The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

I did not know there was a reddit on the Campaign Trail, but there is, and yes people have figured out how to produce their own scenarios. I followed the admittedly complicated instructions on how to port the relevant code and was able to play 1964 as Goldwater.

The problem was that the questions weren't very good. I think doing these scenarios right takes a lot of time, and you really need to get a history nerd to work together with a computer nerd who can code. However the scenario was playable.

I switched to a pro-civil rights legislation position and emphasized the more libertarian aspects of Goldwater's platform. I would have liked to be able to pick a different running mate than William Miller, but going to the wikipedia page on the election, the only alternative I could find would have been Walter Judd, who sounds like he would have been worse. The problem is that Goldwater's choices for running mate were really limited and Miller actually wasn't that bad as far as modern VP candidates go.

I carried the six states Goldwater carried (Arizona and the Deep South), despite backtracking on civil rights, plus Indiana and Utah, but the national popular vote percentage margin was worse for Goldwater, 33.8% instead of the historical 32.5%. However, this seems to have been an artifact of the scenario developer not accounting for minor party candidates. In the actual election, they got just under 0.5% of the nationwide popular vote (0.3% for a slate of unpledged Democratic electors in Alabama), but I also ran 0.4% behind Goldwater's nationwide popular vote percentage. I did this on Normal.
 
I played Romney 2012 Normal. I did better than almost 99% of players and this time I won Wisconsin.

genusmap.php


Mitt Romney: 321 electoral votes
Barack Obama: 217 electoral votes

I also won the popular vote by 3.01% this time.
 
I did not know there was a reddit on the Campaign Trail, but there is, and yes people have figured out how to produce their own scenarios. I followed the admittedly complicated instructions on how to port the relevant code and was able to play 1964 as Goldwater.

The problem was that the questions weren't very good. I think doing these scenarios right takes a lot of time, and you really need to get a history nerd to work together with a computer nerd who can code. However the scenario was playable.

I switched to a pro-civil rights legislation position and emphasized the more libertarian aspects of Goldwater's platform. I would have liked to be able to pick a different running mate than William Miller, but going to the wikipedia page on the election, the only alternative I could find would have been Walter Judd, who sounds like he would have been worse. The problem is that Goldwater's choices for running mate were really limited and Miller actually wasn't that bad as far as modern VP candidates go.

I carried the six states Goldwater carried (Arizona and the Deep South), despite backtracking on civil rights, plus Indiana and Utah, but the national popular vote percentage margin was worse for Goldwater, 33.8% instead of the historical 32.5%. However, this seems to have been an artifact of the scenario developer not accounting for minor party candidates. In the actual election, they got just under 0.5% of the nationwide popular vote (0.3% for a slate of unpledged Democratic electors in Alabama), but I also ran 0.4% behind Goldwater's nationwide popular vote percentage. I did this on Normal.
This is just a demo mod to see what they can do
 
If it was a demo, they did a great job at just being able to produce a campaign trail scenario.

They need to work on the questions, give Goldwater some strategic options, and make the responses sound more like Goldwater, the actual campaign trail scenarios are great at getting the responses to sound like they came from the historical candidates. I also wonder if they had looked into the algorithm on how the player's action shifts actual votes in each state, but this is something I think could be improved with the existing scenarios. It is a lot of work, for something that can't be monetized.

However, if hobbyists can start producing scenarios, and the better quality ones get imported to the main site, that would be excellent.
 
I think they just figerd out how to remove states so if they are doing older elections it more historical
With older elections, they will more and more find themselves dealing with voting methods other than winner-takes-all, such as subdivisions like in Nebraska or legislative choosing. How will they do it?
 
With older elections, they will more and more find themselves dealing with voting methods other than winner-takes-all, such as subdivisions like in Nebraska or legislative choosing. How will they do it?

Not really. The basic elements of the American system for selecting presidents, meaning only two parties with a realistic chance to win, they both nominate one national candidate through conventions of state parties, and state electors nearly always selected by winner take all plurality elections among the state electorates, were all in place by the time of the 1840 election.

None of them were in place before the 1828 election, in many ways they were put in as a reaction to 1824 where the clear second choice of the electorate was made president. They were actually mostly in place in 1828, but the Whigs were still running several regional candidates in 1836, so the transition was completed in 1840. The regional tensions that resulted in the American Civil War caused the system to break down considerably starting in 1856, with the modern Democratic -Republican duopoly in place after 1876. So elections prior to 1828, and between 1860 and 1876 inclusive are tough for the system to handle, though not impossible, after all there is a 1860 scenario.

There are a handful of state level exceptions. South Carolina retained the legislature selecting electors until the Civil War, long after all the other states had switched. The Colorado legislature selected its electors directly in 1876 (as I have noted, even assigning all the contested states to Hayes, Tilden won the electoral vote among states where the electorate supposedly chose the electors). Two small states, Nebraska and Maine, still use the congressional district method, but this has been used rarely after 1832 and the system has been able to handle this, along with faithless electors, and even the unpledged slates that won two states in 1960.

In 2016, which had a record number of faithless electors, the system started breaking down again, so I actually think a 2020 scenario is a bad idea until we get a clearer picture of what is going on.
 
I'll second Matthews, I'm pretty sure you can win with all of them with a good strategy but I've had what seems like slightly better results with Matthews

Also, on a different note, I'm just gonna say, there's been a lot of talk from people being anxious for the website creator to work on more scenarios. But honestly? I kinda wish/hope that more general fixes to make the site more stable and functioning are prioritized. Idk if it is just me, but it seems like around a third of the time, the site doesn't load at all, and then around a third of the time when it does load, it fails to actually save the game results. So its kind of in this sweet spot where it is functional enough where I don't just want to stop playing, but broken enough that the site crapping out and causing annoyance is common rather than just a rare occurrence
 
Last edited:
Top