NEW 2012 US Presidential Election

[ayamo 19]

Charlie Crist as a VP candidate?

I doubt that this would happen.

Otherweise, the list looks good.

Owen Daniels is supposed to be Mitch Daniels?

[mjhundem 0]

Correct, Mitch Daniels.

And I also meant to include Bill Owens on the VP list. I think for whatever reason I confused both of those names as one, and Owen Daniels is my tight end in fantasy football, so I think I just got it all mixed up.

Charlie Crist was strongly talked about VP candidate in 2008 and I think he would also be going forward if he wins election and caucuses with Republicans and a moderate candidate is nominated in 2012.

[MrPrez9051 6]

ayamo is correct, Charlie Crist's career in the Republican Party is over. Even if he should win the race and caucus with the Republicans, he's shown he cares more about himself than the party or anything else. Definitely not the type of person you want for VP.

I might add Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, Chris Cristie, Bobby Jindal, and Tom Ridge. I've put them into my edits and I think they add significant aspects to a ticket and stand a good chance of being potentials for 2012 VP-stakes.

Barbour and Gingrich I feel should be auto-on and Petraeus and Giuliani should be removed from the list.

Just some thoughts.

[bawlexus91 27]

I'd suggest adding Gov. Bob McDonnell of Va, and Nikki Haley (if she wins her governors race in Nov, as she probably will) of South Carolina, for 2012 VP consideration.

[Actinguy 862]

Greetings all! I think the issues are pretty much done, at least for now.

How about interviewers? TV Programs, radio shows, newspapers, magazines, whoever might interview a candidate.

I need:

Name

Stance (Far left, left, center left, center, center right, right, far right)

Visibility - How many people watch/read/etc (Low, medium, high)

Contentiousness - Are we talking about Bill O'Reilley or Jay Leno? (Low, medium, high)

Thanks!

[MrPrez9051 6]

Interviews:

Here are the ones I normally have.

Name

Stance

Visibility

Contentiousness

Hardball with Chris Matthews

Center Left

Low

High

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Left

High

Medium

The O'Reilly Factor

Right

High

High

The Late Show with David Letterman

Center Left

High

Low

The Tonight Show with Jay Leno

Center Right

High

Low

The Colbert Report

Left

High

Medium

Meet the Press with David Gregory

Center

High

Medium

Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer

Center

Medium

Low

This Week with Christiane Amanpour

Center

Medium

Low

State of the Union with Candy Crowley

Center

Low

Low

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace

Right

Medium

Low

The View

Center Left

Low

Low

Hannity

Right

Medium

High

60 Minutes

Center

High

Low

Other ideas?

[moderate 18]

Some other potentials republican presidential candidates

could be:

Chris Christie

Rick Perry

George Pataki

and John Bolton

[Actinguy 862]

Great list, Mr. Prez! Anybody have any more?

[moderate 18]

I thought about giving Obama a challenge in the primaries...but honestly, I want this to be based as realistically as possible, and I just can't see a SERIOUS challenge coming. Dennis Kucinich actually defeating Obama? There's just no way. Hilary Clinton is way more realistic of course, but she's just not going to run. In the scenario I'm creating, Russ Feingold actually did win re-election.

If somebody can point me to somebody who honestly has a 50-50 shot at Obama in the primaries, AND might actually run, then I'll definitely put them in!

Ha...maybe a fun compromise would be a deposed Harry Reid taking on Obama? Hehe...just kidding.

Not sure on the independant. I'm just putting them in for space bar games, but who do you have in mind?

Some 3rd parties could be

Bernie Sanders Socialist off

Maybe the possibility of moderate republicans and democrats breaking from the parties to form a new party?

[Actinguy 862]

I'm not in favor of a super-powerful third party, simply because I don't see it happening in the next year and a half, realistically. I guess the Tea Party could do it, but all they'd realistically be doing is re-electing Obama by stealing support from whichever Republican gets the nod. I think they know that, and they're far more likely to simply try and influence the nomination itself. If they ever do become a true party on their own, I suspect it will be when there's a weak Democratic opponent, ala Walter Mondale or something. Obama's too strong for the Republicans to risk splitting themselves in half.

Let me ask this: Does anybody truly care WHO the third party is? I mean, it's a given that they can't possibly win in 2012 under realistic scenarios. What would you guys say to me just calling the party "Spacebar Party" and calling the candidate "Third Party Candidate"? Like, to represent ALL of the third parties?

