The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

How do you do that?
1. Check the source code.
2. Lines 200 and 201 define which candidates go in which election. Copy these, and use inspect element.
3. Paste the lines into the console and move around the candidates. They appear as numbers so you have to figure out which number corresponds to which candidate, and which number corresponds to which election. (Line 205 defines the election years.)
4. This only seems to work for playable candidates. Modifying the minor candidates breaks the game. The candidate you play as cannot be deleted from the election either.
 
Honestly going to put my foot through my fucking screen if I lose another 1916 campaign to Wilson - literally every path (progressive, moderate, conservative, anti-war, pro-war) fails
 
I think a number of the scenarios are broken and getting worse. 1968 in particular frequently asks Wallace only questions to both the others. And sometimes some of the exclusive question to the other candidate.
 
Last edited:
1968 has had those issues for a while, even before the creator stopped updating the game. It has also been a thing with the 1896 election, though it is less common. I am not actually sure if they make any difference though - apart from getting the Nixon question on civil rights as Humphrey, which gives noticeable benefit if you basically sabotage Nixon by essentially giving him the most anti-civil rights answer
 
1968 has had those issues for a while, even before the creator stopped updating the game. It has also been a thing with the 1896 election, though it is less common. I am not actually sure if they make any difference though - apart from getting the Nixon question on civil rights as Humphrey, which gives noticeable benefit if you basically sabotage Nixon by essentially giving him the most anti-civil rights answer

Good advice. I just played a Humphrey/Ted Kennedy game on Hard and picked the

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.
 
Last edited:
I always come back to 1988 for some reason. Here's a Dukakis narrow win while losing the popular vote (Atlas colors):

genusmap.php

Dukakis/Gore - 272 EVs, 49.4%
Bush/Quayle - 266 EVs, 49.7%

https://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/game/1120955
 
Last edited:
Top