United States - 2000 *released*

[Tayya 2]

Link at 270soft.com scenarios page. Upcoming versions will include more candidates and VPs as well as tweaks from feedback.

In case 270soft wants to include the scenario with the game, they have the full rights to do so. Upon inclusion, I will not edit the scenario further and leave it to the company.

[Dallas 0]

I have not tried the scenario yet, but it was a hassle of extracting it. Apparently, for me, I have to download a program to extract a .rar file. Could you zip compress the file, and upload it, so it is extractable without having to download a application? Thank you.

[willpaddyg 0]

Really good scenario, the only thing I've noticed is that the New York Primary date is 03/07/2012 instead of 2000.

[Tayya 2]

Oops! Fixed in the new version, a .zip-file.

[Dallas 0]

Do you think you can add the candidates in the "Declined to Run" section of this Wikipedia article, for "What ifs"? Maybe you could add them and turn off by default?

[European Qoheleth (SANC) 32]

Alan Keyes eh? I had a vague idea of making a meme scenario but thankfully vague was all it remained.

[Lahbas 4]

Just some notes...............

Bush's support should be softer than it is, made up in large part by leaners who would be willing to support another candidate provided there is enough of a push; many who supported Bush in the polls did so in large part because he seemed the inevitable winner, and his numbers dropped by nearly half when provided with the hypothetical of another candidate (like McCain) becoming a viable challenger.

Add an additional level to Bush's Command and Fundraising strengths; he had the support of much of the establishment, and so those resources should be represented.

McCain didn't originally have the lead in New Hampshire; in November he was polling around 28%, with Bush at 44%. If Bush's support is made to be soft it should be possible, if not likely, for McCain to obtain an effective advantage there provided he were to play his cards right. Course, South Carolina would be even more of a hurdle; Bush was at 62% at the time, compared to McCain's 15%. Essentially, McCain should be much weaker than he is, except within his home-state.

Forbes is interesting considering that, while he almost won the Iowa Caucus, in November he was polling only 13% to Bush's 52%, so again soft support is important here. His fundraising probably should be increased by 1 level.

Bradley, on the Democratic side, seems both too strong and too weak, depending on the region in question. In the Northeast for example, specifically the New England area, in November he was either leading or tied with Gore, New Hampshire itself being 48-46 in Bradley's favor. On the other hand, Bradley did not do that well outside that region, at least as far as I can tell, polling a paltry 19% to Gore's 61% in Iowa. A suprise to me though was that Bill Bradley at the time was doing VERY well in New York, polling 47% to Gore's 38%; it was only when the state's Democratic establishment united behind Gore at the end of November that Gore pulled ahead, and even then, that lead was tenuous at best. New Jersey of course should be a lock for Bradley, at least 60%.

-----------------------------

As for other prospective candidates...............

Warren Beatty for a time seriously considered running in either the Democratic or Reform Party primaries, but in the former I can't see him starting with much support; when the idea was polled, about 82% of those questioned could not take the idea of his candidacy seriously. Maybe he might manage to poll in the high double-digits in California, but that would be about it.

Others that considered running for the Democratic nomination, or were at least mentioned, were Howard Dean of Vermont, Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Jesse Jackson of............DC I think, and Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who arguably came the closest of all of them to declaring (he ultimately threw his support behind Bradley).

For the Republicans you have a number that did run that withdrew before November, including Pat Buchanan who would run as the Reform party nominee, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Robert Smith of New Hampshire, John Kasich of Ohio, and Hermain Cain of Georgia. Jack Kemp of New York and John Ashcroft of Missouri were also often floated, the later being a favorite of the establishment but having low poll numbers.

Jello Biafra was drafted for the Green Party nomination, and though weak when put next to Nader's candidacy, it might be fun to throw at least another option in there.

Considering the Reform Party is currently absent in the scenario, I'll leave them out for the time being.

