New 1976 US Election is up!!!

[vcczar 1,224]

A new 1976 Presidential Election by @Take Me to La Riva and myself (he did most of the work, and I offered advice) has been posted to the scenario downloads. Until @admin_270 adds it to the 1976 folder, you will have to find it by looking at the most recent posts to avoid confusion with another 1976 scenario. You will know which is our scenario as it will say that it was posted by my username. 

Feedback is desired. 

 

[warren2016 0]

y'all forgot to put in the Republican National Convention!

[Patine 444]

6 minutes ago, warren2016 said:

y'all forgot to put in the Republican National Convention!

Gerald Ford cancelled it because he didn't like venue or who was contracted to do the catering...

[Patine 444]

@vcczar

When you're eventually done your whole U.S. Presidential Election scenario series (which I will get those flags together for - I believe I left off at 1848), would you mind if I made slightly amended editions for all past about the late 1800's that just tacked on all Third Party, Independent, and Write-In candidates (at least Write-In candidates who were actively campaigning), just for fun and based on my own research, without significantly changing the original scenarios otherwise?

[vcczar 1,224]

11 hours ago, Patine said:

@vcczar

When you're eventually done your whole U.S. Presidential Election scenario series (which I will get those flags together for - I believe I left off at 1848), would you mind if I made slightly amended editions for all past about the late 1800's that just tacked on all Third Party, Independent, and Write-In candidates (at least Write-In candidates who were actively campaigning), just for fun and based on my own research, without significantly changing the original scenarios otherwise?

That's cool. Go ahead. 

[warren2016 0]

that was a serious point. The Republican Convention does not happen in the scenario. 

[warren2016 0]

On 5/22/2017 at 7:48 PM, warren2016 said:

that was a serious point. The Republican Convention does not happen in the scenario. 

I think it's because a number of primaries are held after the RNC date

[jnewt 35]

I played it starting from the primaries, but like @warren2016 said, the RNC never happens.  So the republican party never nominated a candidate (I stopped playing before the election, so I'm not sure what would have happened there).  I played it from the general and didn't notice any big problems, but I feel like there are way too many newspaper endorsers and not enough individual endorsers, like Senators (of which I don't remember seeing any).  Also, almost none of the endorsers come with surrogates.

[jnewt 35]

Oh and I also remember some errors in the regional bonuses for the leaders and vice leaders.  There were quite a few candidates that had bonuses in states that the candidate wasn't even from and had no connection with (at least that I know of), like Fred Harris (NY), Sargent Shriver (WI), Robert Byrd (WI), Walter Fauntroy (NY), Birch Bayh (NY), Hubert Humphrey (NY), George McGovern (NY), Lloyd Bentsen (WI), Mo Udall (NY), Richard Hughes (OH), Scoop Jackson (NY), and Frank Church (NY).  I also want to suggest an increase George Wallace's regional bonuses in the southern states (I think he'd make a lot more than a 1% difference), and some negative  "bonuses" for the northern states.

[jvikings1 39]

11 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Oh and I also remember some errors in the regional bonuses for the leaders and vice leaders.  There were quite a few candidates that had bonuses in states that the candidate wasn't even from and had no connection with (at least that I know of), like Fred Harris (NY), Sargent Shriver (WI), Robert Byrd (WI), Walter Fauntroy (NY), Birch Bayh (NY), Hubert Humphrey (NY), George McGovern (NY), Lloyd Bentsen (WI), Mo Udall (NY), Richard Hughes (OH), Scoop Jackson (NY), and Frank Church (NY).  I also want to suggest an increase George Wallace's regional bonuses in the southern states (I think he'd make a lot more than a 1% difference), and some negative  "bonuses" for the northern states.

Some states with more working class oriented populations would also have a bonus from Wallace.  His appeal to them was a big reason for his Michigan victory in 1972.

Also, I don't believe you can give negative bonuses at this time, but I might be wrong.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Some states with more working class oriented populations would also have a bonus from Wallace.  His appeal to them was a big reason for his Michigan victory in 1972.

 

states like Michigan,Pennsylvania ohio and wisconsin should also get bonuses from Wallace

[Patine 444]

1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

Some states with more working class oriented populations would also have a bonus from Wallace.  His appeal to them was a big reason for his Michigan victory in 1972.

The American working class in the modern day, and for some decades, seems to be politically aligned moreso like the Japanese, Taiwanese, or South Korean working class than most European working class demographics (who are generally, as a tendency, only swayed to a right-wing party on a Eurosceptic or anti-immigrant issue that's largely a zeitgeist rather than a long-term tendency) or the Canadian, Australian, or New Zealand working, as a rule. This is, of course, just a broad observational tendency - I'm not quoting it in any sense of the word as a rule or an absolute.

[jnewt 35]

21 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Some states with more working class oriented populations would also have a bonus from Wallace.  His appeal to them was a big reason for his Michigan victory in 1972.

Also, I don't believe you can give negative bonuses at this time, but I might be wrong.

In the 1972 campaign, Wallace has +15% or more in most of the southern states and a few of the northern states, but then he has negative percentages for the more liberal states.  He even has a -99% in Massachusetts and a few others at -90%.