All-Star Presidential Race

[chickoff]

Okay, got my starting national general election #'s Dem=39.1 GOP=24.7. Thanks to the Univ of Michigan American National Election Series, those are party id averages for the 8 POTUS elections from 1968-1996. Yes this would appear to give the Dems an upper hand, but can be balanced out slightly by making the GOPmore committed which I think is also true. I plan on then finishing my issues and plugging them in for each state and running the predictor module on the game and use those #s for each state. Still looking for primary numbers for each candidate, any ideas or polls out there that ask dems or GOP preferences of fav presidents?

While it may be hard to come upwith five positions on it, but I would disagree that it doesn't play a part in campaigns. I remember McCain and Bush both made it parts of the debates.

[mahaadoxyz]

Just estimate these. FDR would be leading on the Democratic side; of this field, Reagan dominates the GOP. Make people strong in their home states. Carter, Clinton are the Democrats who compete in the South; I would say Reagan and Nixon compete there for the Republicans. Kennedy dominates New England for Democrats, Obama in the midwest, LBJ in Texas (I doubt he would be strong in the rest of the South because of the Civil Rights Act), Truman in Missouri and a few states surrounding it, and Roosevelt just about everywhere. I'd make big states fairly competitive; that is, put Roosevelt ahead, but not out of reach, in New York and California. On the other side, Ike dominates his corner of the Midwest, Coolidge is really the only New Englander so I make him strong there, Bush & Bush are strong in Texas and probably second-tier regional players in the South, Ford only particularly strong in Michigan, Hoover somewhat strong in the Pacific Northwest, Harding in Ohio and nowhere else. Reagan strong everywhere except New England, Nixon I would say also a player in the South and in a few big states like NY and obviously CA.

If you want to make each state the rigorous average of the results from some series of years, you can use Dave Leip's Election Atlas. It has year-by-year data for each state in neatly formulated tables. I used those results since the beginning of the two major parties for my version; it ends up with a very close race if you go back to 1828 for Democrats and 1856 for Republicans. Of course, if you do that you get Democrats strong in the South, which feels wrong today. I think I might try to compensate on that with the regional bonuses for leaders.

If you went back a little bit before 1912, I'd say Taft would be a player in the industrial Midwest (Ohio and environs) and Teddy Roosevelt would compete with Reagan in the west and be strong in his native New York.

[mahaadoxyz]

I can confirm that it is possible to win as Washington, though he's only on the ballot in 21 states worth 307 EVs. (I can confirm it because I just did it.)

[mahaadoxyz]

Idea: three-tiered system, with Tier 1 being Presidents, Tier 2 being parties that had Presidents but candidates who never were, Tier 3 being parties that never had a President. I think it makes more sense to separate out Eugene V. Debs from William Jennings Bryan; otherwise it's just a mismatch.

And I think I'm quite close to being done with Tier 1 of that world.

[mahaadoxyz]

B List candidates:

Democratic:

Robert Kennedy

William J. Bryan

Al Gore

Adlai Stevenson

John W. Davis

Ted Kennedy

Hillary Clinton

Hubert Humphrey

Gene McCarthy

Al Smith

Stephen Douglas

John Kerry

Michael Dukakis

Walter Mondale

George McGovern

James Cox

Alton Parker

Winfield Hancock

Samuel Tilden

Horace Greeley

Horatio Seymour

George McClellan

Lewis Cass

Republican:

Barry Goldwater

Nelson Rockefeller

Robert Taft

Robert La Follette

Robert Dole

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.

John Fremont

James Blaine

Thomas Dewey

John McCain

Wendell Willkie

Alf Landon

Charles Evans Hughes

Harold Stassen

John Anderson

Pat Buchanan

Pat Robertson

Steve Forbes

Douglas MacArthur

William Borah

Frank Lowden

Whig:

Henry Clay

Daniel Webster

Hugh White

Winfield Scott

Democratic-Republican:

George Clinton

Daniel D. Tompkins

William Crawford

Federalist:

Rufus King

DeWitt Clinton

Charles C. Pinckney

C List Candidates:

Progressive:

Theodore Roosevelt

Robert La Follette

Henry Wallace

Ralph Nader

Dixiecrat:

