The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

It was on easy....but this is the closest I've ever come to finishing higher than Lincoln in the EC. Is it possible to get more electoral votes than this with Douglas? Indiana seems like the only one that left that can MAYBE flip
https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/1181480

I've gotten Indiana before, but I'm pretty sure that's about all you can do. Here's one with a victory in Indiana, where I narrowly do better than Lincoln in the EC
https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/1223044

In terms of other close states, Douglas here loses Iowa by 2% and Oregon by 2.6%. But I've never seen them be won by Douglas (unless we are talking doing a Lincoln sabotage in which case Douglas can also take Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, and Rhode Island)

I try so many times, but I just can't win California as George W. Bush in 2000.

The cloest I came was 50-46.

Even on easy and pick all the right answers. I even went liberal on the enviroment. I even won Washington state!
I've done it before. Here's an extremely narrow win I just did, getting California by just 0.06% and less than 6,000 votes
https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/1223065

I once managed to pull this one off, getting California by 1.44% and over 160,000 votes. Plus also winning Delaware, getting Bush to a total of 420 electoral votes
https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/394801
 
Last edited:
In OTL, Bush narrowly won the electoral college despite losing the popular vote by ~550,000 votes and a margin of 0.5%

I decided to see just how big of a popular vote loss I could get as Bush despite winning - and got this

Bush loses the popular vote by a whopping 3.1 million votes, and a margin of 2.8%. In the electoral college however... he also fails to gain a majority, with the vote being tied 269-269. The election is sent to the House, where Bush is elected President due to the solid Republican majority of state delegations. But only after perhaps a sizable amount of controversy and recounts in Iowa, which Bush won by just 0.01% and a little over a thousand votes, and which would have given Gore the victory had he won it (and there'd likely also be some angst over the fact that the Gore plus Nader votes in that state, combined, were higher than the Bush plus Buchanan votes combined)

Also, considering the way the House elections work when no Presidential candidate gets a majority of electoral votes (state delegations are what matters, so essentially each state has one vote, which is chosen by a majority of their representatives, rather than a simple vote in the House requiring a majority of representatives) and considering that OTL the Dems only needed 5 more seats to get a majority, its possible that the Democrats win a narrow majority in the House, and that Gore gets more representatives to vote for him than Bush. Which, again, wouldn't matter because the GOP had a solid majority of state delegations and that wouldn't change with a handful of additional seats won by the Dems, but it could lead to Bush having the notable quality of failing to win a majority (in a certain sense at least) in the popular vote, electoral vote, and house of representatives

https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/1224387

Also, it is interesting to note just how unpolarized the race itself was nationally, despite whatever chances of sparking major polarization that the results could have. Only 12 states and DC were won by 10% or more by either party, and a whopping 30 states (with a total of 302 electoral votes) were narrowly won with a margin of 5% or less. Narrowly beating out the 1976 election, another close one, where 17 states, with a total electoral vote of 299, were won by 5% or less. Here's a map showing the margins...

upload_2020-1-1_3-17-26.png
 
Bush loses the popular vote by a whopping 3.1 million votes, and a margin of 2.8%. In the electoral college however... he also fails to gain a majority, with the vote being tied 269-269. The election is sent to the House, where Bush is elected President due to the solid Republican majority of state delegations. But only after perhaps a sizable amount of controversy and recounts in Iowa, which Bush won by just 0.01% and a little over a thousand votes, and which would have given Gore the victory had he won it (and there'd likely also be some angst over the fact that the Gore plus Nader votes in that state, combined, were higher than the Bush plus Buchanan votes combined)
How could such a switch in votes influe on votes for House and Senate?
 
How could such a switch in votes influe on votes for House and Senate?
Well, if the Democrats are doing about 2.3% better here in the Presidential compared to OTL, they could also be doing better votewise in the House and Senate. Though it wouldn't necessarily be a uniform swing since here the Dems do better in various states but also worse in some, like losing Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico. In the Senate, the Dems in OTL lost no seats by 2.3% or less, so a uniforn swing wouldn't do anything there, but they lost 2 seats (Montana and Virginia) by less than 5% and those states also went more Democratic here than OTL so its possible that the Dems win those, and thus also take the Senate with a full majority as opposed to the 50/50 tie they got which just gave them a majority for the first month of 2000 (though a new england liberal Republican would switch to caucus with the Dems after Cheney replaced Gore as the VP tiebreaker, so the practical difference isn't much)... except actually this could have a big impact with potentially allowing the Senate to elect Joe Lieberman as VP instead of Bush's VP. Which could very well happen here, though perhaps Powell is able to get the handful of crossover votes he'd need, since he was a pretty popular guy and quite moderate

