Jump to content
270soft Forum

Rz9392

Steering Council Member
  • Content Count

    209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Posts posted by Rz9392

  1. Ok so I've been trying to figure how to get Bayh into the lead when he's on, but have the Democrats not leading when Bayh isn't in the race. So I set an event when the game first starts (if Bayh is running) that put the democratic momentum high enough to get the Democrats in the lead by the next turn. This eliminates that problem.

  2. Please send me their advice to my email: Rz9392@hotmail.com

    There could be a bunch of problems that are causing the game to crash. A tiny html error could cause it, or possibly not having the coordinates correctly placed on the map. I think we're out of luck with this scenario unless the Admin can help us or if a Congress forever scenario creator is put out. Neither right now is likely. I would go back to working on the 2006 scenario. Hopefully in the future this can be completed.

  3. I thought Sander was officially an Independent. Shouldn't he be his own party? Also, any news on the seat Lieberman's vacating, speaking of Independents.

    Third party candidates will only be included if they make a impact on the race ie. Crist, Murkowski. The only exception to that is if Lieberman was to run, which he is not. I might include him on off but it's not a high priority now. Plus i'm limited with how much I can do with html.

  4. Ok so editing 100 senatorial seats via html is very hard, but it's done. All i'm going to say is that the Republicans need 51 seats to take the the majority and they start off with a projected 52-53 (still a few percentages to adjust which may skew the results). I'm going to keep the goal for them at 51, since I don't see any other number feasible for a goal (or sensible, except maybe 61 for a supermajority?)

    Here's a wrap up of where everything stands when the game begins.

    Safe Democratic (leading challenger by more than 15 points)

    Dianne Feinstein (CA)

    Tom Carper (DE)

    Ben Cardin (MD)

    Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)

    Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

    Bernie Sander (VT)

    Maria Cantwell (WA)

    Likely Democratic (leading challenger by more than 8 points)

    Connecticut Seat

    Bob Casey (PA)

    Herb Kohl (WI)

    Hawaii Senate

    Debbie Stabenow (MI)

    Amy Klobuchar (MN)

    Bob Menendez (NJ)

    Slightly Democratic (leading challenger by more than 4 points)

    Bill Nelson (FL)

    Sherrod Brown (OH)

    Joe Manchin (WV)

    Toss Up ( Tied or GOP, DEM winning by less than 4 points)

    Claire McCaskill (MO)

    Ben Nelson (NE)

    New Mexico Seat

    Virginia Seat

    Slightly Republican (leading challenger by more than 4 points)

    Dean Heller (NV)

    Likely Republican (leading challenger by more than 8 points)

    Richard Lugar (IN) *In the scenario Incumbent is defeated by primary challenger

    Scott Brown (MA)

    Texas Seat

    Arizona Seat

    Safe Republican (leading challenger by more than 15 points)

    Olympia Snowe (ME)

    Roger Wicker (MS)

    Bob Corker (TN)

    Orrin Hatch *In the scenario Incumbent is defeated by primary challenger

    John Barrasso (WY)

  5. The bin Laden section in the CIA was created under President Clinton in 1996. It was disbanded under President Bush in 2005.

    CIA Director Leon Panette admitted on NBC that they continued tortured tactics to get details on Bin Ladens where abouts.

  6. There's a baseline turnout (determined by eligible voter - alienated), and then that should vary a bit based on momentum and ground ops.

    & How different is turnout going to be compared to Congress forever?

    Also, is President forever 2012 going to be a mirror image of congress forever? I remember you talking about a new feature called "ground ops?" Would that be considered the same as the options available in targeting senate/congressional seats?

  7. Without the war on Iraq, Osama would have been caught years ago.

    That's debatable & not supported by hard facts. What we know is that Obama wanted to leave the middle east in 2006. To quote him, "The war is lost." Now if Obama or any democratic president was around then, we would of never caught Osama. It was Bush who took the popularity hit and kept our troops their and led the overall intelligence for Obama to take over.

  8. I reject the 'short term memory' claim. Even after a decade, Americans still remember that Osama was so bad that his death was worth taking to the streets in celebration of.

    I say it is an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives in 9/11, to say that the death of the man responsible will be forgotten by next year. Voters aren't going to have going through their head "the unemployment figure has climed 0.2% in the last two months, the president must go!" when they can contemplate that Obama finally did what Bush never could, and brought Osama to justice.

    The economy was going pretty bad all throughout the Bush years, but no one cared because national security was far more important. Bush won 2004 based solely on that. Don't sell the significance of Osama's death so short.

