Lahbas

Alright, I ended up chiseling away about 15% of the primary vote away from the Democrats in every state, and it came out beautiful. The only difference from the historical race was that for some reason 5%-6% of the Republican voting bloc moved over to Perot, thereby giving Clinton a landslide, though he himself had close to the historical vote. Now, there are some other issues - None of the third parties have their own funds, thereby forcing their general election candidates to start with no funds. At the same time, the have consistently gone into the negative while campaigning. - The Refor

I dropped Clinton's funds to eight million, and he is still way to strong. The major problem is that he soaks up all the undecided vote early on. What I think should be done is have the Democratic Party's numbers in the primaries lowered to be on par or under that of the Republicans. I am going to try that now to see if it works.

It is impossible. Even after getting through a difficult primary campaign as DuPont, the polls had me at 30-60 with Clinton. However, the problem I believe lies with funding. You gave Clinton such a large sum of money, he uses it all and gets most of the endorsements, thus allowing him to get an insurmontable lead. At the same time, that amount is impossible to counter as any of the other Democratic Party candidates. You should reduce it to a relatively low number, as he is going to raise a LOT of money anyway.

In regards to the mysterious error, you forgot to add general election percentages to the Green and Tudor Parties, thereby forcing them to start at zero in the general election. Also, all the candidates makes too much money. I lowered the fundraising coefficent to 100, and the new numbers look realistic to me.

Is it possible to have a candidate have a negative bonus in a state? (I have tried through the state bonuses, but it turns negative numbers into positive numbers; I cite and example where I had given a Democrat a -99 bonus in Alabama, and Alabama shortly thereafter became solid blue, even though he should have had little to no support there.)

Okay, I have taken all of these into consideration. Has anybody tested or played this scenario? Is there or were there any problems with it?

For the characters that can run, it is possible to win as Humphrey, RFK, McCarthy, George McGovern, Edward Kennedy (despite having 0% in the primaries), Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, John Lindsay, and with difficulty, George Wallace. George Romney I have run as and, despite making respectable showings in the primaries, failed to gain any real momentem. Lester Maddox is immpossible on all levels, being given the stats of a favorite son.

I have been working on this for a while, but have been so busy that I never really got around to adding it here. Anyway, you can go ahead and have some fun with it. There are only a couple questions that I have regarding this scenario...... - Are there any other candidates that I have NOT added that though about running in 2000? (General Election Candidates included) - Are there major political figures that I have not mentioned that might be chosen in the case of a deadlocked convention? - Is it possible to have a candidate have a negative bonus in a state? (I have tried through the state b

Republicans George W. Bush John McCain Patrick Buchanan (off) Steve Forbes Elizabeth Dole Dan Quayle (off) Alan Keyes Orrin Hatch Gary Bauer Lamar Alexander (off) John Kasich (off) Robert Smith (off) General Election Candidates Colin Powell (off) Trent Lott (off) Dick Cheney (off) William Weld (off) Arlen Specter (off) Norman Schwarzkopf (off) Clint Eastwood (off) Democratic Al Gore Dick Gephardt (off) Jesse Jackson (off) John Kerry (off) Bob Kerrey (off) Bill Bradley Paul Wellstone (off) Howard Dean (off) Warren Beatty (off) General Election Candidates Tom Carp