Historical Scenario Commission Election Updates!

[Nulla Lex Ink. 1]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

I'm going to have a look for it. I myself am from Alberta, and I find the political figures where I live are underdiscussed and even very little known since @LordBeckett and @DisplayName seemed to have stopped actively posting (this @Uberdipper poster seemed to have vanished after one post that looked quite promising). I've read quite a bit about Happy Chandler - he and Henry Clay are big standout Kentucky politicians in my mind, at least. Alben Barkley I don't know nearly as much about, and I'm afraid I'm not a fan at all of John Breckinridge. I've begun a series of electoral scenarios for historical Alberta scenarios, so I wish I you luck and good progress on your Kentucky scenarios - regardless of the nation or other polity, I find myself much more strongly a fan of historical than current or imminently upcoming election scenarios.

I appreciate you looking for it man. I hate to admit to it, but my understanding and knowledge of politics outside of the US is pretty limited at the moment. I'm working on expanding it though You should read up on Barkley some time. He's one of the most interesting vice presidents the country has ever had in my opinion, and likely would have made a good president if he had been given the chance. There was also one occasion when he and Chandler ran against each other for the Democratic party nomination for senate. Barkley was the incumbent at the time; the race is actually pretty hilarious. If I recall right Chandler accused Barkley's team of poisoning him, which became a point of parody for Barkley on the campaign trail.

I understand the interest in historical elections. That's how I feel when it comes to presidential elections, but when it comes to gubernatorial or senatorial I'm more intrigued by more recent ones, largely because there is more information available on them. That being said, it seems like the losers of these kinds of races, unless the race is close or the figure was already well known, seem to just up and disappear, even nowadays.

Anyways, thanks for the well wishes and the help. Good luck to you and your Alberta scenarios! Will definitely give them a try when they're done

Oh, another interesting KY politician you might be interested in looking into - Cassius Marcellus Clay. He was a cousin of Henry Clay if I recall right, and an early supporter of abolition. There was a very real chance of him being named Lincoln's VP in 1860. He was also pretty violent and kinda nuts, haha.

[Nulla Lex Ink. 1]

Hey, @vcczar, don't mean to bother you but I just had a neat little though about the 2016 election, which I know is a long way off but I thought I'd tell you about my idea while it's still fresh. Have you ever thought about putting Donald Trump in that election has a Democrat option as well? I only ask because it's a known fact that for a good chunk of at least the 2000s he was a Democrat. Plus in a lot of older scenarios he is a Democrat option, though he was a registered Democrat then.

Really I ask because it's a new fantasy of mine to run Trump against Sanders in the primaries season

[Patine 469]

2 hours ago, Nulla Lex Ink. said:

Hey, @vcczar, don't mean to bother you but I just had a neat little though about the 2016 election, which I know is a long way off but I thought I'd tell you about my idea while it's still fresh. Have you ever thought about putting Donald Trump in that election has a Democrat option as well? I only ask because it's a known fact that for a good chunk of at least the 2000s he was a Democrat. Plus in a lot of older scenarios he is a Democrat option, though he was a registered Democrat then.

Really I ask because it's a new fantasy of mine to run Trump against Sanders in the primaries season

Or "cheat" and have Trump vs. Trump. What a parody that would be - and the joke would be on the virtual voters...

[Caprice 0]

10 hours ago, Patine said:

Or "cheat" and have Trump vs. Trump. What a parody that would be - and the joke would be on the virtual voters...

That sounds amazing. A contest between VPs more than anything.

[vcczar 1,224]

13 hours ago, Nulla Lex Ink. said:

Hey, @vcczar, don't mean to bother you but I just had a neat little though about the 2016 election, which I know is a long way off but I thought I'd tell you about my idea while it's still fresh. Have you ever thought about putting Donald Trump in that election has a Democrat option as well? I only ask because it's a known fact that for a good chunk of at least the 2000s he was a Democrat. Plus in a lot of older scenarios he is a Democrat option, though he was a registered Democrat then.

Really I ask because it's a new fantasy of mine to run Trump against Sanders in the primaries season

I'll have to think about it when I get to 2016. That might be too what-iffy

[Nulla Lex Ink. 1]

On 4/6/2018 at 9:54 AM, vcczar said:

I'll have to think about it when I get to 2016. That might be too what-iffy

I hear ya man. Think about it though. I'd be happy to even do the Democrat-Trump candidate On an unrelated note, how close are you to 1860? Not rushing you, quite the opposite actually. Haven't been feeling too well lately and am just now beginning to recover, so I haven't had time to do the numbers for that scenario like I said I would.

[vcczar 1,224]

14 hours ago, Nulla Lex Ink. said:

I hear ya man. Think about it though. I'd be happy to even do the Democrat-Trump candidate On an unrelated note, how close are you to 1860? Not rushing you, quite the opposite actually. Haven't been feeling too well lately and am just now beginning to recover, so I haven't had time to do the numbers for that scenario like I said I would.

Thanks for the suggestions on the campaign pages. I got email notifications for all of them. I'm currently on 1836, which is taking longer than most, since it is such a weird election and has more what-ifs than normal. I'm about 80% done with it, however. After 1836, I'll either go to 1840 or to @jvikings1's 1824. I'd say it takes me about a week to two weeks per scenario. At a minimum, I'll get to 1860 in 6 weeks. 

[Nulla Lex Ink. 1]

@vcczar Found another candidate for you! William Jones Lowndes of South Carolina. He was put forth as a potential candidate all the way back in 1821 but died a year later. I only put it here instead of the 1824 page because I wanted to see what you thought of including candidates that had passed away such a long time before the potential election.

