Jump to content
270soft Forum

Pick A Scenario For Me To Do


Campaign ?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Pick One & Embrace it :).

    • 1972
      23
    • 1976
      9
    • 1984
      3
    • 1988
      6
    • West Wing 2006
      11


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1984 had an interesting Democratic primary as did 1988, but at least 1988 was somewhat competitive whereas in '84 the Democrats probably got a shock similar to the Canadian PCs in 1993.

I'd say 1984 would be more interesting simply because we already have a fairly decent, usermade 1988 one and the usermade 1984 one seems a bit disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say 1984 would be more interesting simply because we already have a fairly decent, usermade 1988 one and the usermade 1984 one seems a bit disappointing.

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1972. It would have been interesting to see if Muskie, Humphrey, or Wallace had been nominated. I'd have to assume they would do better than McGovern. Wallace would probably have done very well in the south, and possibly industrial states. Humphrey could have at least competed in blue-collar states, and Muskie could have made the race more competitve across the board, and possibly kept the N.D. Coalition alive a little longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1972. It would have been interesting to see if Muskie, Humphrey, or Wallace had been nominated. I'd have to assume they would do better than McGovern. Wallace would probably have done very well in the south, and possibly industrial states. Humphrey could have at least competed in blue-collar states, and Muskie could have made the race more competitve across the board, and possibly kept the N.D. Coalition alive a little longer.

Fortunately, now with GE region state bonuses for primary candidates being available, you can model this much better than before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'72 is interesting, though, because it really did come down to the convention, with McGovern actually having to use the CA delegation seating vote as a test. Granted, it ended up being McGovern by more than expected, but it's still interesting...especially if you don't have Wallace getting shot (and still winning something like 25% in NM from a hospital bed).

Frankly, I think Wallace came closer to at least forcing a convention than most people would like to think...not to mention that if McGovern drops CA, all hell breaks loose (since that'd probably have put all 271 delegates to Humphrey, his closest challenger, instead of McGovern). '72 is one of those cases where one primary (not in NH) basically decided things. It's also about as "up in the air" as you can get, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really interesting is what if Humphrey, Wallace, or Muskie had won the nomination. They probably would have lost, but how would the Democratic party have changed? McGovern may have been a candidate in '76, but maybe Scoop Jackson would have been the nominee, or maybe Mo Udall as a compromise. Where does Watergate come into play? If the results are closer, does that create even more of a scandal and does it bring the GOP to it's knees? That's why this race is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'72 is interesting, though, because it really did come down to the convention, with McGovern actually having to use the CA delegation seating vote as a test. Granted, it ended up being McGovern by more than expected, but it's still interesting...especially if you don't have Wallace getting shot (and still winning something like 25% in NM from a hospital bed).

Frankly, I think Wallace came closer to at least forcing a convention than most people would like to think...not to mention that if McGovern drops CA, all hell breaks loose (since that'd probably have put all 271 delegates to Humphrey, his closest challenger, instead of McGovern). '72 is one of those cases where one primary (not in NH) basically decided things. It's also about as "up in the air" as you can get, too.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Illinois primary required voters to select individual delegates, not presidential candidates. Most Illinois delegation members were uncommitted and were controlled or influenced by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley.

I'm not familar with the game system, so I'm not sure if this would work but....

You could add Daley as an endorser in Illinois with like 1000 momentum when he endorses, in Illinois only of course, and have the Illinois be one of the first ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, IL is always a sticky proposition. You had the "Stevenson" bloc there to deal with, and then the fact that they got thrown out. My inclination on IL would be to create two contests: A single-delegate primary (or a low-delegate primary) and a separate IL "caucus" which Stevenson has locked up and which goes WTA.

And yes, EM, I am with you on the point about the convention. If I can be of any assistance, do feel free to contact me as you see fit (with the understanding that I check the boards here a slice less often than I ought to/wish I could).

Also, FWIW, I'm severely tempted to get an appropriately literate friend to code a "convention simulator" that could you could plug numbers in and play with outside of this program (and which you could use non-P4E data to play with). Something like that to simulate what the original Power Politics (the '92 version) had would certainly be nice, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...