Jump to content
270soft Forum

2020 Election Update: Booker added!


Recommended Posts

This update includes the following:

  • Booker is turned ON, Flake, Ojeda, Inslee are now turned OFF. Flake says he will not run. Ojeda dropped out. Inslee actually hasn't officially explored a run.
  • Kasich is still ON, only because Trump wins in a landslides without an opponent in the primaries, since Democrats destroy themselves while Trump can just sit unscathed. Kasich is ON only for the game to run somewhat realistically. 
  • Polls have been updated.
  • Endorsers have all been set to endorse only positions that are realistic for them to endorse. 
  • Third Parties are OFF by default because they make the results even more unrealistic at the moment. 
  • Deleted the Kasich/Hickenlooper 3rd party and the Zuckerberg 3rd party. I have not created a Schultz 3rd party yet. 

The update can ONLY be downloaded here. Feedback desired. Please post your results: 

 

United States - 2020 (02-01-19).zip

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

"only because Trump wins in a landslides without an opponent in the primaries, since Democrats destroy themselves while Trump can just sit unscathed "

Yes, after addressing memory issues, this is the top priority. Basically, the game has to be able to replicate how candidates will attack each other for months, and then most people sympathetic to the party's platform will then come together and rally behind the nominee. Part of the problem is that voters in the game become polarized if there is a lot of time before the general election.

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

@vcczar

"only because Trump wins in a landslides without an opponent in the primaries, since Democrats destroy themselves while Trump can just sit unscathed "

Yes, after addressing memory issues, this is the top priority. Basically, the game has to be able to replicate how candidates will attack each other for months, and then most people sympathetic to the party's platform will then come together and rally behind the nominee. Part of the problem is that voters in the game become polarized if there is a lot of time before the general election.

How do you think you will address the polarization? I'm wondering if something should be in place to that restricts how much or how little support the parties get on the National Map during the primaries? Then, perhaps, once the General Election is declared, something is activated that loosens that restriction. For the most part, the elections seem to be decided in the primaries. Additionally, I'm surprised the National Map doesn't shift when there is a new frontrunner in the primaries. I'm sure Sanders as frontrunner will have a different "vs Trump" map than say Cory Booker. Currently, I play the game only through the primaries because the General Election isn't reasonable. I'm sure there's a good fix. I keep thinking some sort of restriction, similar to what you just included with the endorsers. I know you have state platforms, but I'm now sure how strong those are in the game. Maybe if those powers are increased so that Sanders can't win Alabama because his platform isn't remotely close to Alabama. I also like the idea of adding a high/low for a party in any given state, which can be added to the editor. For instance, Democrats will never get more than 52% in Alabama (that's me being generous). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm wondering if something should be in place to that restricts how much or how little support the parties get on the National Map during the primaries?"

With the old game engine, this was done very simply. Voter movement between parties during the primaries was set to approx. 0. This maintained the parties' starting %s even through protracted primaries.

In the new game engine, this can't be done because voters hold scores for each candidate (for all parties). So, if there's a protracted, nasty primary on one side, the Favorability scores will drop more on one side than another. You could place those voters in a kind of 'bubble', where they only consider people in their original party during the primaries, but then once the general comes, you still have to reconcile the Favorability scores.

My question is what actually happens in real life? I think the answer is that platforms matter a lot and party affiliation also matters a lot. So somehow psychologically there is a 'reset' after a person's favoured candidate drops out, where they forget all the nastiness of the past primaries to an extent.

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

"I'm wondering if something should be in place to that restricts how much or how little support the parties get on the National Map during the primaries?"

With the old game engine, this was done very simply. Voter movement between parties during the primaries was set to approx. 0. This maintained the parties' starting %s even through protracted primaries.

In the new game engine, this can't be done because voters hold scores for each candidate (for all parties). So, if there's a protracted, nasty primary on one side, the Favorability scores will drop more on one side than another. You could place those voters in a kind of 'bubble', where they only consider people in their original party during the primaries, but then once the general comes, you still have to reconcile the Favorability scores.

My question is what actually happens in real life? I think the answer is that platforms matter a lot and party affiliation also matters a lot. So somehow psychologically there is a 'reset' after a person's favoured candidate drops out, where they forget all the nastiness of the past primaries to an extent.

