Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


mahaadoxyz last won the day on October 20 2012

mahaadoxyz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About mahaadoxyz

  • Rank
    Political Guru

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The Federalists had only one high-quality politician, and that was Washington. He is able to win my A-List scenario, if he plays his cards very very right. Alexander Hamilton is another quality candidate, but he's not in this version (though he will be in my version of this scenario for P4E2012, should it ever get around to being developed). The likes of Charles Pinckney and DeWitt Clinton aren't serious contenders, though; I think it's realistic for the Federalists to be basically a minor party in the B-list scenario. (And, uh, I've received it, though I haven't played it yet because I don'
  2. Okay, cool. I might or might not get a big enough chunk of free time to do them sooner.
  3. Okay, cool. How quickly do you need them? For the remainder of this week I'm somewhat busy with finals, and then with Christmas stuff early next week. I could probably find time to do it in the next couple of days, but it wouldn't necessarily be the most convenient on my end, so if a delay of a week or so is not a big deal on your end, I might wait until Boxing Day or something.
  4. Got color preferences for each pair of letters? I'm assuming those are the Southern Democratic, Progressive, Anti-Masonic, Free Soil, Constitutional Union, and New Alliance parties, yes? One idea I did just have would be to create an actual logo for the Anti-Masonic Party, basically just a freemason's symbol in one of those red crossed-out circles. I think for one incarnation of this scenario I tried to find a logo from the Federalist Party.
  5. Looks like the New Alliance Party eventually kind of merged with the Perot party. Would it make sense to include Fulani as an off-by-default Reform type? Not sure it would, but I don't really know the details of the story.
  6. If you wanted to throw Gary Johnson and Ron Paul into a Libertarian primary, given that Paul did run on that ticket in 1988, that could theoretically be cool. Have you included any of the other, more major Southern Democrats already, like George Wallace or John Breckinridge? If so, adding in the protest-vote versions of that party as really weak minor candidates in the Dixiecrat primary would make a fair amount of sense. And as for the Free Soilers, I guess it just depends on the overall philosophy you've been taking to minor parties. My original conception of the scenarios was that there wou
  7. Ah, yeah, I approve of adding Burr to the list. And Romney, obviously.
  8. Anyone who wants to can share this with anyone who wants it, I hereby declare.
  9. I'm wondering whether there's any thought of doing the thing that some of us have been asking for, namely allowing for multiple different electoral systems like popular vote, top-two runoff, etc., in the P4E2012 game engine. It would seriously expand the horizons of what kinds of scenarios it would be possible to create well. Another thought I just had is that, particularly at the down-ballot level, lots of primaries have a runoff system where if no one gets a majority you have a top-two runoff a week or two later.
  10. We've occasionally discussed adding the Liebreman/Teddy Roosevelt option, where after losing your party's nomination you run as an independent. The discussion of the Lugar/Mourdock race in Indiana has included the fact that a lot of states have so-called "sore loser laws" that explicitly (or implicitly, through filing deadlines) forbid this. So if this option does get included in the game, which I think it should be 'cause it makes things interesting, it should be at the discretion of the scenario creator.
  11. Especially since watching results come in on a state-by-state level, the fun is mostly in looking at different counties, and that's a whole extra layer of data that the game doesn't have and doesn't need to have. If it's just, oh, with thirty percent of votes counted it's an eight-point lead, but then it's a ten-point lead when all the votes are in, that doesn't add a whole lot. I agree that it would be cool, conceptually, but I think you'd need to do a staggering amount of work to get the properly cool part.
  12. My impression of watching this upcoming election unfold is that there are two fundamental dynamics - there's the movement of Obama's approval rating, which seems to make the general election numbers move in essentially 1-to-1 correspondence, and then there's a handicap that each of the Republican candidates "spots" Obama. So, for instance, Romney's handicap looks like about 6 points, so if Obama's net approval rating is around -3% nationally his margin against Romney will be about 3% nationally, but if his approval rating improved to +1% then he'd be beating Romney by 7%, and if he went down t
  13. So, here are some thoughts that occurred to me in the wake of last night's Cain-Gingrich debate. The dynamic there was, basically, that Gingrich had challenged the rest of the field, collectively, to having some one-on-one debates with him, and only Cain accepted, so they had a debate. Unlike standard primary debates, this was one in which they were each allowed to speak for long stretches of time at once, and to engage in back-and-forth with each other. So what I'm thinking is, maybe there should be a mechanism whereby a candidate can challenge another candidate to a one-on-one debate? That's
  14. You know, I'm just thinking about the incredible volatility that we've seen in the last two Republican cycles, and wondering if there's any way to incorporate that. A straw poll made Tim Pawlenty (mistakenly) drop out of the race. Rick Perry soared to the top upon his entry, then had one bad debate and cratered. Herman Cain, meanwhile, went from ~5% to a healthy-sized lead, seemingly overnight, again because he had one good debate performance. Maybe the debates should be made to matter more? Maybe in multi-candidate races the volatility factor should be higher? I'm not exactly sure how to do t
  • Create New...