Good advice. I just played a Humphrey/Ted Kennedy game on Hard and picked the We want to compete in every southern state. I will run to the right of Wallace on economic issues while lamenting the interference of the federal government in education and housing. Question along with the Wallace campaign against Nixon. Also got the top debate performance and the last-minute surge from Nixon getting caught sabotaging the peace negotiations. 434 electoral votes, 48.1%. Nixon got only 59 which is barely more than Wallace's 45. Every single one of my visits ended up going to waste nearly. If I did a rerun with the same success with questions, I could maybe pick off Arkansas from Wallace and Iowa and Montana from Nixon. Of course, it hardly matters at such point. The TL from this could be interesting. The Republicans getting whipped two times in a row, from two nominees that end up being trainwrecks. They might not gain any ground in the Senate at all depending on how the downballot races shakeout with coattails, or make very limited gains. Leaving Humprey with a veto-proof majority in the Senate (of course with conservative Democrats as an issue still). The Republican House gains were very small and either way don't really control the chamber, but maybe Democrats recover some of their midterm losses. If Humphrey does actually get out of Vietnam, he could enshrine himself as one of the best Presidents by locking down and expanding the Great Society. And Republicans would be scared off by the chances of another nominee that screws everything up. Reagan might not go above California for example.