I think that's mostly true. Although, it is well-known that many Sanders supporters wouldn't support Clinton even after his endorsement. Many Kasich and Cruz supporters wouldn't support Trump even after the Cruz endorsement. I do think, on the whole, people stay with their party. I'm just wondering how with the current engine you can rebalance it by the general election. How do you stop Alabama or Oklahoma from going Blue (both unlikely to happen even if Trump ate Mike Pence on national television on the day before the election). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a quick sim through as the watcher party. I did have Clinton, Biden, O'Rourke, Kerry, Bloomberg, and Sanders on but undecided, I also turned Kasich to undecided, as well as Pence, Romney, and Jeb Bush. Fiorina was turned on. 

 

After the first turn everyone who was undecided but Biden dropped out, Biden would drop out within the first 3 turns however. Trump would easily go through the Republican primaries, at the same time the Democratic primaries came down to Julian Castro and Cory Booker, with Castro getting the nomination in the 5th round of voting. Castro would choose Ojeda to be his running mate.

 

After the primaries it seemed as though Castro and the Democratic party as a whole were tracking very highly, this held true a day before the general election as well.

 

At the general Castro would beat Trump pretty soundly in the popular vote, which seems a little high. (quick edit, I mean voter turn out seems a little high)

 

Everything played out really smooth, didn't encounter any issues or anything. 

Screenshot (63).png

Screenshot (62).png

Screenshot (64).png

Screenshot (65).png

Screenshot (67).png

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I did a quick sim through as the watcher party. I did have Clinton, Biden, O'Rourke, Kerry, Bloomberg, and Sanders on but undecided, I also turned Kasich to undecided, as well as Pence, Romney, and Jeb Bush. Fiorina was turned on. 

 

After the first turn everyone who was undecided but Biden dropped out, Biden would drop out within the first 3 turns however. Trump would easily go through the Republican primaries, at the same time the Democratic primaries came down to Julian Castro and Cory Booker, with Castro getting the nomination in the 5th round of voting. Castro would choose Ojeda to be his running mate.

 

After the primaries it seemed as though Castro and the Democratic party as a whole were tracking very highly, this held true a day before the general election as well.

 

At the general Castro would beat Trump pretty soundly in the popular vote, which seems a little high. (quick edit, I mean voter turn out seems a little high)

 

Everything played out really smooth, didn't encounter any issues or anything. 

Screenshot (63).png

Screenshot (62).png

Screenshot (64).png

Screenshot (65).png

Screenshot (67).png

Thanks for sharing. Except for GA, the end result seems realistic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Yeah it played out really realistically I think, you did a good job. Thanks for making it.

I couldn't help but look at you Coolidge button. Is this a swipe at Trump, who is clearly not "silent," "safe," or "sure?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

"it is well-known that many Sanders supporters wouldn't support Clinton even after his endorsement. Many Kasich and Cruz supporters wouldn't support Trump even after the Cruz endorsement."

Yes, so it's realistic to happen to an extent. The question is, what extent exactly? My guess is that these people made up a small % on both sides, but I haven't looked at polling data of this.

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

@vcczar

"it is well-known that many Sanders supporters wouldn't support Clinton even after his endorsement. Many Kasich and Cruz supporters wouldn't support Trump even after the Cruz endorsement."

Yes, so it's realistic to happen to an extent. The question is, what extent exactly? My guess is that these people made up a small % on both sides, but I haven't looked at polling data of this.

I think it's not as large as people think. I'd wager that it is 1% or something for both sides just about. I haven't seen any statistics on the topic. 

I think the extent shouldn't be too much and that it should probably happen more often when you get an insider candidate that is competitive with an outsider candidate or vice-versa. When you get to demographics in this game, I think it's really one demographic being unhappy. For Democrats, Millennials had a cult-like attraction to Sanders and many would not vote for Clinton. For Democrats, you had the Free Trade Neocons that wouldn't vote for Trump.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I couldn't help but look at you Coolidge button. Is this a swipe at Trump, who is clearly not "silent," "safe," or "sure?"

It is. I'm not overly fond of what the man has done to the republican party, and to politics in general really. Most recently the incidents with the Intel Chief's and canceling the briefing. I digress though.  

I also think Coolidge is an underrated politician/president, so kind of a double meaning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

It is. I'm not overly fond of what the man has done to the republican party, and to politics in general really. Most recently the incidents with the Intel Chief's and canceling the briefing. I digress though.  

I also think Coolidge is an underrated politician/president, so kind of a double meaning. 

