Jump to content
270soft Forum

ElectricMonk

Members
  • Posts

    562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ElectricMonk

  1. For all that, I can't do anything with the convention. Sigh. For game purposes I'm thinking of making California winner-take-all… if you can get 40-50% of the vote, otherwise it goes proportional. Wallace shot would be an Event of course, hammering his momentum down if he does get shot. And yet, at least as it applies to the opening stages, '72 did hang on N.H. If Muskie had won big that would have left McGovern a candidate with a solid organization… and no news coverage. If Muskie had won N.H., Humphrey would be a weaker threat. If Muskie had won N.H., Wallace would have been a weaker threat simply because Muskie would be stronger than either McGovern or Humphrey. California was the deciding primary for the final show-down, but New Hampshire set the scene that would lead there.
  2. I've won with the Republicans in either the regular or the 2008 wonk scenario. It's not easy, but it's certainly possible against both the AI and an actual human player. If there is some specific issue to be raised I'd love to hear it, but I assure all and sundry Republicans can indeed win.
  3. Bump. Looks like 1972 is going to be one to get working on, come January. I'm actually kinda surprised '76 did so poorly. After all Nixon crushes McGovern in '72, and I'm not sure someone like Teddy Kennedy or a major primary challenge to Nixon would have changed the results. 1976 on the other hand offers Reagan challenging Ford and a wide open contest for the Democrats. That said, we still have the exciting '72 Democratic primaries, especially in-game where Muskie will surely try and recover and McGovern's expertise in gaming the system can't be quite as well modelled as I might like. Plus, obviously, the alternate history potential of George Wallace not being shot and mounting another independent party run and/or better Democratic Party streak.
  4. It would be nice to have something broadly similar along those lines.
  5. I like it, but the blog posts would be kinda boring since they'd either be super-short auto-generated ones… or require quite a lot of writing for all possibilities (though you could swap names in and out, to help). Also, how about a "remaining paths to victory" type screen for the projected on last poll of the election losing candidate? i.e. once McCain has lost PA, his options narrow. Conversely winning PA, sees his options expand. Have a little map flicking through the possibilities, magic holographic technology of CNN style.
  6. Japan's awesome early '90s elections. Otherwise it'd just be boring: oh, the Liberal Democratic Party had their majority reduced/increased… shucks. And why fictional?
  7. I had a spacebar party, and now I do not. Should spacebar parties be kept forever? I choose not to do so.
  8. For pure play-balancing reasons I'll likely keep his Charisma where it is, as you noted. However, the problem arises in that for groups open to Wallace he had massive appeal (even if, in states like Ohio they didn't end up voting that much for him) while other groups shut him out entirely. He had, for lack of a better phrase, "focused charisma". He had zero appeal to a huge swath of the public, and huge appeal to another large swath (albeit one that existed mostly in industrial/southern states). I don't believe in space-barring parties, or third parties unless conditions merit them (Perot in '92, Anderson in '80, Wallace in '68) or if y'all insist enough that I should include them in an official scenario—Political Wonk 2008 for instance. There was a space-barring party during development (Peace & Freedom) but now that the scenario is basically released there isn't a need for one.
  9. As I recall they reflect turnout. So you have 5 FootSoliders and the opponent only has a couple—and Momentum is roughly even—you should win the undecided vote plus some % higher than expected vote in that state. But that's only what I think offhand, I could be wrong.
  10. I can take a look, but as always I note that the primaries influence the general election too much in-game. It works better to do the primaries, and then start up a new general election game with the winners.
  11. If you have them in the primaries, they have to be in the general election map. If they're in the general election map, there is no way to stop the AI from going to them. If the AI spends (an entirely outsized) amount of time fighting for territories with no electoral votes, they do much worse overall.
  12. It appears I was wrong about Indiana and have an outside chance about being wrong on Missouri and/or North Carolina (both of which remain too close to call for all networks, while Indiana is too close to call for some networks). Nevertheless, congratulations President-elect Obama.
  13. Sure, I agree with you and I'm not saying McCain can't win (although it's rather unlikely). But 1948 was a colossal screw-up by both the entire polling industry and Governor Dewey himself and it happened, let us not forget, 60 years ago when polling—comparatively—was is in its infancy. If the polls get this wrong… it will make what happened in the UK in 1992 in the polling outfits look like a mild case of indigestion (and they made huge, sweeping, changes because of that).
  14. Please. Also, while one can take issue with many separate polling organizations, as an aggregate they do pretty good. Unlike the exit polls, the final polling results for 2004 correctly predicted a narrow Bush victory. With the outstanding example of New Hampshire this year aside, they've done pretty well as a group for the 2008 primary campaign as well.
  15. Ah, I see what you're saying. He doesn't need the youth vote, but if he gets it it's certain that's won. Yeah, I agree with that.
  16. Agreed. On my map, North Carolina and Missouri are the pair I'm least sure about. Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Georgia—I think all will be close, but ultimately Republican.
  17. Take a look at Gallup's voter models. Even the one where it assumes standard turnout (the Traditional model) Obama is still ahead. So no, he doesn't need the youth vote to win. I'm not jumping the gun myself though it's more likely than not Obama is going to win, but many polls that show Obama ahead are not attempting to model a different and unexpected turn-out. I don't really see where you're getting "he needs the youth vote to win" from.
  18. (My comments refer to the Political Wonk scenario.) North Dakota was not a toss-up state at the beginning of September, and I doubt Obama will win it. That said, it is quite possible to get N.D. in the scenario (likewise with Montana). In none of those three was Obama double-digits before the economic problems (technically, ahead in Virginia, ahead in Penn., trailing in Florida), and after the economic problems and the event series in-game that deals with it he should be. We'll have to see turn-out numbers on Tuesday, but it is possible to flip Georgia against a human player. Not until recently, but (pending final numbers) McCain should indeed be weakened in Arizona.
  19. How do you people get so much money? 2008 as Obama in the Political Wonk scenario is the only one where I ever have enough money, and that's because I doubled Democratic fund-raising. Anyway, in a general sense the game works better if you play the primaries and general election as separate scenarios (just note who won the primaries, pick VPs, and start up in the general election).
  20. Nah, he cheated by getting Obama as his VP (which is not to take away from an impressive win). I'm cool.
  21. Vote on the poll, damn your hide . (ETA: And now you have. Um. Other people vote! Yeah '84 would be pretty cool, especially with Kennedy as an optional Democratic candidate. I'm not sure if there is a plausible potential challenger to Reagan, though (perhaps a house rule including VP Bush if Reagan dies in the attempted assassination).
  22. I'm done with Campaign '68 until President Forever 2012 (unless somebody has an issue) and although I do have stuff to work on both for TheorySpark and elsewhere I should be free by the New Year. So… pick a scenario. Zion has kindly offered me his '76 & '88 scenarios to use as a base for those years, and Doug325 has done likewise for his West Wing 2006 scenario so I can get a jump on those. As regards 1964 it's at least as much work as 1968 or the official 1960 scenario and I'm not really into it right now & Patine has a pretty good 1996 scenario and I'll leave it mostly alone for now. For the other years not mentioned, well… 1980, 1992, 2000, 2004, and 2008 Political Wonk are all official scenarios I can put in work for in bits and pieces.
×
×
  • Create New...