Jump to content
270soft Forum

1980 Beta Scenario


Recommended Posts

i sort of feel like the scenerio is a little biased against the dems- no matter what, if you play the general election they get slaughtered. I took Proxmire, upped his stats- he only won DC and a handful of states in NE. Teddy got blown in out in a similar way. I understand Regean was a great politican. However, i think that any Democrat other than Carter should have at least a fighting chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I just finished my first playthorough. Great job theoryspark! I got the exact 1980 results as Reagan exept Minn went to me.

i sort of feel like the scenerio is a little biased against the dems- no matter what, if you play the general election they get slaughtered. I took Proxmire, upped his stats- he only won DC and a handful of states in NE. Teddy got blown in out in a similar way. I understand Regean was a great politican. However, i think that any Democrat other than Carter should have at least a fighting chance.

Reality was biased against the Democratic Party in 1980 (besides the Presidency they lost control of the Senate, and lost seats in the House).

However I've beaten the 1980 scenario as the Democrats (Kennedy) against a human Ronald Reagan, so it is entirely possible to win against the computer if I can beat my roommate, the human, who is very nearly as good as I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should Issue Familiarity's profile be raised also? I believe in 1980 that Reagan and Carter were in a statistical dead-heat going into the final debate where Reagan destroyed Carter which led to a landslide win in the Electoral College.

I'm thinking around mid-October there should be an event timeline that starts and raises Issue Familiarity's profile to "Very High." Thoughts?

BTW, Tip O'Neill should be removed as a Kennedy crusader and replaced...Carter (in the summer of '79) realized the power O'Neill could have for Kennedy and appointed O'Neill convention Chair, meaning O'Neill was subject to "forced neutrality).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though Reagan bested Carter in the debates in reality, I still think Carter's 1 for Debate Skill and 2 for Issue Familiarity are unrealistically weak. Carter's angle in the debates was to speak very technically on the issues to appear more knowledgable than Reagan. Reagan won the debates at least in part because he knew Carter's approach was about as interesting as dry toast to the average viewer, and he played that fact up ("There you go again..."). I upped Carter's stats to 3's in both catagories because, while Reagan was the superior debater, Carter may have been able to hold his own against other opponents who didn't have Reagan's savvy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Was there no viability threashold in 1980? Or is that bug acting up again.

On the GOP side? There was not, depending sometimes on the state (and the game dislikes me giving them a 1-2% one). On the Democratic side there was their 15% post '68 threshold which should be working.

Should Issue Familiarity's profile be raised also? I believe in 1980 that Reagan and Carter were in a statistical dead-heat going into the final debate where Reagan destroyed Carter which led to a landslide win in the Electoral College.

I'm thinking around mid-October there should be an event timeline that starts and raises Issue Familiarity's profile to "Very High." Thoughts?

BTW, Tip O'Neill should be removed as a Kennedy crusader and replaced...Carter (in the summer of '79) realized the power O'Neill could have for Kennedy and appointed O'Neill convention Chair, meaning O'Neill was subject to "forced neutrality).

Reagan generally led in the polls throughout, but there was a very large group of undecided voters. Once Reagan showed he wasn't a crazy person, by besting Carter in the debates and looking not-crazy doing it, the undecided voters shifted to him.

As for an event on Issue Familiarity, that would be an interesting twist… I'm not sure that issue has ever become important but as a proxy for "reasonable and intelligent" that could work.

Yeah… I was struggling to come up with crusaders for Kennedy. Any suggestions if I toss Tip?

Even though Reagan bested Carter in the debates in reality, I still think Carter's 1 for Debate Skill and 2 for Issue Familiarity are unrealistically weak. Carter's angle in the debates was to speak very technically on the issues to appear more knowledgable than Reagan. Reagan won the debates at least in part because he knew Carter's approach was about as interesting as dry toast to the average viewer, and he played that fact up ("There you go again..."). I upped Carter's stats to 3's in both catagories because, while Reagan was the superior debater, Carter may have been able to hold his own against other opponents who didn't have Reagan's savvy.

The problem is that debate wins only matter when somebody "Triumphs". A win or a loss is a minor story, but a "Triumph" is a major story. The only way to get Triumphs is to unbalance their debating skills. However an alternate solution would be to leave Reagan up high and simply reduce everybody down to Carter's level or a bit above.

Nobody in the field was as good a debater as Reagan, but you're right that Carter is artificially handicapped against a different Republican.