[Tayya 2]

I based the percentages and all off the 2000 scenario that 270soft made for President Forever 2008, with a few tweaks. I would like to simulate the softness of Bush's support and the potential rise of McCain (or some other candidate) but it's hard to do that and make an outcome similar to what actually happened possible. I'll look into it, and hopefully make something out of it.

I'll look into Bradley as well - he should definitely be more regional than he is right now.

Re: candidates - I'm definitely going to add a few of them, if not all.

[Patine 375]

I think you should include the Reform Party, if that's at all viable.

[Tayya 2]

That's also planned. Don't know if it's feasible to have more candidates than Buchanan, simply because multiple candidates would make percentages defect to other parties when the losers withdraw, which might upset balance real bad. Buchanan's a given, though. For the record, I don't plan on adding Libertarians or Taxpayers', because they were too small to make any difference.

[Lahbas 4]

That's also planned. Don't know if it's feasible to have more candidates than Buchanan, simply because multiple candidates would make percentages defect to other parties when the losers withdraw, which might upset balance real bad. Buchanan's a given, though. For the record, I don't plan on adding Libertarians or Taxpayers', because they were too small to make any difference.

The Reform Party essentially ran their canddiate's through one big national primary, in this case I think a week or so before the National Convention, or around that time-frame. The exact apportionment of delegates might be up in the air, but you could throw a whole host of candidates in without having to worry about them withdrawing, given they'd not have any real reason to until a couple days before they'll be forced out anyways. Patrick Buchanan and John Hagelin should be default candidates given they are the men that tore the party apart; Trump would be in the third place, and Ventura fourth. Exact polling I would need to bring up again, but from what I remember Buchanan had a comfortable lead against all of them.

Libertarians I would add only because they still managed to net around (0.36%) of the vote, though in a later release when we can actually put in decimal integers; the current system will barely work with the Green and Reform parties as is.

[Lahbas 4]

I based the percentages and all off the 2000 scenario that 270soft made for President Forever 2008, with a few tweaks. I would like to simulate the softness of Bush's support and the potential rise of McCain (or some other candidate) but it's hard to do that and make an outcome similar to what actually happened possible. I'll look into it, and hopefully make something out of it.

I'll look into Bradley as well - he should definitely be more regional than he is right now.

Re: candidates - I'm definitely going to add a few of them, if not all.

Never look to try and get results similiar to OTL in a situation like the primaries, as OTL by its very nature is often outside of what we would consider the likely path. At best we can put the candidates in their starting positions in November, and run the game from there; Santorum for example, unless played by an actual player, often ends up in the second tier of candidates, and in my experience has never come close to his OTL performance. Trying to force the game to adhere to history could very well prevent it from taking that course.

Until I get access to Gallup-Brain I can't readily determine how the regionalization of Bill Bradley would work, though a single poll I found had Bradley running well about where you would expect; the Northeast, the Industrial Mid-West, and the West (which I assume in this case would be the Pacific Coast, as it is not broken down much beyond there; Bradley was polling better among higher income individuals and union members). He was essentially shut out of the South. Another polls for California, unfortunately from December but the only one I could find, had Gore at 24% and Bradley at 15%; for whatever reason they bunched up the Republicans and Democrats together, but that should at least give you a guage there. Bradley would have been polling better I imagine, but apparently he was not well-known in the state.

[Tayya 2]

Beta Release time!

V. 1.014 includes:

Tweaked percentages for primaries

Jello Biafra as leader for the Green Party

Chuck Hagel and Tom Ridge as viceleaders

Jane Dee Hull as Bush surrogate, Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham as McCain surrogates

Some minor tweaks that I might have forgotten about

http://speedy.sh/9GvE7/United-States-2000.zip

[Dallas 0]

What does the latest release include?

[L1056 0]

Tried the link, had no luck. Could you send to lb10234@gmail.com?

[Centristdem 8]

Link didn't work can you send it via email Historybuff93@cableone.net?