[Actinguy 862]

Random thought: What would you guys say to having a celebrity or two in the mix? Off the top of my head, I thought first of Ben Stein...maybe best known for his "Bueller? Bueller?" or as the most boring teacher in the world on Wonder Years, but he's actually a powerful Republican in his own right, having been a speech writer for both Nixon and Ford in addition to being a frequent "talking head" on various news and political shows since then. He also was one of the first public figures to accurately predict the economic crash, and what it's exact cause would be. On the downside of course, he not only worked in Nixon's whitehouse, but he passionately defends him to this day, which is likely to cause a few scandals.

Then I thought about Gary Sinise. As a veteran who used to handle the US Military's public relations, I've had the opportunity to work with Gary Sinise and he is a serious supporter of the troops and the war in Iraq. I thought I was having an original idea in wondering if he could be the next Ronald Reagan, but when I went to his wikipedia page, I discovered a Bush-turned-McCain advisor has actually said that he's one of the few who could actually not only beat Obama but truly revolutionize the Republican party.

They would be defaulted off of course, but what do you guys think? My biggest concern is that Gary Sinise might be too strong (Stein's ties to Nixon make him a more "fair" candidate)

[mz452 20]

Gary Sinise will never run for President.

[Actinguy 862]

I'm sure he won't. But he'll be default off (if I do include him).

[Actinguy 862]

Okay! I've mostly finalized the list of candidates (although I'm open to suggestions). I realize I have several candidates listed who have specifically said they will not run. President Obama specifically and flatly said on Meet the Press in 2006 that he would not run for President in 2008. Of course, this was two years before he was elected President. We are currently two years out from the 2012 election. So, in my opinion, words don't mean much right now. That said, if a name on the list upsets you, you can simply turn them off. Notable names who are missing: General Petraus (I just don't see it), and Ron Paul (I just don't see that one either AND he'll be crazy-old)

I'm also including an "issues" list, also open to suggestions. Mostly though, I'm hoping you guys can help me match candidates and their positions on the issues.

ISSUES:

Abortion

Wall Street Reform

Crime

Education

Energy

Environment

Free Trade

Government Spending

Gun Control

Health Care

Homeland Security

Immigration

Military Funding

Taxes

Same-Sex Marriage

Social Security

War on Terror

Axis of Evil (a catch-all covering how to handle the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and other "enemy states")

CANDIDATES

Spacebar Party

-Third Party Candidate (catch-all to cover all third parties combined, strictly for space-barring)

Democrats

-President Barack Obama

Republicans

-Mitt Romney

-Mike Huckabee

-Sarah Palin

-Newt Gingrich

-Tim Pawlenty

-Haley Barbour

-Mitch Daniels

-Rick Santorum

-John Thune

-Gary Johnson

-Charlie Christ (loses the ind senate campaign, but still has an independant following)

-Rick Perry

-George Pataki

-John Bolton

-Chris Christie

-Jeb Bush (another "off" long-shot, but some voters are already missing GWB)

-Herman Caine (Business man/journalist/right-right wing "dark horse" candidate)

-Marco Rubio (won the senate campaign)

-Scott Brown

-Eric Cantor

-Dick Cheney (also an "off" candidate based on those who have reassessed Bush's presidency)

-John Ensign

-Jon Huntsman

-Bobby Jindal

-Mike Pence

-Ben Stein

-Gary Sinise

-Jan Brewer

-Tom Coburn

-Bob Riley

That's exactly 32 total candidates, the most that can be in a campaign at one time. If you just don't like a candidate, you can simply turn them off...but if you can think of a candidate you want that's not on the list, I'm happy to add them (provided they would have at least a slim shot at winning (more than, say, Ron Paul).

Anyone who can help with deciding on a candidate's positions, I'd appreciate it! Thank you!

[Red Dog Democrat 9]

Red Eye with Greg Gutfield

Right

Low

Medium

[moderate 18]

Just another canidate for the republicans Tom Ridge. Ridge is pretty well known and from a swing state Pennsylvania I know he is long shot but I think he is somewhat speculated to run. Also to find out about canidates on the issues id use the website on the issues.

[Mr. Political 21]

Very possible I missed his name, but what about Senator Thune?

[ayamo 19]

He's included.

[Actinguy 862]

Disturbing findings. While I'm nowhere close to done...I still have a lot of candidates to add...I keep getting the same result: Barack Obama, with approximately 400 electoral votes. He just can't be stopped, no matter how many tweaks I make. This occurs even if Obama has TWO challengers in his primary. I even tried moving all the Democrat primaries after the last Republican primary, so that the Republicans would have an official candidate before the Democrats would. No luck.

