I kinda whant 2008 and 1992 and 2004 and 2020 I hope 2020 comes out soon
The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.
- Thread starter DTanza
- Start date
Here's an interesting result - after 8 years of Reagan and two Republican landslides, the American people decide it is time for a new direction, and elect... Lenore Fulani
Managed to get a hung electoral college too, in proportional mode, the results screen specifically says it is a tie even though it isn't, and Dukakis gets elected in the House of Representatives after getting just 16.6% of the vote and coming in first place in just zero states
Managed to get a hung electoral college too, in proportional mode, the results screen specifically says it is a tie even though it isn't, and Dukakis gets elected in the House of Representatives after getting just 16.6% of the vote and coming in first place in just zero states
Interesting. What message came up when the final results came through?
I think the structural disadvantages facing the GOP were too strong to make a 2008 scenario that is both competitive and realistic.
For the hung electoral college, it just said I tied the electoral college and won in the house. For the Fulani victory, it just had the same message as happens when Bush wins. It seems to be assumed for each game that only one or the other main candidate can win, or that a tie (or three way split if there's a third party), with the messages being as such. You can get a different message for third party wins if you are able to actually play as the third party itself, but there doesn't seem to be any unique message for when a third party candidate wins (rather than just splits the electoral college) via exploits
American History USA
Click to see the Electoral College map from my game, and then try it yourself!
www.americanhistoryusa.com
I was going to post a couple weird games, both done by doing awfully but then using the exploit to get a massive boost in all the states that you can campaign in on the last question. First, a Dukakis win in 88, and then a Ford win in 76... but then I realized that both games had the "sorry no URL available" thing, I've been having that happen rather more lately
At any rate, I was curious as to precisely which states were included in each area, like when for example in 1976 it says "from Maryland and Pennsylvania up to New York and Connecticut" for the "East Coast" in 1976 (it turns out those four states plus DE and NJ count), or for what counts as states surrounding Texas in 1988 (all physically touching it, except Arkansas). or what the "Midwest" is. There was one interesting thing, which I imagine must be a bug - in 1976, in addition to the more or less expected states, I also won Wyoming, where I was down 30 points before using the final exploit. I'm not sure which answer gives a boost to Wyoming (the game seems to be acting up for me at the moment and also I'm just feeling lazy lol) but it wouldn't really make sense for any set of the states, it is just off on its own almost equidistant between the closest midwestern, southwestern, and west coast states, an island of red surrounded by blue
At any rate, I was curious as to precisely which states were included in each area, like when for example in 1976 it says "from Maryland and Pennsylvania up to New York and Connecticut" for the "East Coast" in 1976 (it turns out those four states plus DE and NJ count), or for what counts as states surrounding Texas in 1988 (all physically touching it, except Arkansas). or what the "Midwest" is. There was one interesting thing, which I imagine must be a bug - in 1976, in addition to the more or less expected states, I also won Wyoming, where I was down 30 points before using the final exploit. I'm not sure which answer gives a boost to Wyoming (the game seems to be acting up for me at the moment and also I'm just feeling lazy lol) but it wouldn't really make sense for any set of the states, it is just off on its own almost equidistant between the closest midwestern, southwestern, and west coast states, an island of red surrounded by blue
You can win as Douglas in 1860 by choosing Horatio Seymour as your vp and then spacebarring the question about him you'll sweep the north and west depending on how long you spacebar for. https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/1820322
Also if you use the exploit for 1860 on questions relating to fusion ballots or taking you name off of states' ballots it leads to odd results. Here's one I did where I spacebarred for the ballot questions. https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/1820150
Also if you use the exploit for 1860 on questions relating to fusion ballots or taking you name off of states' ballots it leads to odd results. Here's one I did where I spacebarred for the ballot questions. https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/1820150
Last edited:
"I think the structural disadvantages facing the GOP were too strong to make a 2008 scenario that is both competitive and realistic."
Actually I think McCain would have had a chance if he had come out against the bailouts and Obama was pro-bailout. You could also through in scenarios where the great financial crisis doesn't happen, in which case the election is competitive. If this is ever expanded, one feature I would like to see added is that you can run the historicaly runner-ups for the nomination instead of the actual nominee, in which case as the Democrat you could try getting Hilary Clinton elected. I think this would have happened if she was the nominee, but she was a weaker candidate than Obama.
Actually I think McCain would have had a chance if he had come out against the bailouts and Obama was pro-bailout. You could also through in scenarios where the great financial crisis doesn't happen, in which case the election is competitive. If this is ever expanded, one feature I would like to see added is that you can run the historicaly runner-ups for the nomination instead of the actual nominee, in which case as the Democrat you could try getting Hilary Clinton elected. I think this would have happened if she was the nominee, but she was a weaker candidate than Obama.
Elections where it is impossible to reverse the result with the historical nominees without running a lot of events differently:
1804-20 the Federalists were just not competitive once they lost the federal executive and never really tried to be.
1864-76 the Republicans cheated or were willing to cheat until the compromise ending the 1876 election
1920-28 Democrats were not going to win these after taking the USA into World War 2, 1920 and 1924 are candidates for greatest landslides in US presidential electoral history.
1936 not with the historical FDR first term
1964, 1972 other greatest landslide candidates for obvious reasons
Reversing 1956 and 1964 is very difficult, but just doable with more serious health issues for Eisenhower Reagan, or a different outcome to the 1956 foreign policy crisises or 1980s economy. Also 1904, but Roosevelt was actually worried he was going to lose for some reason, though it could be interesting if you could run Hearst as the Democrat.
1804-20 the Federalists were just not competitive once they lost the federal executive and never really tried to be.
1864-76 the Republicans cheated or were willing to cheat until the compromise ending the 1876 election
1920-28 Democrats were not going to win these after taking the USA into World War 2, 1920 and 1924 are candidates for greatest landslides in US presidential electoral history.
1936 not with the historical FDR first term
1964, 1972 other greatest landslide candidates for obvious reasons
Reversing 1956 and 1964 is very difficult, but just doable with more serious health issues for Eisenhower Reagan, or a different outcome to the 1956 foreign policy crisises or 1980s economy. Also 1904, but Roosevelt was actually worried he was going to lose for some reason, though it could be interesting if you could run Hearst as the Democrat.
I would argue that a Democratic victory in 1972 (even with McGovern as the nominee) is possible *if* McGovern could lock up the nomination with a less divided party. Perhaps if the game starts before the convention it could be added (2016 does have a preprimary flashback question for Clinton, so maybe it's doable). I would also argue that 1996 belongs in the list of years where it's difficult to have a competitive game. Again, there are too many structural advantages favouring Clinton.
I disagree. I think mass unemployment and a collapsing financial system had the public clamouring for whatever it took to keep the economy above water. Further, to avoid the financial crisis you would need a POD occurring several years earlier.
I definitely agree with your suggestions regarding runner-ups, however.
Imagine this scenario in real life. 2000 would be a walk in the park compared to this.
And safe to say, voting turnout after this would skyrocket permanently, especially in Virginia.