Unexpected swing States

[ScottM]

I've been working on a 2012 scenario, and it's complete minus events and endorsers, but I've run into something strange while testing it: some States that aren't swing States by any stretch of the imagination go right down to the wire. In my last test run which gave a Huckabee v. Obama matchup, Huckabee won Mississippi by only 6 points, Tennessee by only 3 points, and WV by only 2 points. Obviously, this isn't quite what I expected. If it would have only happened once, I figure it was a fluke, but it's happened repeatedly. I've tweaked State issue centers, I've adjusted starting percentages, and I even weakened Obama's attributes a bit. I know I could continue to do that sort of thing, but I don't want to make it too unrealistic by pushing those things too far one way or the other. I considered using alienated voters, but I've never used that before and wasn't quite sure how to implement it. Would alienating voters from one party of the other work? If so, could someone with more experience creating scenarios give some advice on how to do it?

[mahaadoxyz]

You know, that's a really good idea, using the alienated voters to make sure some states just don't move too far in the wrong direction. I have never once seen a scenario that used that method, but I suspect it could be quite effective if someone learned how to do it. Maybe the TheorySpark people themselves have some insight about how to use this feature? Like, how it works?

[ScottM]

You know, that's a really good idea, using the alienated voters to make sure some states just don't move too far in the wrong direction. I have never once seen a scenario that used that method, but I suspect it could be quite effective if someone learned how to do it. Maybe the TheorySpark people themselves have some insight about how to use this feature? Like, how it works?

That's pretty much where I am. I've never seen it used either, but there has to be a reason for its being included. I may just need to play with it and see what it does, but I'd be glad to have some input from the TheorySpark folks myself.

[ScottM]

That's pretty much where I am. I've never seen it used either, but there has to be a reason for its being included. I may just need to play with it and see what it does, but I'd be glad to have some input from the TheorySpark folks myself.

A bit of an update:

Alienating voters seemed to work better in some States than others. Maybe I need to play with it a bit. I've been running the scenario with all of the Democrat challengers off (the default setting). But to see what would happen, I turned on Obama's primary challengers (Clinton, Bayh, Dean, and Feingold). When I did that, things swung way too far the other way. Huckabee beat Clinton to a pulp, with Clinton winning only CA, VT, and DC. She barely won CA and VT, and Huckabee got 31% of the DC vote. It seems that if Obama has no primary challenger he's too strong, and if he does, the Republicans are way too strong. So, basically, I'm stumped.

[CCA]

I'm pretty sure "Alienated Voters" means that these voters will not - under any circumstances, vote for that party...

[ScottM]

I'm pretty sure "Alienated Voters" means that these voters will not - under any circumstances, vote for that party...

That's true. What I'm trying to figure out is how to most effectively use that to stop certain States from going one way or the other.

[ScottM]

I think I'm going to scrap this scenario. I just watch Alaska, Kentucky, and Mississippi go Democrat: Alaska and Mississippi by very healthy margins, no less. I'm not sure what I've done wrong, but I think it's too deeply flawed to fix by tinkering with it a little.

[CCA]

How have you set Issue Positions as?

[ScottM]

How have you set Issue Positions as?

I set some of them in a few States a bit further right than I felt like they should be. I did that to try to counteract some of them swinging so far to the Dems.