So I tried an experiment: I turned Obama off. Now it was just Warner and Kucinich against a dozen Republicans. Warner won with about 400 votes. So it wasn't Obama...it was the Democrats who were annihilating. Yet, more tweaks couldn't fix it.

So I tried a second experiment: Obama, Warner and Kucinich against only Romney.

This time, it was Romney who finally won. With 400 electoral votes.

My third experiment theorized that the NUMBER of candidates (rather than identities) was determining a winner. 20 republicans against 2 democrats meant the democrats would win. 2 republicans against 20 democrats would mean that the Republicans would win.

So I tried Obama, Warner, and Kucinich against Romney, Jindal, and Pawlenty. It came down to Romney-Brownback vs. Obama-Warner. Romney was projected to win by a few votes...but it was one of the closest elections I'd ever seen. By midnight, there was still no winner, and it looked like Louisiana (which kept flipping) would be the deciding vote. By 1 AM Louisiana had mostly settled on Romney, giving him 272 electoral votes. But around 2 AM, four states started flip-flopping in the north west, and by 2:30, the election was called in Obama's favor. At 3 AM they reversed the call again, in favor of Romney, and things got really crazy. Finally, with the last votes counted at 5 AM, Obama was elected to a 2nd term with 285 electoral votes and 48.9% of the vote (despite the fact that Romney had been predicted to win).

Fantastic game...but completely defeats my intent of having 30 republicans against Obama. I'm going to keep testing, and I have some possible work arounds, but I wanted to reveal my findings and open up discussion on possible solutions, etc.

Thanks!

[mahaadoxyz 9]

Disturbing findings. While I'm nowhere close to done...I still have a lot of candidates to add...I keep getting the same result: Barack Obama, with approximately 400 electoral votes. He just can't be stopped, no matter how many tweaks I make. This occurs even if Obama has TWO challengers in his primary. I even tried moving all the Democrat primaries after the last Republican primary, so that the Republicans would have an official candidate before the Democrats would. No luck.

So I tried an experiment: I turned Obama off. Now it was just Warner and Kucinich against a dozen Republicans. Warner won with about 400 votes. So it wasn't Obama...it was the Democrats who were annihilating. Yet, more tweaks couldn't fix it.

So I tried a second experiment: Obama, Warner and Kucinich against only Romney.

This time, it was Romney who finally won. With 400 electoral votes.

My third experiment theorized that the NUMBER of candidates (rather than identities) was determining a winner. 20 republicans against 2 democrats meant the democrats would win. 2 republicans against 20 democrats would mean that the Republicans would win.

So I tried Obama, Warner, and Kucinich against Romney, Jindal, and Pawlenty. It came down to Romney-Brownback vs. Obama-Warner. Romney was projected to win by a few votes...but it was one of the closest elections I'd ever seen. By midnight, there was still no winner, and it looked like Louisiana (which kept flipping) would be the deciding vote. By 1 AM Louisiana had mostly settled on Romney, giving him 272 electoral votes. But around 2 AM, four states started flip-flopping in the north west, and by 2:30, the election was called in Obama's favor. At 3 AM they reversed the call again, in favor of Romney, and things got really crazy. Finally, with the last votes counted at 5 AM, Obama was elected to a 2nd term with 285 electoral votes and 48.9% of the vote (despite the fact that Romney had been predicted to win).

Fantastic game...but completely defeats my intent of having 30 republicans against Obama. I'm going to keep testing, and I have some possible work arounds, but I wanted to reveal my findings and open up discussion on possible solutions, etc.

Thanks!

This is a really fascinating thing to know about the game engine in general. I imagine it's an undesirable feature, right? There are often races where one side has an essentially anointed candidate running unopposed or nearly so in their primary while the other side has a vast mob fighting for the nomination, but that are competitive, right? I wonder whether it was intentional by TheorySpark or whether it's just something about the negative momentum that accrues from fighting a bloody primary. They should have a way of, like, modeling "individual" voters so that someone who's a Republican won't necessarily become much less enthused about being a Republican just because 30 Republicans are slugging it out in front of them. (Of course, it's hypothesized that sometimes a big messy primary like that leaves a candidate damaged, but it doesn't always, I think.)

