jim Clyburn (new Democratic House Whip) is gonna probably use his influence (which he already used in getting SC a "stand-alone" primary date to get all the candidates to participate. The Spartanburg debate wouldn't even fall anywhere close to the PF+P calendar, and most of the immediate debates that fall closer to primary/caucus time are more greatly influenced by candidate preferences.

Also, I could all but guarantee the SC debate would be a lark by most standards due to the number of candidates involved. I remember the national ones in 2004 were a complete travesty. 10 candidates, 90 minutes. Basically, it quits being a debate, and turns into an attempt to do two things. Not say anything you'll regret (probably knock my guy Joe Biden out) and to try and take a cheap shot at Hillary, Obama, or Edwards to get a few seconds on the evening news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a pretty dumb requirement. Ah well. <_<

Yeah, I'd say 15% is a little high too, but you don't want every Saint Michael Jesus the Archangel (he's listed on Politics1, good reminder that it could always be worse than Bush) up there debating the Democratic & Republican nominees. I think the reason they do 15% is because most candidates are too scared to debate someone around the 5% range. They've got nothing to lose basically, and probably aren't going to win short of both party's nominee's planes crashing into each other while waiting to land, on the day before the election.

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  

×