John Breckinridge

Strom Thurmond

George Wallace

Harry F. Byrd

John Schmitz

Socialist:

Eugene V. Debs

Norman Thomas

Reform:

Ross Perot

Libertarian:

Ron Paul

Bob Barr

Harry Browne

Obviously, my cut-off standard for GOP losing candidates is a lot less stringent than for Democratic ones, 'cause there are very, very few serious Republican presidential contenders who never became President. Note that the B-list Whigs are much stronger than the A-list Whigs. As for C-list, I could still use a lot of suggestions there. I've kind of grouped parties together across time, most notably putting Nader in with the Progressives of the first half of that century. Also, I utterly refuse to make any sort of prospective Tea Party movement that might or might not be serious in the future a part of this game until it has actually fielded a candidate in a Presidential election who has a half-decent showing.

[chickoff]

Is this scenario posted anywhere? I had a scenario going but it errored out on me when I got to the events so I gave up. I would love to go mano-e-mano against former presidents. If one is not posted will someone email me a copy at chickoff@yahoo.com Thanks.

[mahaadoxyz]

I've been working on this again some lately. In particular I made a model for predicting election results based on demographic factors, the idea being that if you know that a candidate is strong with, say, African-Americans or Catholics but don't know what that will amount to geographically, you can punch in the demographic factors and out pops the state-by-state results. And so I'm trying to make that work with the Democratic primary. I've done Kennedy, Jackson, Obama, and Clinton so far, and I basically like the results for Kennedy, Jackson, and Obama, but I can't figure Clinton out. On the one hand, he has the whole Southern white guy/populist flair going, and he won MO/AR/LA/TN/KY/WV both times. On the other hand, he has the modern urban culturally hip/progressive/permissive/whatever going on, and was indeed rather strong in places like the Southwest or New England. So I'm having trouble figuring out which of those trends to emphasize, or whether there's some way to make my model recognize them both at once. Does anyone have any good ideas about where Clinton's support would come from? (Or Roosevelt, for that matter; he's probably pretty evenly spread-out, but I can't really get much of a handle on where his base is. The west?)

[Lahbas]

For Clinton, maybe you should make it so that his support is rather evident across the entire nation, especially within the Southern states, but he only actually leads in a couple states, and even then only strongly in his native Arkansas.

As for Roosevelt, he typically did best in the West during his elections, so I would put his base there. The South would be contested by others, notably Carter and Clinton, but he could potentially do well there as well.

[mahaadoxyz]

Also Jackson in the South. He basically leads the South, with Carter and Clinton, intrinsically much weaker, carving out their own little corners.

Also, what should I do with the Rust Belt states, PA-OH-IN-MI-IL? They've never really been any good to Democrats whatsoever...

[Lahbas]

Also Jackson in the South. He basically leads the South, with Carter and Clinton, intrinsically much weaker, carving out their own little corners.

Also, what should I do with the Rust Belt states, PA-OH-IN-MI-IL? They've never really been any good to Democrats whatsoever...

Either have it as a battleground or have Andrew Jackson leading, but with his support able to eb away quickly (a significant percentage under leaning).

[mahaadoxyz]

One problem is that Clinton's personal demographics, as well as what I'd think would be his abstract demographic appeal, is almost diametrically opposed to Arkansas' demographics. Arkansas has a lot of uneducated voters, it's a rather poor state, very conservative, rather white and very much not Hispanic/Asian, exceedingly Protestant, and very very rural. I would think of Clinton-type voters as being well-educated, rather well-off, moderate-liberal, ethnically diverse, somewhat non-religious, and kind of urban/suburban. Is the solution to modify my demographic model by giving certain candidates, like Clinton, simple home-state bonuses?

And as for the midwest, if it doesn't appear to be anyone's base then I'll probably just end up letting my demographic model tell me what to do.

[mahaadoxyz]

I think this is essentially done. I played it once as Kennedy, won the primary, and won the general against Teddy Roosevelt, Jefferson, and Washington. Anyone who wants it can email me; if I send it to a few people and they like it I'll send it in to the TheorySpark people.

