LostRadical Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 I'm working on my first Campaigns Forever Scenario, USA 1912. I will likely need some help with issues, endorsers and interviewers during this time period. So far I have Experience Integrity Leadership Issue Familiarity Trusts Standard Oil Case of 1911 Isolationism Philippines Woman's Suffrage Prohibition Democratic Candidates Woodrow Wilson Champ Clark Judson Harmon Oscar Underwood Thomas Marshall Republican Candidates William Howard Taft Progressive Candidates Theodore Roosevelt Robert M. LaFollette Socialist Candidates Eugene V Debs Prohibition Candidates Eugene Chafin I'd like some feedback on the construction of the scenario. I intend to basically ignore the primaries and have the game be just be running for President as the primaries will be set to end the day after the game starts. However then I thought that some would like to try and play as Roosevelt to beat Taft at the convention giving the player the decision to play as Roosevelt as a Republican or a Progressive. So should I have a more modern primary or go for historical realism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patine Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 I'm working on my first Campaigns Forever Scenario, USA 1912. I will likely need some help with issues, endorsers and interviewers during this time period. So far I have Experience Integrity Leadership Issue Familiarity Trusts Standard Oil Case of 1911 Isolationism Philippines Woman's Suffrage Prohibition Democratic Candidates Woodrow Wilson Champ Clark Judson Harmon Oscar Underwood Thomas Marshall Republican Candidates William Howard Taft Progressive Candidates Theodore Roosevelt Robert M. LaFollette Socialist Candidates Eugene V Debs Prohibition Candidates Eugene Chafin I'd like some feedback on the construction of the scenario. I intend to basically ignore the primaries and have the game be just be running for President as the primaries will be set to end the day after the game starts. However then I thought that some would like to try and play as Roosevelt to beat Taft at the convention giving the player the decision to play as Roosevelt as a Republican or a Progressive. So should I have a more modern primary or go for historical realism? I'd go for primaries, especially as you have multiple Democrats, which could make good meat for a primary on that side, and the player should get a choice as to run Teddy as a Republican and try to beat Taft or a Progressive. That's just my two bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yougo1000 Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Maybe civil rights could be an issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoon72 Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Maybe civil rights could be an issue I don't think so. Both parties ignored civil rights during this period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yougo1000 Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Panama Canal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Democrat Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 The Gold Standard, and add William Jennings Bryan as a Primary candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostRadical Posted March 20, 2010 Author Share Posted March 20, 2010 Thanks for the feedback so far. Gold Standard and Panama Canal have been added as issues. If I can't find anything else I'll add Civil Rights as a low profile issue. I am unsure about William Jennings Bryan, I was planning of making him more of an endorser and Vice President pick. I'ce decided to allow the player to try and beat Taft in the primaries or play as a Progressive with Roosevelt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahaadoxyz Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Add the Labor issue, I'd say, since it was emerging, and something about the scope of government regulation (it's being the progressive era and all.) Also, the judiciary was, I think, a genuine issue in that election (Taft was pro-independent judiciary, Roosevelt was against it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Democrat Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 What about the Income Tax and the Direct Election of Senators? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sewer Socialist Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Add Emil Seidel and Charles Russell as Socialist Candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sewer Socialist Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 As for VP picks: Democrats: Thomas Marshall John Burke George Chamberlain Republicans: James Sherman William Borah Progressives: Hiram Johnson Socialists: Emil Seidel Charles Russell Prohibitionists: Aaron Watkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoon72 Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 Some more issues: Conservation Tariffs Health Care Social Security Judges (elections vs appointments) Central banking (Federal Reserve) Presidential term limits (Wilson ran on a platform of 1 term, Taft 2, and Roosevelt was trying to win his 3rd) Also, since Taft's running mate James S. Sherman died on October 30, 1912, just before the election, maybe this could be turned into an event or Taft's energy could be reduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe Lincoln Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 You could add Roosevelt's Fair Deal as a broad kind of issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahaadoxyz Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Wasn't Roosevelt the Square Deal? I'm pretty sure Fair Deal was Truman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yougo1000 Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Add Rossevelt as a possible Republican VP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoon72 Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Add Rossevelt as a possible Republican VP Why? He was already VP and then President for 8 years - can't see him going back to being VP. Plus, by 1912 he and Taft hated each other. The only remotely plausible way I could see TR becoming VP again is if LaFollette won the primary and picked Roosevelt to unify the party. I also want to add, William Jennings Bryan should be an extremely powerful endorser, and should endorse as late as possible - he waited until the convention to endorse Wilson, and probably single-handedly prevented Champ Clark from getting the nomination. If only there was a way we could simulate the Democrats' two-thirds rule... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe Lincoln Posted March 31, 2010 Share Posted March 31, 2010 Wasn't Roosevelt the Square Deal? I'm pretty sure Fair Deal was Truman. Ah yes it was the square deal my fault. To many progressives with all their deals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taft Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Technical point: Both TR and LaFollette stood as GOP candidates. LaFollette was effectively an Upper Midwest favorite son, while TR went everywhere else. The two couldn't coordinate too well (I think there was an ego issue, if nothing else). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoon72 Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Technical point: Both TR and LaFollette stood as GOP candidates. LaFollette was effectively an Upper Midwest favorite son, while TR went everywhere else. The two couldn't coordinate too well (I think there was an ego issue, if nothing else). True. The only way I could see one becoming the other's VP would be either the computer or the player doing it in the scenario in order to unify the party before the convention. One problem with this game is often times the runner-up candidate will continue attacking the winner even after the winner has already secured enough delegates to win the nomination. This is quite harmful to the winner, particularly if there's a long time between sealing the nomination and the convention itself. Many times this has damaged my candidate's candidacy and hurt my momentum severely, and I've had to ask the runner-up to be my VP a few times in order to prevent this from happening. That's about the only case in which I could see Roosevelt and LaFollette teaming up. Occasionally we will see something like that in real life as a way of getting protest votes and delegates, such as Kucinich in 2004, but usually everyone else drops out when the nomination is sealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.