2020 Candidate Abilities 1: Republicans

[vcczar 1,224]

I'm opening up a discussion on candidate abilities. Remember this scenario assume Trump is facing impeachment proceedings while on campaign. Please offer your feedback and suggestions on candidate abilities: 

Number system for traits

5 - Legendary

4 - Great

3 - Average

2 - Sub-par

1 - Abysmal 

 

Donald Trump

Lead: 3

Exp: 4

Int: 1   

IF: 4

Cha: 4

Sta: 4

Deb: 2

Idealogue: 2

Ambition: 5

Overall Campaign: Strong -- 3's and 2's, except for a 5 in spin. Is hurt by a 5 in corruption.

 

John Kasich

Lead: 4

Exp: 4

Int: 4

IF: 4

Cha: 3

Sta: 3

Deb: 4

Idealogue: 3

Ambition: 4

Overall Campaign: Possibly Competitive -- 2 in everything, but a 3 in fundraising, and 1 in ground

 

Lindsey Graham

Lead: 3

Exp: 4

Int: 4

IF: 4

Cha: 3

Sta: 3

Deb: 4

Idealogue: 3

Ambition: 2

Overall Campaign: Weak--mostly 2 and 1 in everything

 

Rand Paul

Lead: 3

Exp: 3

Int: 4

IF: 4

Cha: 2

Sta: 3

Deb: 3

Idealogue: 4

Ambition: 2

Overall Campaign: Possibly competitive -- all 2, but a 1 in polling and a 3 in ground

 

Ted Cruz

Lead: 4

Exp: 3

Int: 3

IF: 4

Cha: 2

Sta: 4

Deb: 4

Idealogue: 5

Ambition: 4

Overall Campaign: possibly competitive -- 2 in everything

 

Marco Rubio

Lead: 4

Exp: 3

Int: 3

IF: 4

Cha: 3

Sta: 3

Deb: 4

Idealogue: 3

Ambition: 2

Overall Campaign: possibly competitive -- 2 in everything

 

Susana Martinez

Lead: 4

Exp: 3

Int: 4

IF: 4

Cha: 3 

Sta: 3

Deb: 3

Idealogue: 3

Ambition: 1

Overall Campaign: Weak--mostly 2 and 1 in everything

 

Jon Huntsman

Lead: 3

Exp: 3

Int: 4

IF: 4

Cha: 3 

Sta: 3

Deb: 3

Idealogue: 2

Ambition: 1

Overall Campaign: Mostly Weak--mostly 2 and 1 in everything, except a 4 in fundraising

 

Tom Cotton

Lead: 4

Exp: 3

Int: 3

IF: 4

Cha: 3

Sta: 3

Deb: 3 

Idealogue: 4

Ambition: 1

Overall Campaign: Weak--mostly 2 and 1 in everything

 

Ben Sasse

Lead: 3

Exp: 3

Int: 3

IF: 3

Cha: 3 

Sta: 4

Deb: 3 

Idealogue: 4

Ambition: 1

Overall Campaign: Weak--mostly 2 and 1 in everything

 

Susan Collins

Lead: 4

Exp: 4

Int:  4

IF:  4

Cha: 3

Sta: 3

Deb: 4

Idealogue: 2

Ambition: 1

Overall Campaign: Weak--mostly 2 and 1 in everything

 

Mike Pence

Lead: 3

Exp: 4

Int: 3

IF: 4

Cha: 3 

Sta: 3

Deb: 3

Idealogue: 4

Ambition: 3

Overall Campaign: competitive -- 2 in everything, except command and strategic where he has a 3

 

Jeff Flake

Lead: 2

Exp: 3

Int: 4

IF: 3

Cha: 3

Sta: 3

Deb: 3

Idealogue: 4

Ambition: 1

Overall Campaign: Weak--mostly 2 and 1 in everything

 

Lisa Murkowski

Lead: 3

Exp: 4

Int: 4

IF: 4

Cha: 3

Sta: 3

Deb: 3

Idealogue: 2

Ambition: 1

Overall Campaign: Weak--mostly 2 and 1 in everything

 

 

 

[jvikings1 40]

I'd put Cruz at a 3 for ground because he is great at getting grassroots support (how he was elected to the Senate and was well organized at the caucuses during the primaries).