I just finished my first playthorough. Great job theoryspark! I got the exact 1980 results as Reagan exept Minn went to me.

Thank you.

Actually Minnesota going for you bothers me, because in the 1972-1988 period Minnesota was the only reliably Democratic state in the whole country (no, D.C. does not count)… perhaps I'll toughen the Dems up a bit in Minnesota.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some Crusader suggestions for Kennedy:

Paul Tsongas PIP: 1 Base Power: 1

Father Robert Drinan PIP: 1 Base Power: 1

Kennedy Family PIP: 0 Base Power: 3

As far as Carter goes:

Ruth Carter Stapleton PIP: 0 Base Power: 2

For Reagan:

Barry Goldwater PIP: 5 Base Power: 3

For Connally:

Strom Thurmond PIP: 5 Base Power: 3

For Bush:

James Baker PIP: 0 Base Power: 1

As far as Barry or Strom go, placing them in an endorser column might be better. I know that Thurmond supported Connally, but Thurmond being a Crusader could be a detriment in states above the Mason-Dixon line. Goldwater may have favored Reagan, but I have no idea whether he actually would have come out in support (by the mid 80's, Goldwater was on the fringe of the party).

One national endorser should be the Moral Majority. I believe that Jerry Falwell vigorously supported Carter in 1976 along with the Christian Right, but by 1980 they were fed up with the Democratic Party (due to ignoring them while people such as Reagan campaigned for their votes along with a lack of progress on their issues). Reagan's success was aided by the conservative and evangelical takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979 (previously, SBC was a moderate, pro-choice, mainline organization).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good job on the scenario...only change I would make would be to make Reagan's charisma a 4 (A 5 in '84, since everyone kinda rallied around him after the shooting) and his experience a 4 (Because he was Governor of California).

I disagree on both points, but thanks for the feedback nonetheless.

Justification you say? Well, alright. For one he's been out of office for six years, and for second I feel that an experience of 4 should be kept for VPs (whether I'm consistent on that is another thing).

As for charisma? He was always very charismatic, and although his support might have increased post-shooting (the end of the 1981-2 recession might also have helped) I don't feel it effected his emotional appeal to people. After all the American public was well to the left of his stated 1980 positions, and he won for non-policy reasons in the main.

For Bush: James Baker PIP: 0 Base Power: 1

One national endorser should be the Moral Majority. I believe that Jerry Falwell vigorously supported Carter in 1976 along with the Christian Right, but by 1980 they were fed up with the Democratic Party (due to ignoring them while people such as Reagan campaigned for their votes along with a lack of progress on their issues). Reagan's success was aided by the conservative and evangelical takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979 (previously, SBC was a moderate, pro-choice, mainline organization).

Baker is already in there, but thanks for your other suggestions.

I consider Carter to have done a good enough job losing evangelical support on his own, and that even if he had convinced the leaders of the movement to support him the members wouldn't have. Nor, unlike the NRA, did those organizations have a ton of money and manpower to spend on electoral politics in 1980.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are the Republicans blue?

IIRC, parties didn't realistically become identified with one color until the 2000 election, where every major network showed Gore in blue and Bush in red.

For whatever reason, color association with the parties has always fascinated me, yet I've never found much information on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are the Republicans blue?
IIRC, parties didn't realistically become identified with one color until the 2000 election, where every major network showed Gore in blue and Bush in red.

For whatever reason, color association with the parties has always fascinated me, yet I've never found much information on it.

From the Wiki:

Early on, the most common—though again, not universal—color scheme was to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. This was the color scheme employed by NBC—David Brinkley famously referred to the 1980 map showing Reagan's 44-state landslide as a "sea of blue", but this color scheme was also employed by most news magazines. CBS from 1984-present, however, used the opposite scheme—blue for Democrats, red for Republicans.

ABC was less consistent than its elder network brothers; in at least two presidential elections during this time before the emergence of cable news outlets, ABC used yellow for one major party and blue for the other. In 1984, ABC used red=Republican and blue=Democrat.

As late as 1996, there was still no universal association of one color with one party. If anything, by 1996, color schemes were relatively mixed, as CNN, CBS, and the New York Times referred to Democratic states with the color blue and Republican ones as red, while Time Magazine and the Washington Post used an opposite scheme.

