Historical Scenario Commission Election Updates!

[Rarename91 0]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Thanks

What about some celebs too?

[vcczar 1,224]

24 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

What about some celebs too?

I will have celeb endorsers

[Patine 444]

39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I will have celeb endorsers

I think he wants celebrity what-if candidates. But I could be wrong.

[vcczar 1,224]

10 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think he wants celebrity what-if candidates. But I could be wrong.

I won't have any celebs as what-if candidates unless it seems very likely that they would have run. I'll probably include Donald Trump a few times, even if he didn't run, since there was always that speculation. 

[Patine 444]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I won't have any celebs as what-if candidates unless it seems very likely that they would have run. I'll probably include Donald Trump a few times, even if he didn't run, since there was always that speculation. 

Will you have him as a Reform what-if rather than a Republican in 2000 and 2004, given his party affiliation and who was floating him at those times?

[vcczar 1,224]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

Will you have him as a Reform what-if rather than a Republican in 2000 and 2004, given his party affiliation and who was floating him at those times?

I'm not sure yet. I may have him as an independent in some, but possibly 3rd party or major party. 

[Patine 444]

15 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'm not sure yet. I may have him as an independent in some, but possibly 3rd party or major party. 

Another possible what-if candidate for your final run over, this one for 1808, is Virginia Congressman John Randolph. Like P.T. Barnum, not someone I at all ideologically agree with, but think might be interesting, with hard, inflexible, non-innovative, strict-interpretation, Servo-75-esque view of the Constitution and his "Old Republican" mini-caucus in the house who accused Jefferson and Madison of betraying the principles of the Constitution and becoming more like the Federalists, but who actually sided with the Federalists in opposing the Compact of 1802, the Louisiana Purchase, and the original attempt to purchase Florida.

[vcczar 1,224]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

Another possible what-if candidate for your final run over, this one for 1808, is Virginia Congressman John Randolph. Like P.T. Barnum, not someone I at all ideologically agree with, but think might be interesting, with hard, inflexible, non-innovative, strict-interpretation, Servo-75-esque view of the Constitution and his "Old Republican" mini-caucus in the house who accused Jefferson and Madison of betraying the principles of the Constitution and becoming more like the Federalists, but who actually sided with the Federalists in opposing the Compact of 1802, the Louisiana Purchase, and the original attempt to purchase Florida.

I might already have him in 1808. I know I have him in a couple of those scenarios. Randolph--the first Ron Paul. 

[Patine 444]

Just now, vcczar said:

I might already have him in 1808. I know I have him in a couple of those scenarios. Randolph--the first Ron Paul. 

I already checked 1808 - but not all of the early ones (at least after he came to mind).

[vcczar 1,224]

38 minutes ago, Patine said:

I already checked 1808 - but not all of the early ones (at least after he came to mind).

I might not have included him until 1812, or even after Monroe, since he was arguably the leading backer for Monroe over Madison.

[Patine 444]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I might not have included him until 1812, or even after Monroe, since he was arguably the leading backer for Monroe over Madison.

Were Randolph's "Old Republican" (or "quid," derogatorily, in the day) caucus seen as their own small party in of themselves, or more like to the Democratic-Republicans what, say, the Tea Party is to the GOP today, from a contemporary, not historiographical viewpoint?

[vcczar 1,224]

Just now, Patine said:

Were Randolph's "Old Republican" (or "quid," derogatorily, in the day) caucus seen as their own small party in of themselves, or more like to the Democratic-Republicans what, say, the Tea Party is to the GOP today, from a contemporary, not historiographical viewpoint?

The Tea Party analogy is much closer. If they were ever considered something of their own party, it was between 1824-1828. 

The Quids were formed as soon as Jefferson started adopting Federalists policies (or at least started veering that way). The got larger, in the later stages of the War of 1812, and just after it, when Madison started heavily moderating for practical reasons (Can't compete with Europe if you don't have some element of federal government centralization and muscle). Monroe also evolved while serving as both Sec of War and as Sec of State for Madison. Monroe evolution probably wasn't shown until once he was elected president. While he personally, retained some Quid-ish qualities (vetoing internal improvements), he moderated so much as to pretty much destroy the Federalists, but also took his party down with him. The irony for Randolph is that his Quids, who stood for the 1798 resolutions, often opposed the creators of those resolutions (Jefferson and Madison), and then increasingly,  "their candidate," James Monroe. 