Personally, I don't believe Trump has, himself, "done such things to" politics in general, nor is the instigator or innovator of the degeneration of moderns political culture. I believe he's a symptom of a much bigger socio-political disease that's been incubating and growing for a while. He's just one of those symptoms that's more obvious than many others, and is often the kind of symptom at the point where someone gets up and sees a doctor, even if they've actually been sick for a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

Personally, I don't believe Trump has, himself, "done such things to" politics in general, nor is the instigator or innovator of the degeneration of moderns political culture. I believe he's a symptom of a much bigger socio-political disease that's been incubating and growing for a while. He's just one of those symptoms that's more obvious than many others, and is often the kind of symptom at the point where someone gets up and sees a doctor, even if they've actually been sick for a while.

I see what you mean, perhaps that's a more pessimistic view of it than it might actually be. It's possible though, and there is certainly a lot of truth in that Trump is a product of the political environment. Which to a degree may come from the attitudes of treating politics like sport and the two parties like teams. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I see what you mean, perhaps that's a more pessimistic view of it than it might actually be. It's possible though, and there is certainly a lot of truth in that Trump is a product of the political environment. Which to a degree may come from the attitudes of treating politics like sport and the two parties like teams. 

I agree fully there. Especially because sports teams play for fitness, sportsmanship, fun, and at professional levels, money, fame, and promotions. "Playing" with people's and livelihoods, military forces, the functioning of economies and national infrastructures, and the leadership of societies should NOT viewed as a sport, and those in elected office who do so are not fulfilling their duties and obligations as public servants (a title many of them often forget they carry as their VERY MOST IMPORTANT title of office), and have instead abdicated said duties and obligations - and should thus be relieved of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I agree fully there. Especially because sports teams play for fitness, sportsmanship, fun, and at professional levels, money, fame, and promotions. "Playing" with people's and livelihoods, military forces, the functioning of economies and national infrastructures, and the leadership of societies should NOT viewed as a sport, and those in elected office who do so are not fulfilling their duties and obligations as public servants (a title many of them often forget they carry as their VERY MOST IMPORTANT title of office), and have instead abdicated said duties and obligations - and should thus be relieved of them.

Agreed. If they were to implement term limits for the house and the senate that would fix a few of the problems, but to expect any of them to limit their own time in office is a request that will go unfulfilled.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

I'd recommend that you update the VP selection a bit more once you get the chance. It feels somewhat limited starting a general election and not being to select any other candidate as our VP. 

Yeah I’ll have 5 options for each candidate at some point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 3:43 PM, admin_270 said:

"I'm wondering if something should be in place to that restricts how much or how little support the parties get on the National Map during the primaries?"

With the old game engine, this was done very simply. Voter movement between parties during the primaries was set to approx. 0. This maintained the parties' starting %s even through protracted primaries.

In the new game engine, this can't be done because voters hold scores for each candidate (for all parties). So, if there's a protracted, nasty primary on one side, the Favorability scores will drop more on one side than another. You could place those voters in a kind of 'bubble', where they only consider people in their original party during the primaries, but then once the general comes, you still have to reconcile the Favorability scores.

My question is what actually happens in real life? I think the answer is that platforms matter a lot and party affiliation also matters a lot. So somehow psychologically there is a 'reset' after a person's favoured candidate drops out, where they forget all the nastiness of the past primaries to an extent.

In real life, I think it still comes down to favorability.  For example, it's not hard to imagine someone in 2016 who loved Bernie Sanders and hated Hillary Clinton -- but when it came down to Clinton v. Trump, they hated Trump even MORE.

Obviously this did not describe "every" Sanders supporter.  I would think (I'm just making up these numbers) 50% would go on to vote for Clinton, 20% would go third party protest votes, 20% would just feel disenfranchised and stay home, and 10% would go to Trump.   Again, just making that up, but it's a starting point to build from.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 1:43 PM, admin_270 said:

"I'm wondering if something should be in place to that restricts how much or how little support the parties get on the National Map during the primaries?"

With the old game engine, this was done very simply. Voter movement between parties during the primaries was set to approx. 0. This maintained the parties' starting %s even through protracted primaries.

In the new game engine, this can't be done because voters hold scores for each candidate (for all parties). So, if there's a protracted, nasty primary on one side, the Favorability scores will drop more on one side than another. You could place those voters in a kind of 'bubble', where they only consider people in their original party during the primaries, but then once the general comes, you still have to reconcile the Favorability scores.

My question is what actually happens in real life? I think the answer is that platforms matter a lot and party affiliation also matters a lot. So somehow psychologically there is a 'reset' after a person's favoured candidate drops out, where they forget all the nastiness of the past primaries to an extent.

This mechanic would likely lead to Reagan easily losing in 1980, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...