    Gas wasn't anywhere close to $5 back in 2004, unemployment was below 8%, the debt wasn't even near where it is today, and the economy wasn't on the brink. The Osama issue will help Obama on his foreign policy. But the economy is the economy, and living like most people are now isn't going to be a game changer just because a man (who should've been caught ages ago) was killed. This argument can easily be turned into a Bush vs. Obama argument, but the electorate is going to look at if their life since Obama took office and if it has gotten better. I don't see Osama changing that view people have in that area. The only thing that really changes, is Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, not being able to run. I'm not saying they were planning to in the first place, i'm saying that it makes the field more serious. Because this was a wake up call for the GOP that Obama is going to be more difficult to defeat, but not impossible as many expect.

  9. Hey guys, I just finished a 2012 Senate scenario. The only problem I have is, that i'm unable to delete Murkowski and Crist without having an error when you click on Alaska or Florida. I know there's a way to make it work, but so far i've haven't gotten it. If anyone knows how to delete it and replace it without having murkowski or crist in the race, leave your email below and I will send it.

    Also, the democratic + republican challengers are the highest polling primary challenger against the incumbent. The only question I have is if I should include gabrielle giffords and the democratic nominee. Thank you!

    • Upvote 2
  10. The 2012 election will be a referendum on the economy. Although it's great that he was caught, it will be short lived. Especially for an electorate with a short-term memory and a belief that foreign policy should be going well. The election is still a year and a half away, and with $5 gas, an out of control debt, and the unpopular health care bill, it still will be competitive.

    • Upvote 1
  11. yea i was kind fighting with my self on that lmao so how this list lol

    Abortion/same-sex marriage (I combine the two social issues cause i need room and general republican who don't support same-sex marriage don't support same-sex marriage

    balance budget (need to be reworded with need economic and debt

    China

    Education

    environment

    Energy

    gun Control

    Health care (need to be reworded to include obama health care program)

    Homeland security

    Immigration

    nuclear proliferation ( replace the Iran issue but need include stance on Iran and north Korea and the Russia nuclear treaty )

    Afghanistan

    outsourcing

    Taxes (need to be reworded to include stances on all taxes)

    Economy ( which will deal with job and unemployment)

    social security

    democracy in the middle east

    unions

    They look great!

  12. RZ, on the subject of Vice Presidents: A matter of personal taste, but I deleted all the Dem VPs except Biden. I actually included Clinton and Emmanuel in my own scenario last year, but at this point in the game, I can't see a change being made to Biden's position.

    On the Republican side, I've deleted a few of the 2012 presidential contenders from the VP slots. The reason is that the game automatically adds Presidential candidates as potential VPs. I don't remember which ones you had there, but I deleted all of them except for Huckabee, Daniels, and Pawlenty as I could feasibly see them as VPs more than I could, say, Romney or Palin or Gingrich (who I see as either Presidential candidates or nothing at all).

    I'm not sure about Scott Walker. The first rule of VP is "First, do no harm." Walker's been governor for exactly four months and most of that has been marked by unions camping out inside the capitol building and the legislator hiding in other states. ;c) He certainly appeals to the far right, but I'm not sure how realistic it is. For now, I'm leaving him in, but only until I come up with a few replacements.

    Nikki Haley is more likely, but as a quasi-practicing Sikh, there may be some baggage there (fair or otherwise). I'll probably still leave her in, at least for now.

    All of that, like I said, is just my own opinion. Things I think most of us can agree on though is that Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, and Ron Johnson simply don't have the experience. By the 2012 election, each of them will have exactly TWO years of experience. Yes, Obama did it...but the Republican cry was that he just wasn't experienced enough. Likewise, Palin's inexperience tanked McCain's half-hearted attempt as well. I'm more lenient on inexperienced governors because if they're doing particularly well, it's more feasible (especially if they govern a swing state). That said, probably 80% of your VP candidates will have less than a full term under their belt (either senate or governor) by 2012.

    I'm leaving the inexperienced governors in my game for right now, until I can replace them. Give me a day or two, and I'll give you a list of feasible Republican VPs with at least one term behind them.