As both NBC & CBS used blue/Republican & red/Democratic prior to 1984 I'll accept that as the default (ABC was the junior network). Post 1980 I'd probably stick with blue/Democratic and red/Republican.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts-

You have to click on Iowa to pull up National Endorsers.

Endorser Minority Leader Howard Baker endorses Candidate Reagan 90% of the time, which is unrealistic if Candidate Howard Baker remains in the race.

In terms of issues-

Far Right Environment- Trees cause pollution.

Seriously? Did Reagan ever say that? Did anyone ever say that?

ERA- How is "The ERA isn't important, the 14th Amendment already exists" (Right position) substantially different from "The ERA isn't important" (Far Right position)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Far Right Environment- Trees cause pollution.

Seriously? Did Reagan ever say that? Did anyone ever say that?

Yes, he frequently said things along those lines...Canadian PM Brian Mulroney was heard to make fun of this in the "Secret Mulroney Tapes."

Ex."Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation. So let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources."-Sierra Magazine

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to click on Iowa to pull up National Endorsers.

Endorser Minority Leader Howard Baker endorses Candidate Reagan 90% of the time, which is unrealistic if Candidate Howard Baker remains in the race.

In terms of issues-

Far Right Environment- Trees cause pollution.

Seriously? Did Reagan ever say that? Did anyone ever say that?

ERA- How is "The ERA isn't important, the 14th Amendment already exists" (Right position) substantially different from "The ERA isn't important" (Far Right position)?

Actually those aren't national endorsers: they're early primary (and they also effect their home state) endorsers on the position that only early primary voters (and home state voters) pay enough attention to care about the endorsement of party leaders.

Yeah, there's no conditional statements for endorsers. I suppose I'll just have to turn him off.

As noted by OldPC, Reagan did indeed say stuff like that upon occasion.

It implies that the right-wing position accepts the 14th Amendment as mattering to the issue of women's rights, while the far-right position is not so much on board. However if you want to suggest alternate language, I'd at least consider it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It implies that the right-wing position accepts the 14th Amendment as mattering to the issue of women's rights, while the far-right position is not so much on board. However if you want to suggest alternate language, I'd at least consider it.

I'd change the Right position to "The ERA is not necessary, the 14th Amendment provides those rights" and the Far-Right Position to "The ERA would radically alter society". However, this still leaves a bad taste in my mouth because anyone who says the 14th Amendment fills the gaps is someone who is obviously a proponent of incorporation. Not exactly a position you often find on the right.

Is there a reason polls now come out on Wednesday instead of Monday?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd change the Right position to "The ERA is not necessary, the 14th Amendment provides those rights" and the Far-Right Position to "The ERA would radically alter society". However, this still leaves a bad taste in my mouth because anyone who says the 14th Amendment fills the gaps is someone who is obviously a proponent of incorporation. Not exactly a position you often find on the right.

To be honest I stole the 14th Amendment / ERA bit from Ainsley Hayes on the West Wing ("17 People").

Reagan's position:

On the ERA, the President's view is intricate. As governor, Mr. Reagan signed an equal-rights bill, the first one in the land, and he had high hopes for it. But toward the end of his term, when the implications of it bore in on him, he soured on it, and declined to support it publicly thereafter. In 1980, the President was said first to have resisted efforts by conservative Republican women to have the GOP platform denounce the ERA, feeling that such a denunciation was borrowing trouble. But they were adamant, and the ERA condemnation found its way into the platform, despite the objections of pro-ERA Republican women, including daughter Maureen.

I could change the right-wing position to "We have no position on the ERA" (the official Republican party stance of 1980 pre-convention platform) and far-right to an anti-ERA stance.

Is there a reason polls now come out on Wednesday instead of Monday?

Yep. That means by the time you see them on Tuesday (in the general election) they're six days out of date. It's a clumsy work-around to simulate the lower accuracy of polling in 1980.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 1.03

- Minnesota is now a little more Democratic

- Paul Tsongas, Kennedy Family, and Ruth Carter Stapleton added as Crusaders

- Candidate debating/issue familiarity skills tweaked so Carter is on a more level playing field with non-Reagan Republican candidates

You can download the latest version here.

The TheorySpark Team

Link to post
Share on other sites
This only struck me now, but why does Hugh Carey only have $1 million in the bank while Jerry Brown has $3 million?

Jerry Brown ran and Hugh Carey didn't; Brown was quite good at raising money in general (his 1-800 number in the 1992 primaries was wildly successful if I recall correctly).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...