[thr33 0]

On 11/8/2017 at 2:28 PM, vcczar said:

I've changed the general election bonuses to reflect different matchups vs. Reagan (or other Republican)

Republicans are extremely difficult to defeat unless Ron Paul is somehow the candidate. I just ran a simulation of Ted Kennedy vs. Ron Paul. Kennedy wins with 297 EVs and 52.8% of the vote. 

A Kennedy vs. Reagan matchup still isn't close, even though it allows a closer matchup than Reagan vs. Mondale. Kennedy starts with a 9% deficit, and with only 8 states (123 EVs). In the simulation, Kennedy performed better than Mondale, but still lost. Reagan got 55% of the vote and 424 EVs. 

If Gary Hart is the frontrunner, then he has a 9% deficit just as Kennedy does, but he controls only 6 states for 53 EVs against Reagan. 

If Jesse Jackson is the frontrunner, then you also get a 9% deficit, but Jackson controls 6 states and 108 EVs against Reagan. 

Kennedy is Reagan's toughest opponent from the General Election. 

 

On 11/8/2017 at 2:59 PM, thr33 said:

Very cool, thanks.

Do you think 84 is one of the most difficult, but winnable elections you've worked on (without exploits)? Which other campaigns do you think are as tough (I'm sure some are close to impossible, like 72)?

Whoops, was just re-reading this, and I completely misread your post initially. I'd thought you said

"Republicans are extremely difficult to defeat unless Ron Paul is somehow the candidate runs third party. I just ran a simulation of Ted Kennedy vs. Reagan vs. Ron Paul. Kennedy wins with 297 EVs and 52.8% of the vote. "

Sorry for any confusion. In this case, 84 seems as difficult as 72 when I read your post properly.

BTW since you are working on 92, 96 next, are there any candidates who are by default off who you think would've kept it closer with Clinton? Also, does Perot tend to draw more from Bush or Clinton? It's common to hear people say that Perot cost Bush the election, but I believe I heard (on 538 or elsewhere; I could be wrong) that exit polls had Perot voters noting their second choice was predominantly Clinton (with a plurality likely not voting if Perot wasn't on the ballot).

[vcczar 1,224]

6 minutes ago, thr33 said:

 

Whoops, was just re-reading this, and I completely misread your post initially. I'd thought you said

"Republicans are extremely difficult to defeat unless Ron Paul is somehow the candidate runs third party. I just ran a simulation of Ted Kennedy vs. Reagan vs. Ron Paul. Kennedy wins with 297 EVs and 52.8% of the vote. "

Sorry for any confusion. In this case, 84 seems as difficult as 72 when I read your post properly.

BTW since you are working on 92, 96 next, are there any candidates who are by default off who you think would've kept it closer with Clinton? Also, does Perot tend to draw more from Bush or Clinton? It's common to hear people say that Perot cost Bush the election, but I believe I heard (on 538 or elsewhere; I could be wrong) that exit polls had Perot voters noting their second choice was predominantly Clinton (with a plurality likely not voting if Perot wasn't on the ballot).

The mechanism to have Perot draw more support off one candidate than another isn't really built in. But Anthony is adding favorabiility, which I guess might do that. In truth, Perot doesn't really do much. He starts at 9%, which is where he was in October of 1992, and I rarely see the computer get him beyond 11%,  short of his historical 19%. I made have to add an event to boost him. I tried making his general election campaign stats as strong as the major parties, to see if he'd make more progress, but that doesn't seem to help much. 

For 1992, the Republican what-if is solely Bob Dole. More may be added in another update. It would be hard to find anyone stronger than George Bush for Republicans in 1992, except maybe Colin Powell. 

Democrats will include many more what-ifs -- Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, McGovern, Bentsen, etc., as they haven't an incumbent. More may be added in the final update. 

I could feasibly have Donald Trump as a what-if VP for Perot for the final update, if not this update.