In terms of my interest in making an all-star race comprised of non-Presidents, my current idea is to have prominent figures from all the major political parties throughout history. It doesn't just have to be people who ran for President, but I think it should be people who were prominent in a way that at least could have been political. So, something like this, and I'm plenty interested in suggestions:

Democrats:

John Calhoun

Lewis Cass

Stephen Douglas

William Jennings Bryan

Al Smith

Adlai Stevenson

Hubert Humphrey

Robert Kennedy

Al Gore

Republicans:

James Blaine

Thomas Dewey

Barry Goldwater

Earl Warren

Nelson Rockefeller

Robert Taft

Robert LaFollette

Whigs:

Daniel Webster

Henry Clay

Democratic-Republicans:

George Clinton

Elbridge Gerry

Federalists:

Alexander Hamilton

John Jay

Socialists:

Eugene Debs

Norman Thomas

Others:

Ralph Nader

Ross Perot

Strom Thurmond

Henry Wallace

George Wallace

John Breckinridge

Jefferson Davis?

Henry Long?

Any other ideas?

[RFK/JFKfan]

Please send me a copy.

bobbyjsmithrugby@yahoo.co.uk

[Patine]

Me as well.

chandallah@netscape.net

And do you mean Huey Long as that last one? I've never heard of Henry Long.

[collegeconservative19]

Sounds pretty epic, would love to give it a try. bluedevil1690@gmail.com when you have the time. Thanks

[mahaadoxyz]

Me as well.

chandallah@netscape.net

And do you mean Huey Long as that last one? I've never heard of Henry Long.

Yes, of course I mean Huey Long. It was late at night.

[Lahbas]

I would like to see this as well please. www.jamesrobertmclaughlin@yahoo.com

Also, why don't you do an All-Star Presidential Losers Race. I had the idea to do it myself, but it seemed like you had the better resources. I feel like it would be fresher too. Just to clarify, I mean failed Presidential Tickets, not every man (or woman) that failed to earn the Presidency. There would then be quite a few.

[mahaadoxyz]

Right, I've done a version of this.

Democrats:

Lewis Cass

Stephen Douglas

George McClellan

Horatio Seymour

Horace Greeley

Samuel Tilden

Winfield Hancock

William Jennings Bryan

Alton Parker

James Cox

John Davis

Al Smith

Adlai Stevenson

Hubert Humphrey

George McGovern

Walter Mondale

Michael Dukakis

Al Gore

John Kerry

Republicans:

John Fremont

James Blaine

Charles Evans Hughes

Alf Landon

Wendell Willkie

Thomas Dewey

Barry Goldwater

Bob Dole

John McCain

Whigs:

Henry Clay

Daniel Webster*

Hugh White*

Willie Magnum*

Winfield Scott

Democratic-Republicans:

No one?

Federalists:

Charles C. Pinckney

DeWitt Clinton

Rufus King

Others:

Ralph Nader?

Ross Perot?

John Anderson?

George Wallace

Strom Thurmond

Henry Wallace?

Robert LaFollette

Eugene Debs?

James Weaver

John Breckinridge

John Bell

William Crawford?

I have some version of this scenario cobbled together, though I think it might not be exactly and identically the people on this list. (Question-marks are for people who got no EVs; the asterisk indicates the favorite-son Whigs from 1836).

Ooh, speaking of which, 1836 is definitely an election someone should do...

[Patine]

I had planned 1836 in my grand project to cover every election from 1789 till 1864 (the Revoltutionary to Civil Wars, essentially). I already pretty much have 1848 done, and significant work into 1789, 1800, 1824, 1828, 1832, and 1860, so 1836 is definitely on the books.

[wrestlingking235]

I'd love a copy jamesjknupp@aol.com

[matvail2002]

It is possible to please take a look at it?

matvail2002@gmail.com

[wrestlingking235]

It's nicely done, but pretty hard to play, but then there'd be no fun if it was easy. I can't move my numbers at all in the early states as Truman. And any particular reason the states are all FPP?

[mahaadoxyz]

For the Democrats, they aren't. I think I've currently set the threshhold for PR in the primaries to 15, because when I had it at 10 everyone was winning delegates in all the states, and there was no differentiation. I'm open to being talked down from that a little.