Also, I'd put Pence at a 4 in leadership considering how successful he was a governor, but I'd move his charisma down to a 2.

[vcczar 1,224]

2 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

I'd put Cruz at a 3 for ground because he is great at getting grassroots support (how he was elected to the Senate and was well organized at the caucuses during the primaries).

Also, I'd put Pence at a 4 in leadership considering how successful he was a governor, but I'd move his charisma down to a 2.

I'll consider both of these suggestion. I'm less sold on Pence's leadership of 4, since I don't think he's really shown any obvious leadership outside his own state, as in taking charge of a faction or taking charge of high-profile committees, etc. Grassroots for Cruz at 3 seems really possible. 

I'll see if anyone else can second or oppose your suggestions. I may move Cruz to 3 on ground, regardless, however. 

[Reagan04 658]

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'll consider both of these suggestion. I'm less sold on Pence's leadership of 4, since I don't think he's really shown any obvious leadership outside his own state, as in taking charge of a faction or taking charge of high-profile committees, etc. Grassroots for Cruz at 3 seems really possible. 

I'll see if anyone else can second or oppose your suggestions. I may move Cruz to 3 on ground, regardless, however. 

I agree with them.

[vcczar 1,224]

@JDrakeify @mz452 @The DM @Kingthero @QuickHead555 @chunkbuster11 @Bjornhattan @HomosexualSocialist @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75  @koneke @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami

[Herbert Hoover 199]

I would either bump Trump's experience up to a 5 or remove all other 4's. It seems very unreasonable for others to match Trump in experience after him being in office for 4 years, even if he is incompetent. I know he's hardly "legendary", but not one of the other candidates has "great" experience (the only person I would consider having "great" experience in elections are VPs and Hillary Clinton)

[MysteryKnight 21]

4 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

I would either bump Trump's experience up to a 5 or remove all other 4's. It seems very unreasonable for others to match Trump in experience after him being in office for 4 years, even if he is incompetent. I know he's hardly "legendary", but not one of the other candidates has "great" experience (the only person I would consider having "great" experience in elections are VPs and Hillary Clinton)

But does being president for one term really make you have more experience than someone like John Kasich who has been in politics for almost 40 years? I think it's very reasonable to have others match his experience if they have been doing this much longer even if they weren't the president. 

[Herbert Hoover 199]

8 minutes ago, MysteryKnight said:

But does being president for one term really make you have more experience than someone like John Kasich who has been in politics for almost 40 years? I think it's very reasonable to have others match his experience if they have been doing this much longer even if they weren't the president. 

I would argue that the experience isn't necessarily career experience, but rather experience relative to the office that they are running for. Kasich has no idea what being President would be like, while Trump has experienced it for four years prior. I would argue that Trump has a 5 and Kasich a 4 for balance, but I don't think Kasich has experience anywhere near as relevant as Trump's after 4 years in the White House (and I say this as someone who would have voted Kasich over Clinton or Sanders)

[Patine 468]

6 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

I would either bump Trump's experience up to a 5 or remove all other 4's. It seems very unreasonable for others to match Trump in experience after him being in office for 4 years, even if he is incompetent. I know he's hardly "legendary", but not one of the other candidates has "great" experience (the only person I would consider having "great" experience in elections are VPs and Hillary Clinton)

I remember having a similar discussion back when I was designing my very first TheorySpark game scenario, my 1996 U.S. Presidential Election scenario for P4E2008 shortly after I joined the community in 2007. The debate was whether Bob Dole, who had a political career of over 40 years at that time, and had been Senate Minority Leader, then Senate Majority Leader, but had never been President or Vice-President, just an unsuccessful running mate to an incumbent President in 1976, should have an Experience of 4 or 5?

