The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

Ooooooooooh crap. TIED updated 2016 with Hillary winning the popular vote by 3 million, but the Republican Congress electing Trump...

 
I just noticed they added another 2016! I won with Trump/Carson now I gotta try Hilary. Does anyone know if there are any further plans?
 
Won a more solid Trump victory than OTL: an actual popular vote victory, and in addition to OTL’s map, picked up Minnesota and Nevada.

 
Oh shoot, 1876 would be good. 1884 or 1888 would also be good. "Mama, where's my Pa!"
And could foreign campaigns be added?

I guess French presidential runs might be enough equivalent to the US ones, and especially the 1948 and 1968 (third parties candidates) years.
Some British parlementary campaigns too would be interesting. What about the Canadian ones?
 
To this, I would add 1824, 1832 and 1876.
I've felt that those plus 1836, 1852, and 1892 could be fun early American third party runs, what with 1836 Whigs running four candidates to throw it to the House, 1856 being the other time an election could've (in my opinion) sparked a civil war; and 1892 as James B. Weaver's best chance for an ascendant third party besides the whole Cleveland vs Harrison of it all.

On another note, I feel like 1948 was a bit of a missed opportunity on not including Henry Wallace or Strom Thurmond as candidates as that's just about the last time four candidates would have a decent chance at throwing the election to Congress since the aforementioned 1836.
 
Tried to do a Trump self-sabotage on Impossible under the new scenario (much harder as the game is far less elastic, and, in this version, there are no "general" questions where you can simply pick the other side's answers). Still, managed to make Johnson win Utah, which I've never seen before.
Other highlights include: Ohio as the closest state, (even narrower than Utah), and Iowa being closer than Georgia, Arizona, Texas, and Florida.

Screen Shot 2020-07-28 at 5.23.59 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-07-28 at 5.11.49 PM.png
 
On another note, I feel like 1948 was a bit of a missed opportunity on not including Henry Wallace or Strom Thurmond as candidates as that's just about the last time four candidates would have a decent chance at throwing the election to Congress since the aforementioned 1836.
While Wallace might be fun, Thurmond could come only if Truman suports civil rights and even after, he was essentially a regional candidate, strong in the Deep South but unexistant elsewhere. The only places he ran in apart in the South were California and, oddly, North Dakota.
 
I had a pretty good result as Trump on Hard mode, even managed to scoop up a PV victory. It seems going as economically populist as you can really benefits you. On half the issues I attacked Clinton from the left (trade, tax cuts for the middle class, non-intervensionism, campaign finance) and it worked out better than I would have imagined. Going more "normal conservative" seems to fail more often.
 
Last edited:
I tried an anti-Clinton, economically leftisy campaign and lost 259-279 as Trump/Sessions against Clinton. Should have gone to Pennsylvania instead of the Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
 
Self Sabotage by Dukakis, 0.0% did worse then me

Basically ran as extreme far left, refused to answer political attacks and dropped out of the debates. Most states had Bush getting 70% or higher, Utah had 80% and the closest state was West Virginia with a 5% Bush Victory
 
Last edited:
Is the hall of fame not working for anyone else because when I try to see it it says "An error occurred in the application and your page could not be served."
 
Last edited:
Top