As for the House, as I said, the Dems would just need to gain 5 seats more in order to take it back. I'm not sure how many more they'd need to win a majority of state delegations, but it would probably be quite a bit more, and rather too much to be expected from a 2.3% swing like that. I'm not even sure how many seats would be won additionally with a 2.3% uniform swing, and I'm frankly just too lazy to actually look it up let alone consider how the regional swings would factor

Also of course legislative races don't always align with presidential races, and things have been moving more in that direction, meaning that in 2000 it was even less of a thing, so maybe these results occuring for the presidential race wouldn't have as much of an impact on changing the results of the legislative elections in the first place. Again idk
 
Was thinking about 2000 again so was drawn back to this thread. Bush/Danforth, aimed to be moderate, ended up with OTL+Iowa - it came down to Florida and I still didn't win the popular vote. Prior to the DUI coming out I was leading in the rust belt, New Mexico & Oregon too.


 
Pissing off the south on normal is certain to end in defeat - but here's one where it is somewhat close at least. Bryan does about 1% better in the popular vote than OTL, losing by just about 3.5%, and with McKinley being denied a popular vote majority. A 3.502% swing from this would give Bryan the win

And an outright win is possible on easy. Here, despite McKinley taking advantage of Democratic division to take the upper south, Bryan is able to win the popular vote by nearly 3% and win just 2 electoral votes less than McKinley won OTL, meaning a pretty solid win
 

AnActualFan

Banned
A perfect election doesn't exis-
One of the best Dukakis runs ever!
 
Last edited:
Played as Romney/Rob Portman, ran as a relatively center-right/right Republican. Won by the skin of my teeth (270-268).

Romney/Portman: 270 EVs, 49,7% PV
Obama/Biden: 268 EVs, 49,3% PV

Closest states that could have gone Republican are:
Nevada: 2,371 votes
Colorado: 11,132 votes
Pennsylvania: 34,688 votes
Wisconsin: 30,551 votes
 
Just got potentially the best Clinton win on normal, the thing says it's higher than 100% and its 10 electoral votes higher than the max of the range on the results thing, though the "hall of fame" doesn't seem to be loading so idk for sure. At any rate, its a margin of 15.4%, Clinton winning 56.4-40, with the popular vote being 74.5 million to 54.2 million, an ovre 20 million vote margin. Electoral votes being 445-93


Speaking of perfect 1968 wins... bringing back my old '68 landslide, an 18 point Humphrey win, with Nixon doing worse even than Alf Landon did in 1936, and Humphrey doing better in the electoral college than LBJ did, losing just 5 states

 
Pretty sure I just gave Lyndon Johnson a heart attack on election night. Played as Nixon/Dirksen, ran as a moderate-conservative, huge pro-civil rights, pro-national defense Republican, and smashed the Democratic ticket. Like. Hard. 319-204-14. I won Texas 50.6 to 49.4, Illinois 51 to 49, Pennsylvania 50.5 to 49.5. Lost Nevada 50.5 to 49.5, South Carolina 51 to 49, North Carolina 52.5 to 47.5, And Nixon came within 0.2% of winning both Minnesota and Michigan. Lost the popular vote by 0.30%.



(Not shown; Alabama split electoral votes - 5 EVs to JFK/LBJ, 6 EVs to Byrd/various)

Nixon/Dirksen: EV (319), PV (49.57%)
Kennedy/Johnson: EV (204), PV (49.87%)
Byrd/various: EV (14), PV (0.56%)

EDIT: And this is what the map would look like had there been a 3-point swing in favor of Nixon/Dirksen:


Nixon/Dirksen: EV (406), PV (53.57%)
Kennedy/Johnson: EV (117), PV (46.87%)
Byrd/various: EV (14), PV (0.56%)

(Not shown; Alabama split electoral votes - 5 EVs to JFK/LBJ, 6 EVs to Byrd/various)

Massive inroads into the South, sweeping most of the East Coast, and coming incredibly close to winning New York State. 50.83% JFK/LBJ to 49.17% Nixon/Dirksen.
 
Last edited:
Top