[Sunnymentoaddict 39]

A few suggestions, should Trump's support be stronger- not overall percentage- but the number of voters that strong supporters of him. Roughly 80% of registered Republicans approve of him, and think he's guiding the party in the right direction; while the Senate only has 50%. Even if we keep the same events leading to the scenario, his strong support should be at least 50%. 

[vcczar 1,224]

19 hours ago, CalebsParadox said:

I would either bump Trump's experience up to a 5 or remove all other 4's. It seems very unreasonable for others to match Trump in experience after him being in office for 4 years, even if he is incompetent. I know he's hardly "legendary", but not one of the other candidates has "great" experience (the only person I would consider having "great" experience in elections are VPs and Hillary Clinton)

adding @MysteryKnight @Patine

Experience, as far as my understand, and how I've applied it to all the historical scenarios, is a holistic value of political experience, experience working in foreign affairs, domestic affairs, government in general. This is based on most campaign when someone like Biden (pre-VP) or HClinton tout their experience over lesser experienced politicians. It cannot mean experience for the office, because nearly every candidate would be a 1 or a 2 in this instance. It has to be political experience involving areas a president would need to have experience in. As such, we have several aged Senators with good experience. Trump will only have 3 years of experience by the 2019 endorsement primary, as he had basically 0 experience before that. He basically jumps from a "2" in experience to a "4", because he is president. His lack of experience is mainly why he's blundering now. I nearly want to give him a 3, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I would only give a 5 to a president running for their second term if they were really experience going into the first term. 

Bob Dole, who was mentioned, would definitely be a 4, and not a 5, since he was never president. 

To answer @Sunnymentoaddict's suggestion. Good suggestion. I'll try implementing this and see if it works properly. 

[Patine 468]

On ‎2017‎-‎09‎-‎29 at 1:54 PM, vcczar said:

adding @MysteryKnight @Patine

Experience, as far as my understand, and how I've applied it to all the historical scenarios, is a holistic value of political experience, experience working in foreign affairs, domestic affairs, government in general. This is based on most campaign when someone like Biden (pre-VP) or HClinton tout their experience over lesser experienced politicians. It cannot mean experience for the office, because nearly every candidate would be a 1 or a 2 in this instance. It has to be political experience involving areas a president would need to have experience in. As such, we have several aged Senators with good experience. Trump will only have 3 years of experience by the 2019 endorsement primary, as he had basically 0 experience before that. He basically jumps from a "2" in experience to a "4", because he is president. His lack of experience is mainly why he's blundering now. I nearly want to give him a 3, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I would only give a 5 to a president running for their second term if they were really experience going into the first term. 

Bob Dole, who was mentioned, would definitely be a 4, and not a 5, since he was never president. 

To answer @Sunnymentoaddict's suggestion. Good suggestion. I'll try implementing this and see if it works properly. 

Why does Trump usually get a 2 in Experience in 2016 scenarios when Ross Perot usually gets a 1 in 1992 and even 1996 scenarios, as a rule?

[vcczar 1,224]

13 hours ago, Patine said:

Why does Trump usually get a 2 in Experience in 2016 scenarios when Ross Perot usually gets a 1 in 1992 and even 1996 scenarios, as a rule?

I never noticed Perot got a 1. I would give him a 2. Generally, for experience I do this. 

1 - Someone without much political experience or much international business experience in charge of a large business that is generally successful

2 - Someone that has relatively limited political experience, experience only in the US House and has never chaired a committee or been Speaker, or has no real political experience but has a lot of business, military officer, or economic experience

3 - Average experience relative to most governors and Senators. 

4 - Veteran Senator, long-term governor of a major state, incumbent president (if they had a 3 or 2 in Exp, when running for their first term)

5 - Reserved exclusively for a 2nd term (or more for FDR) president that was a 4 when they ran for their first term. Exceptions are a president that goes through a rare, intense and varied first term, most successfully. Ex. Lincoln might have a 2 in Exp in 1860, but his chaotic first term was rare in its complexity and intensity, so I could see him jump up to a 5.