As for difficulty, I mean, in all honesty, would anyone other than FDR have a shot at the Democratic nomination? Having defined the electorate as I have, i.e. everyone who's voted in the United States throughout history, it's possible that Andrew Jackson could beat him on the strength of antebellum and Third Party System yellow-dog Democrats, but honestly, Harry Truman just would not be going to beat FDR. That being said, if there are any suggestions people have to improve playability (for instance, I could make the primary electorate a little less committed, or something), they would of course be appreciated.

Advice: there are a lot of endorsers floating around. Maintaining good momentum, i.e. with advertising, early in the campaign is important, so that you persuade all of the all-time Senators and Governors to endorse you and give you more momentum. Also, foot soldiers are useful for getting oneself into strong positions in the big states. That's how I do it, when I'm in a mood to win.

[Lahbas]

For the Democrats, they aren't. I think I've currently set the threshhold for PR in the primaries to 15, because when I had it at 10 everyone was winning delegates in all the states, and there was no differentiation. I'm open to being talked down from that a little.

As for difficulty, I mean, in all honesty, would anyone other than FDR have a shot at the Democratic nomination? Having defined the electorate as I have, i.e. everyone who's voted in the United States throughout history, it's possible that Andrew Jackson could beat him on the strength of antebellum and Third Party System yellow-dog Democrats, but honestly, Harry Truman just would not be going to beat FDR. That being said, if there are any suggestions people have to improve playability (for instance, I could make the primary electorate a little less committed, or something), they would of course be appreciated.

Advice: there are a lot of endorsers floating around. Maintaining good momentum, i.e. with advertising, early in the campaign is important, so that you persuade all of the all-time Senators and Governors to endorse you and give you more momentum. Also, foot soldiers are useful for getting oneself into strong positions in the big states. That's how I do it, when I'm in a mood to win.

Without being able to look at the scenario, I can't be certain. (Don't know if you forgot to send it to me or if I gave you an incorrect address). Anyway, here it is again, just to be sure: jamesrobertmclaughlin@yahoo.com

From my experiance, I do not like the uncommitted option since it just benefits the player with the most momentum. However, with the leaners, they start with their original choice but are liable to move around. Most scenarios I make are centered on the leaners, though fifty or sixty percent are still committed, with around eighty in the home state. Guiliani is the best example, since in the 08 scenario he starts in the lead, but for the most part it evaporates unless managed well by a human player. Then again, that is an extreme example since he has fifty percent leaning compared to my suggested thirty percent.

[Patine]

Right, I've done a version of this.

Democrats:

Lewis Cass

Stephen Douglas

George McClellan

Horatio Seymour

Horace Greeley

Samuel Tilden

Winfield Hancock

William Jennings Bryan

Alton Parker

James Cox

John Davis

Al Smith

Adlai Stevenson

Hubert Humphrey

George McGovern

Walter Mondale

Michael Dukakis

Al Gore

John Kerry

Republicans:

John Fremont

James Blaine

Charles Evans Hughes

Alf Landon

Wendell Willkie

Thomas Dewey

Barry Goldwater

Bob Dole

John McCain

Whigs:

Henry Clay

Daniel Webster*

Hugh White*

Willie Magnum*

Winfield Scott

Democratic-Republicans:

No one?

Federalists:

Charles C. Pinckney

DeWitt Clinton

Rufus King

Others:

Ralph Nader?

Ross Perot?

John Anderson?

George Wallace

Strom Thurmond

Henry Wallace?

Robert LaFollette

Eugene Debs?

James Weaver

John Breckinridge

John Bell

William Crawford?

I have some version of this scenario cobbled together, though I think it might not be exactly and identically the people on this list. (Question-marks are for people who got no EVs; the asterisk indicates the favorite-son Whigs from 1836).

Ooh, speaking of which, 1836 is definitely an election someone should do...

William Crawford should actuallly be the sole candidate for the Democratic-Republicans in this one, not an 'other.' In a number of ways, he was the party's 'official' candidate in 1824, being backed by Jefferson and Madison and being nominated by the official party caucus, however contentious and controverisal it was. That, however, is my suggestion as to where to put him. And, by the way, he shouldn't have a ? beside his name; he did win electoral votes.