    As an aside, I noticed in my last run through that my space-barred Ron Paul libertarian got 9.4% of the national vote. Without taking a single action, he received more votes than Ross Perot in 1996, the most successful third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. ;c)

    Hm interesting take. I think the candidates I listed as the GOP VP's will be the crop of candidates that run in 2016 + beyond. I personally don't see a lot of possible GOP contenders because most of the feasible ones were wiped out in 2006 + 2008. They are just rebuilding there party back up now. I think the public would have a rather a fresh face (with limited experience) than an old hag who's irrelevant. But who knows, there may be another Sarah Palin in the waiting that no one knows about. As for Ron Paul, I literally stuck him in right before I sent out the scenario to everyone because I forgot about updating the 3rd + 4th parties (Libertarian, Constitution).

    • Upvote 1
  13. Some other good potential candidates:

    Susana Martinez (R-NM)

    Marco Rubio (R-FL)

    John Kasich (R-OH)

    Nikki Haley (R-SC)

    Chris Christie (R-NJ)

    Scott Brown (R-MA)

    Jan Brewer (R-AZ)

    Andrew Cuomo (D-NY)

    Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

    Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

    Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

    Michael Bennet (D-CO)

    Joe Manchin (D-WV)

    I think Dino Rossi is done politically, he ran a lot but he never held office, so how could he win the presidency? Tim Pawlenty is done too, especially in 2016 when the GOP has a ton of new fresh faces who won in 2010 and now are viable experienced candidates. Who is Aaron Schock?

    Elliot Spitzer could never run again politically after the scandal that plagued him & forced him to resign. Al Franken & Rahm Emanuel are too polarizing and I think Jerry Brown gig as the Governor is his last breath in his political life.

    • Upvote 1
  14. am starting the inside work now with issues... here what Issues will be as i see the 2012 Election...

    Abortion/same-sex marriage (I combine the two social issues cause i need room and general republican who don't support same-sex marriage don't support same-sex marriage

    balance budget (need to be reworded with need economic climate

    Stem Cell

    Education

    environment

    Energy

    gun Control

    Health care (need to be reworded to include obama health care program)

    Homeland security

    Immigration

    nuclear proliferation ( replace the Iran issue but need include stance on Iran and north Korea and the Russia nuclear treaty )

    Afghanistan

    outsourcing

    Taxes (need to be reworded to include stances on all taxes)

    Economy ( which will deal with job and unemployment)

    social security

    democracy in the middle east

    War on terror

    give me your feed back

    Everything looks great, the only 2 issues i'm iffy about is Stem Cell and War on terror. Although they are both very important issues, are they going to be the focus around the 2012 campaign? Maybe you should reconsider and replace them with Unions and the National Debt or the Debt Ceiling, or China.

    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act = Obamacare

    • Upvote 1
  15. Thanks! Just space barred a game as libertarian Ron Paul. Overall, very impressed...although there was one major flaw.

    Iowa went to Huckabee, while New Hampshire surprisingly went to Bachman. Immediately, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Cain all dropped. Pawlenty and Cain endorsed Huckabee, while Daniels went for Romney.

    Another string of primaries, and it seems like Huckabee is in the lead (although this is just my assumption, I didn't actually check) when Huckabee suddenly dropped out of the race in mid February. Surprising, but maybe I was wrong about Huckabee's vote totals.

    Bachman dropped in March, Palin was out by April...by May, it was Romney, Trump, Gingrich (in order of delegates). All of a sudden, Gingrich went on a run where he collected the last ten...maybe 15 states...all by himself. He knocked Trump out of the race.

    When the dust settled on June 7th (all primaries done), Ginrich has 1176, while Romney had 1172. Crazy close, but Gingrich won!

    Except...he didn't.

    A week or so later, it was GINGRICH who dropped out (despite having enough delegates), giving the nomination to Romney. When the time came, Romney repayed the favor by choosing Gingrich as his VP.

    Obama chose Bayh. I didn't like that, but that's a matter of personal taste and I'll just remove everyone but Biden on the democrats side.

    The true campaign was back and forth for a while, with Obama finally winning re-election with 311 to 227. States were fairly distributed.

    So, overall, I'm very impressed (especially considering I've previously tried to build a 2012, and was stimmied with the fact that Obama crushed any Republican, so I know how hard it is to build balance!) That said, Gingrich leaving the race after he won (and possibly Huckabee leaving while he's ahead?) definitely need looked at.

    Thanks again though! Love the addition!

    Lmao, why would Gingrich drop out? Nothing that a few relations would fix, I think I set Romney & Huckabee to have a bad relationship (like real life). I'm glad that the overall general election seemed realistic, I forgot what I did to make that work. I find it so unrealistic & annoying, when polls are +5 one turn and then -10 the next, states aren't supposed to change that fast. Thank you for the great feedback!

    Btw, what did you think of the GOP VP's?

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...