The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

And mainstream historical accounts say there was no reversal in 1960.
It depends of how are counted Alabama's votes, since it has both a mixed Democratic slate of unpledged and Kennedy voters and votes being elector by elector.

From here:
Varying methods have been used to break down the vote into Kennedy and unpledged votes. One method is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the 324,050 votes as unpledged votes, giving a total much higher than the actual votes cast.[5] Another is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the remainder (5,747 votes) as unpledged votes.[6] A third is to split the 324,050 in the proportion of 5⁄11 to 6⁄11, following the proportion of electors, giving 147,295 votes for Kennedy and 176,755 for unpledged electors.[7] In all cases, Republican candidate Richard Nixon of California, then Vice President of the United States, has 237,981 votes. If the last method is used, it means that Nixon won the popular vote in Alabama; it also means that he won the popular vote nationally.[3][7] Congressional Quarterly calculated the popular vote in this manner at the time of the 1960 election.[3]
 
I think whatever algorithm is used to produce the results in these games, including the ones on github, produces too much of a chance to get a popular vote/ electoral vote rehearsal. Ignoring issues with vote fraud, this happened in 1876, 1888, 1960, 2000, and 2016. And mainstream historical accounts say there was no reversal in 1960. Also, the Hayes electoral vote margin in 1876 was produced by three electors appointed by the Colorado legislature, even crediting Hayes with the three disputed southern states, Tilden won a majority of the electoral votes decided by the voters. I'm not even counting 1824, since Jackson got pluralities in both the nationwide popular vote and the electoral college.

Anyway, in the game, reversals seem to happen half the time in close elections, which is really too much. Its hard for Dewey in 1948 and Hughes in 1916 to win without one, and you often get them for McKinley in 1896 and Clay in 2000. The frequency in which they happen in 1948 is noteworthy since the election is known for Dewey losing despite maintaining a lead in the nationwide polls, presumably if he had won the polls would have been accurate and he would have won the nationwide popular vote!
I don't know, the thing is, a lot of elections just aren't that close, there's only been 6 where the popular vote was within 1% either way, and in those cases, 2 of the three had the popular vote winner be the electoral loser, and a third was 1960 which was ambiguous due to Alabama

And also, in pretty much no election is the popular vote exactly tied with the tipping point state vote. Its just that this often doesn't end up coming up due to elections usually not having such narrow outcomes. Let's take two of your examples, 1916 and 1948. In real life, Wilson won the popular vote by 3.1%, but the tipping point state (California) was won by just about 0.4%. So Hughes had a pretty sizable electoral college advantage - with a uniform national swing of 0.4%, he'd have very narrowly won despite losing the popular vote by 2.7%. And with Truman, he won by 4.5%, but the tipping point state for a Dewey win (Illinois) was won by Truman by just about 0.8%. So with a uniform national swing, Truman could have won the popular vote by about 3.7% and still lost to Truman, hell, he could have won the popular vote by 4.1% and still had it go to the electoral college

Looking at some of the other ones, McKinley didn't have quite the electoral college overperformance as the prior two, but still did overperform by around half a percent. And Clay did overperform by about a fifth of a percent (and also, the third party element could be more relevant in that one)

Just looking at recent elections, Trump could have lost the popular vote by 3.8% and won in 2020, did lose by 2% and win in 2016, Obama could have lost by 1.5% in 2012, and by 1.7% in 2008, and Clinton could have lost by 0.9% and won in 1992. So, out of the last 9 elections, 5 were cases where a sizable electoral college over or underperformance existed and where someone could have won despite losing the popular vote by about 1% or more, and a 6th had a popular vote/electoral college mismatch but was very narrow

So actually I think the game does pretty decently in this regard. Given how much better Dewey did in the electoral college in particular, I think it makes sense that if he had won, at least with the sort of narrow win the difficulties above easy tend to bring, that he'd still do better in the electoral college than the popular vote and be especially liable to a popular vote loss
 
My strongest Rockefeller 1964 victory yet. Beating LBJ in the debate gave me a lot of momentum. Ran a campaign that was strongly pro-Civil Rights, moderate on the Great Society, and went on the attack on LBJ.


CampaignTrailRockefeller2.PNG

CampaignTrailRockefeller.PNG
 
Sorry to double-post, but: I also got an interesting victory scenario for Bernie in the four-way 2016 scenario (first in the electoral college with Hillary coming in fourth, despite the reverse being true in the popular vote!):



CampaignTrailBernie1.PNG

CampaignTrailBernie2.PNG
 

Vince

Monthly Donor
So I just noticed the 1932 Roosevelt/Biden election scenario.

You get massively dinged when your VP selection comes up as people question you nominating a VP that hasn't been born yet

Biden1.png


Thankfully you make back and then some with some nice merchandising later on.

Biden2.png
 
So I just noticed the 1932 Roosevelt/Biden election scenario.

You get massively dinged when your VP selection comes up as people question you nominating a VP that hasn't been born yet

Thankfully you make back and then some with some nice merchandising later on.
I played it, and I tried to lose and failed.
 
So I just noticed the 1932 Roosevelt/Biden election scenario.
You get massively dinged when your VP selection comes up as people question you nominating a VP that hasn't been born yet
Thankfully you make back and then some with some nice merchandising later on.
Franklin "Drip" Roosevelt
 
I really like that these mods have introduced ATL scenarios, like Rockefeller 1964, Reagan 1976, four-way 2016, Wallace 1972, and Hillary vs Rudy 2008. The next one I want to try is Goldwater vs Wallace vs McCarthy 1964.

Really hope we see more of these. I wouldn’t mind seeing Bernie 2020, as well as a 1912 scenario (either as OTL, or one where TR got the Republican nomination).
 
I really like that these mods have introduced ATL scenarios, like Rockefeller 1964, Reagan 1976, four-way 2016, Wallace 1972, and Hillary vs Rudy 2008. The next one I want to try is Goldwater vs Wallace vs McCarthy 1964.

Really hope we see more of these. I wouldn’t mind seeing Bernie 2020, as well as a 1912 scenario (either as OTL, or one where TR got the Republican nomination).
A 1912 mod is already being worked on but is not yet available in the mod loader, and as of right now only Wilson and Roosevelt are playable.
https://www.reddit.com/r/thecampaigntrail/comments/p694mb
 
My first game as McCarthy in 1964….denied Goldwater majority and election goes to House with a TBD/Wallace’s VP pick administration
737E43BC-1F52-44AD-8B2A-B820FC7305AD.jpeg
887CE8DA-36FD-40D5-BD24-EB20C90C75E7.jpeg
 
Top