[Actinguy 862]

This is a really fascinating thing to know about the game engine in general. I imagine it's an undesirable feature, right? There are often races where one side has an essentially anointed candidate running unopposed or nearly so in their primary while the other side has a vast mob fighting for the nomination, but that are competitive, right? I wonder whether it was intentional by TheorySpark or whether it's just something about the negative momentum that accrues from fighting a bloody primary. They should have a way of, like, modeling "individual" voters so that someone who's a Republican won't necessarily become much less enthused about being a Republican just because 30 Republicans are slugging it out in front of them. (Of course, it's hypothesized that sometimes a big messy primary like that leaves a candidate damaged, but it doesn't always, I think.)

Just an update: While I have been able to replicate my initial findings, it doesn't happen 100% of the time. Sometimes, with no changes, Obama still trounces the competition.

I've taken a new approach to this mod...which on one hand will require more work on my part...but on the other hand, requires less work. ;c) I was previously working off of another player's 2012 mod (recreating almost everything, but at least I wouldn't have to work from scratch). Unfortunately...whether intentional or otherwise, Obama is so insanely powerful that the game just isn't any fun in my opinion. I haven't had any success in weakening him while also remaining realistic (he IS charismatic, he DOES know the issues, he IS popular in certain states amongst certain kinds of voters, etc).

So I've switched gears and moved to adapting the "2008 Wonk Edition" instead. While this requires significant changes to the candidates (I think only Romney, Huckabee, and of course Obama make a return, off the top of my head...out of a total of 32 candidates), I find the game to be much more evenly balanced. Also, by pure coincidence, the 2008 wonk edition actually has the issues I had created for 2012, including very similar wordings for each position. I've made some tweaks, but overall the issues remain. I think I only completely replaced one, Iraq, for North Korea.

Anyhow, while I have to significantly change the candidate list, the Republican/Democrat divide will likely remain as is, at least at first. This is where I was investing 90% of my time during the previous 2012 scenario, so hopefully it all balances out!

[bawlexus91 27]

(Of course, it's hypothesized that sometimes a big messy primary like that leaves a candidate damaged, but it doesn't always, I think.)

Definitely not....just look at the Democratic Primary in 2008.

[Actinguy 862]

Ok, I've fixed the "number of candidate" problems...almost. Obama does still dominate when he has no challenger, but his totals end up being very close to the 2008 election, so it's not completely unbelievable. I just don't want it to be a guarentee. So...I'll put it up to a vote. Before I list possibilities, I should mention the democrat VP's. I've created 3 scenarios:

1) Obama sticks with Joe Biden

2) Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton trade positions. Biden, bored with being VP, becomes Secretary of State (the job he originally wanted). Hilary, with her eye on 2016, becomes the VP candidate.

3) Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, having had some success as mayor of Chicago, returns to the White House in the VP role.

I've made it so that Biden has a 50% chance of staying on, Clinton has a 40% chance of getting he switch, and Emanuel has a 10% chance of making a grand return.

So...who should be the challenger?

Clinton, who could possibly win the nomination although it would split the Democrats even worse than last time, and is very unlikely to happen in real life (also making the chance of her as VP about 0%).

Feingold, making a run from the left.

Kucinich, who has no chance, but hey, why not.

Nobody at all, allowing for Obama to be powerful in the general election and providing a serious challenge for the Republican player to overcome (not impossible, just hard).

Or somebody I haven't considered?

Let me know your thoughts!

When Obama does have a challenger, it's very exciting. I've finally perfected the percentages just right so that the solidly democrat and republican states don't stray, the states that "lean" republican or democrat can stray from time to time, and the swing states are all over the place. Working on adding the last republican candidates now, let me know what you think about the dems!

[mz452 20]

Rahm Emanuel will never be VP...plus isn't it illegal to have a president and a vice president from the same state?

[MrPrez9051 6]

It's not illegal, the electors for a state simply can not cast both their votes for President and their votes for President for candidates from their state (at least one of the candidates must be from another state). (See Amendment 12 of the Constitution.)

This still allows a President and Vice President from the same state. Their home state though would have to cast it's electoral ballots (they would chose it's ballots for Vice President) to the candidate that came in second place for that role.

For instance, Dick Cheney was living in Texas at the time of his nomination for the Vice Presidency. He quickly moved his voter registration back to Wyoming (where he had represented in Congress). Had he not, when the electors met in December of 2000, the state of Texas would have cast it's 32 Electoral Votes for President for George W. Bush, and then would be forced to cast it's 32 Electoral Votes for Vice President for Joe Lieberman, who came in second. This would have resulted in Lieberman becoming Bush's VP (298 to Cheney's 239).