The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

Last edited:
Looked through the Hall of Fame list, and here are the most common VPs for the 2016 scenario:
Clinton:
1. Booker
2. Castro
3. Warren/Brown
4. Warren/Brown

Trump:
1. Brown
2. Christie
3. Carson
 
I think they mishandled their attempts at third party candidates and shouldn't have bothered. I don't think the creators of the site understand minor party candidates very well.

Nader has to reflexively state the most liberal position on every issue even to get to his historical 2.6%, which IOTL was considered to be a disappointment, despite the fact that this is not a fair description of his politics, and he did get some support from Perot/ Reform types. George Wallace is almost as bad, he is kind of fun to play, but again struggles to get his IOTL level of support and can't deviate from the right-wing, segregationist message, and there is no reason for him to campaign outside of the South. He basically has to run as Strom Thrumond.

Speaking of Thurmond, there is no Wallace '48, Johnson '16 (or '12), Benson '16, or Birney '1848 options even those these candidates wound up doing as well or better than Nader. No Breckinridge or Bell options in 1860 either, though Breckinridge may have had a better chance of reaching the White House than Douglas. The side is inconsistent.

I think they should let the computer play the minor party candidates and just have a few questions where the player-candidates have to respond to them or address them. When they do this in the scenarios, it seems to work well. And I would treat Perot in '92 as well, no sane player is going to follow the OTL Perot strategy between June and September 1992. For 1912, I would treat Roosevelt as the major party candidate and Taft as the minor irritant, Roosevelt in fact had the support of much of the Republican Party apparatus and had a small chance of winning, whereas Taft had none. Taft really should have not run for re-election.
 
Playing as Kennedy in 1960 on normal, got a 41 state Nixon landslide:

https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/371989

Two points. First this shows how random the game really is. I answered all the questions the same way I've answered them when I've won as Kennedy. Kennedy won the debates decisively too. He did start way behind the polls, which I think is determined randomly. And I did pick Symington for Veep, which is the worst option if you are going to win, but I know from other games that its possible to win as Symington.

Second, Nixon's popular vote margin was only 4.7%. At this time in electoral history, there was very little deviation by the states from the national result.
 
Ran against Nixon again, this time as Humphrey in 1968. Got something of the mirror result from the other game:

https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/372007

Humphrey won the popular vote by 5.1%.

I picked Teddy Kennedy as Humphrey's running mate, called for a bombing halt and negotiations in Vietnam, and ran somewhat center-right on law and order issues, while sticking to the Great Society on economics.

However, what did it were the random events. Humphrey got a debate with Nixon and trounced him, and the peace negotiations sabotage issue broke in his favor.

I did get one question meant for Wallace and two meant for Nixon, so the scenario is somewhat broken. I also got a question as to who was responsible for the Chicago convention mayhem that I haven't seen before, which I used to blame the protestors (the game advisors criticized me for this).
 
William Jennings Bryan, Civil Rights Hero:

Screen Shot 2016-12-19 at 12.05.31 AM.png


Gets me in bottom 0.8% of Bryan games on normal. Map actually looks like how a map of if the Gold Democrats kept control of the party and the Populists ran their own candidate would turn out.
 
Top