The 1996 election will have few what-if challengers for Clinton, but will have many more what-ifs for Republicans, all of whom could pose a real threat, and certainly stronger than Bob Dole.  

[thr33 0]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

The mechanism to have Perot draw more support off one candidate than another isn't really built in. But Anthony is adding favorabiility, which I guess might do that. In truth, Perot doesn't really do much. He starts at 9%, which is where he was in October of 1992, and I rarely see the computer get him beyond 11%,  short of his historical 19%. I made have to add an event to boost him. I tried making his general election campaign stats as strong as the major parties, to see if he'd make more progress, but that doesn't seem to help much. 

For 1992, the Republican what-if is solely Bob Dole. More may be added in another update. It would be hard to find anyone stronger than George Bush for Republicans in 1992, except maybe Colin Powell. 

Democrats will include many more what-ifs -- Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, McGovern, Bentsen, etc., as they haven't an incumbent. More may be added in the final update. 

I could feasibly have Donald Trump as a what-if VP for Perot for the final update, if not this update.

The 1996 election will have few what-if challengers for Clinton, but will have many more what-ifs for Republicans, all of whom could pose a real threat, and certainly stronger than Bob Dole.  

Thanks for the information. That's unfortunate about Perot, but as you said, perhaps the addition of favorability would help.

[vcczar 1,224]

Just now, thr33 said:

Thanks for the information. That's unfortunate about Perot, but as you said, perhaps the addition of favorability would help.

I just realized that Trump was a Republican in 1992, and not an independent or reform at the time. So I probably won't include him. He did consider running for president in 1988, so I might add him as a what-if Republican for 1992. Although, he would have performed very poorly, since the atmosphere wasn't really ripe for him until 2016, or 2012 at the earliest. 

[thr33 0]

disregard

[vcczar 1,224]

@TheLiberalKitten

I'm done updating 1992. I'll send it to you to double check the endorsers, once you're done checking/fixing 1996 endorsers. It is possible the 1992 ones might be off, too. 

[TheLiberalKitten 272]

Just now, vcczar said:

@TheLiberalKitten

I'm done updating 1992. I'll send it to you to double check the endorsers, once you're done checking/fixing 1996 endorsers. It is possible the 1992 ones might be off, too. 

Send it to me so I could already have it as I'll be editing the endorsers tonight

[vcczar 1,224]

30 minutes ago, TheLiberalKitten said:

Send it to me so I could already have it as I'll be editing the endorsers tonight

 

United States - 1992-endorsercheck.zip

[TheLiberalKitten 272]

@vcczar Update: I worked on the endorsers the other day. My computer is having a little trouble and I won't be able to use it for a while, it seems it needs a major upgrade. I'm sorry for the delay I just wanted to let you know. 

I'm currently on mobile. 

[vcczar 1,224]

12 hours ago, TheLiberalKitten said:

@vcczar Update: I worked on the endorsers the other day. My computer is having a little trouble and I won't be able to use it for a while, it seems it needs a major upgrade. I'm sorry for the delay I just wanted to let you know. 

I'm currently on mobile. 

No prob. I'll just move to 2000 until you can get the 1992 and 1996 endorsement checks to me. 

[TheLiberalKitten 272]

16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

No prob. I'll just move to 2000 until you can get the 1992 and 1996 endorsement checks to me. 

Sounds good. 

[vcczar 1,224]

Update: Adding some what-ifs to 2000 and 2004

2000 will include: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, First Lady Hillary Clinton, Rep. Bernie Sanders, with Donald Trump as a Reform Party candidate. 

2004 will include: Rep. Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Donald Trump (as a Democrat, as he was so registered at the time). 

[Patine 444]

17 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Update: Adding some what-ifs to 2000 and 2004

2000 will include: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, First Lady Hillary Clinton, Rep. Bernie Sanders, with Donald Trump as a Reform Party candidate. 

2004 will include: Rep. Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Donald Trump (as a Democrat, as he was so registered at the time). 

Will Sanders pragmatically run as a Democrat in the 2000 and 2004 what-if's, or run under the label he did as Congressman and Senator from Vermont - "Independent Socialist."