Jump to content
270soft Forum

What changes should be made to the 2016 scenario in light of the election results?


Herbert Hoover

Recommended Posts

Voting blocs and the issue spectrum will add a lot, but considering the game is based largely in polls and they were so wrong, I wonder how you will represent a plausible Trump victory with him still pulling his upset.

Also, turnout is a MUST. Voter turnout more or less decided this election. White turnout vs Minority turnout should be very important in this scenario. Perhaps favorability can have some influence on the turnout of different voting blocs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, voter turnout will make more sense once there are favorability numbers.

The question is why were the polls wrong. For example, if a significant part of it is a 'Shy Trump' effect, then it might make sense to have something which models people being reluctant to say they are supporting a candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, voter turnout will make more sense once there are favorability numbers.

The question is why were the polls wrong. For example, if a significant part of it is a 'Shy Trump' effect, then it might make sense to have something which models people being reluctant to say they are supporting a candidate.

Is it a similar or completely different phenomenon to 1948?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

Is it a similar or completely different phenomenon to 1948?

100% similar isnt it funny how they had Dewey wins magazines as they did Clinton wins?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the few comments that have been made, the polls were wrong because the turnout model they used was wrong. They weighted turnout to census. Had the white working class share of the electorate as 33%, turns out they were 43%. And then Trump won them by over 30 points. They voted like a minority demographic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this was similar at all to 1948.  The polls were ten-plus points off in '48.  The nationwide polls weren't that far off this time around, as ABC, CBS, and Fox all had Clinton winning by 3 or 4% in their latest polls and she went on to win the popular vote (albeit by a minuscule amount).  It was statewide votes where they went wrong; they greatly underestimated the white votes in certain states, causing their errors in their electoral college predictions.  Also, everyone, including news outlets, knew this election would be at least relatively close (within 5-7% at most) while in 1948 most people, and news outlets, thought Dewey would win easily, leading a lot of them to stay home and not vote.  I doubt many Clinton supporters stayed home Tuesday because they felt safe about her election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No fundamental changes.  It's now an historical election, just like we have other past-year elections and even fictional scenarios.  Update the region percentages to reflect voter turnout, and if we use polls, have them match the RCP averages in the week before the election.

As for why were the polls wrong?  It doesn't matter - it's an historical election so hindsight shouldn't be an issue - otherwise it won't be an accurate re-creation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, servo75 said:

No fundamental changes.  It's now an historical election, just like we have other past-year elections and even fictional scenarios.  Update the region percentages to reflect voter turnout, and if we use polls, have them match the RCP averages in the week before the election.

As for why were the polls wrong?  It doesn't matter - it's an historical election so hindsight shouldn't be an issue - otherwise it won't be an accurate re-creation.

What would be your opinion on conflicting polls in the game?

For example, campaigns could have public polls and campaign polls to use, but their validity and methods may vary slightly. I think it would add another degree of uncertainty to the game, for sure.

Perhaps for each voting bloc, there could be a scale, based on the candidates and the issues that they are bringing up.

I see the scale as those election predictors that NYT had on election night, similar to a speedometer on a car.

For example, if you are Rubio, and you focus on amnesty and opposing Trump's wall on the primary, the scale says (Significantly Higher than before)

However, if the election comes down to, say, Webb vs Paul, environmentalists would feel very left out. The scale would read (Significantly lower)

 

If it's something like Sanders vs Trump, who both struggled with obtaining minority support, it may read (slightly lower) or even (significantly lower)

Perhaps different polls could show how they weight the electorate, and we could have a screen for historical turnout for each group in the past elections for comparison. This seems very difficult to work in, however, and I understand that it's unrealistic.

Would this be a fundamental change you would agree on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CalebsParadox said:

What would be your opinion on conflicting polls in the game?

For example, campaigns could have public polls and campaign polls to use, but their validity and methods may vary slightly. I think it would add another degree of uncertainty to the game, for sure.

Perhaps for each voting bloc, there could be a scale, based on the candidates and the issues that they are bringing up.

I see the scale as those election predictors that NYT had on election night, similar to a speedometer on a car.

For example, if you are Rubio, and you focus on amnesty and opposing Trump's wall on the primary, the scale says (Significantly Higher than before)

However, if the election comes down to, say, Webb vs Paul, environmentalists would feel very left out. The scale would read (Significantly lower)

 

If it's something like Sanders vs Trump, who both struggled with obtaining minority support, it may read (slightly lower) or even (significantly lower)

Perhaps different polls could show how they weight the electorate, and we could have a screen for historical turnout for each group in the past elections for comparison. This seems very difficult to work in, however, and I understand that it's unrealistic.

Would this be a fundamental change you would agree on?

I don't know - conflicting polls are part of real life.  Not to get philosophical, but polls are intended to be predictors and the way I see it, polls in the game have the effect of increasing and decreasing the percentages.  Meanwhile, the polls we see during gameplay (e.g. the map) are estimates of how the election will turn out, and that's what they're supposed to be.  So I don't see the point of entering polls into the game.  I don't use polls in my campaigns because it's too difficult to enter and edit large numbers of them (I made that a feedback point) and they tend to wildly skew election results.  I agree with you that voting blocs is a much better solution, but that might be difficult to program into the game, I don't see how they could be reasonably implemented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do hope so! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...