[Patine 469]

@vcczar How about a real fun one - Congressman Preston "the Barbarian" Brooks of South Carolina for 1856, even though he would have died in inauguration month in January 1857...

[vcczar 1,224]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

@vcczar How about a real fun one - Congressman Preston "the Barbarian" Brooks of South Carolina for 1856, even though he would have died in inauguration month in January 1857...

Good idea

@Nulla Lex Ink. I don't know if I'll add Lowndes. I tend not to add candidates if they were dead before, unless they were something of a frontrunner, like Teddy Roosevelt for 1920. 

[Nulla Lex Ink. 1]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

Good idea

@Nulla Lex Ink. I don't know if I'll add Lowndes. I tend not to add candidates if they were dead before, unless they were something of a frontrunner, like Teddy Roosevelt for 1920. 

I gotcha. If it counts for anything though, I think John Calhoun saw this as a blow to his potential candidacy since the South Carolina legislature nominated Lowndes instead of him.

[Nulla Lex Ink. 1]

@vcczar

Hey man, how close to you are 1860? Still not rushing, once again doing the opposite. Been very sick for about a month now and I'm just beginning to recover from it, so I didn't have time to finish the 1860 population counts. I should in about a week or two though, just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten that I said I'd do that for ya.

Also, I got another suggestion for a future edit to a campaign. I'll put it on the page, I just wanted to run it by you first - Ross Perot as a Republican candidate in 1992. There were a few states in the primaries where he got a pretty significant percentage, despite not even being on the ballot.

[vcczar 1,224]

20 minutes ago, Nulla Lex Ink. said:

@vcczar

Hey man, how close to you are 1860? Still not rushing, once again doing the opposite. Been very sick for about a month now and I'm just beginning to recover from it, so I didn't have time to finish the 1860 population counts. I should in about a week or two though, just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten that I said I'd do that for ya.

Also, I got another suggestion for a future edit to a campaign. I'll put it on the page, I just wanted to run it by you first - Ross Perot as a Republican candidate in 1992. There were a few states in the primaries where he got a pretty significant percentage, despite not even being on the ballot.

Thanks for the suggestion. I see you put it in the comment under the campaign which is good. I'm currently completely done through 1840. I'm working on just the endorsers up through 1860, then I'll go back and do the rest. I'm so busy right now that this is going very slowly, but you should see that I'm making some progress every week. 

[Nulla Lex Ink. 1]

@vcczar Hey man, turns out I had 1860 done the whole time. 1960 is the one I still have to redo. So just let me know whenever you're on that election so I can send you the corrected numbers

[vcczar 1,224]

1 hour ago, Nulla Lex Ink. said:

@vcczar Hey man, turns out I had 1860 done the whole time. 1960 is the one I still have to redo. So just let me know whenever you're on that election so I can send you the corrected numbers

Ok great. Thanks! It might be a few weeks. 

[populist86 7]

@vcczar I think there is an error in the 2016 HSC campaign - if you get Kerry's endorsement, you get 1.0 ground ops in every state, when other major endorsers are 0.1 or 0.3, including people like Obama and Biden.

[vcczar 1,224]

9 hours ago, thr33 said:

@vcczar I think there is an error in the 2016 HSC campaign - if you get Kerry's endorsement, you get 1.0 ground ops in every state, when other major endorsers are 0.1 or 0.3, including people like Obama and Biden.

That is weird. Can you post this as a comment in the 2016 download page? This is what I look at when updating the levels. 

[IonicAmalgam 0]

What exactly is your 2016 campaign? I've been working on something for myself for 2018 (hundreds of new events since Feb 1, 2015, done up to the end of June 2016, 4 new issues, 2 issues renamed, new endorsers).

[vcczar 1,224]

18 hours ago, IonicAmalgam said:

What exactly is your 2016 campaign? I've been working on something for myself for 2018 (hundreds of new events since Feb 1, 2015, done up to the end of June 2016, 4 new issues, 2 issues renamed, new endorsers).

It's the 2016 election that I modified from the official version. It includes some things (events, people, etc.) that I thought were missing. It also adjusts the candidate abilities slightly to what I think is more accurate. 

 

[SalmonD88 1]

Hello and Happy New Year All!

So how's it going on update wise?

[Wiw 92]

On the new 1-10 scale, where would you put the '72 candidates' characteristics?

[vcczar 1,224]

On 3/11/2019 at 1:42 PM, Wiw said:

On the new 1-10 scale, where would you put the '72 candidates' characteristics?

Not sure. May be awhile until I can update these. 

[Wiw 92]

Right. I'm just asking for reference for my own scenarios. I'll have to go by gut.

[Nulla Lex Ink. 1]

I got 1908 straightened out. Initially it seemed to be very lopsided in Bryan's favor, but I adjusted the numbers and it's now in Taft's. Is there anywhere I should send this or put it?

[vcczar 1,224]

1 hour ago, Nulla Lex Ink. said:

I got 1908 straightened out. Initially it seemed to be very lopsided in Bryan's favor, but I adjusted the numbers and it's now in Taft's. Is there anywhere I should send this or put it?

What did you do to fix it? You could just publish your own version of my scenario as an improved version in the campaign section of the website. I really don't think I'll get around to updating the historical election until after the 2020 election or something. I've just got too many things I'm working on. This might change when demographics and voting blocs comes out. I might be inspired to update them at that time. I just don't think I have the patience for tedium (which is most of the updating process involves) when I have a lot of other things going on. It just raises my blood pressure unless I have a completely clear schedule.