The Campaign Trail Game Has Returned.

Admiral Fischer

Banned
Galba Otho Vitelius said:
In one of the first post here, a commentator posted that the best strategy for Clay was to equivocate at first on Texas annexation, then to oppose it. I just tried that strategy on normal, and thought about it, and it makes sense. Its really the only way for Clay to finesse a victory.

In past games, I have usually come out in favor of Texas annexation at the start, and would almost always fail to carry New York and Pennsylvania and lose, though I got quite a few Clay cases of Clay prevailing in the nationwise popular vote. But Clay coming out at the start against annexation got even worse results, including results comparable to my Clay self-sabotage.

In the last game I tried equivocating, then opposing annexation. I still denounced Cassius' Clay letter and remained silent on the gag rule.

Its a mathematical issue. Clay needs 138 electoral votes to win. He will always carry Kentucky, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont, even self sabotage games, for a total of 48 electoral votes. Polk will always carry New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and South Carolina (delivered by state legislature), for a guaranteed 63 electoral votes. Virginia is normally close, but the only times I've seen it go to Clay on normal is in Polk self sabotage games. I've seen Clay win Indiana, including when losing, but not that often, so for strategy purposes assume Polk will carry both and will and their 29 electoral votes.

There are 275 electoral votes nominally at play, but 111 will always go to either Clay or Polk on normal, leaving 164 at the most really in play. Clay needs 90 of the these. But you can usually count on Polk getting Virginia and Indiana and their 29 electoral votes, and Clay getting New Jersey and Delaware and their 10 electoral votes. That leaves Clay with having to get 80 votes from somewhere out of 125. New York and Pennsylvania combine for 62 electoral votes,;Ohio has 23,; North Carolina and and Tennessee have 24; and Louisiana and Georgia has 16.

Clay has no path to victory without New York and Pennsylvania. The only slightly realistic shot is by Clay winning his core states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Maryland, and Kentucky, plus New Jersey, Ohio, Delaware, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, for 150 electoral votes. But he absolutely needs Virginia, which on normal is always close but always goes for Polk, but also Ohio, where he will lose too many votes to Birney with a hard southern strategy. And a hard southern strategy, which I've tried, is disastrous since it goes to much against Clay's earlier positions.

The problem with coming out with annexation at the start is that it makes Clay sound too radical. It seems that Clay has to be seen as treating the issue as not very important, then coming down more on the free soil side.

In the game I just tried, Clay got a 167 to 108 electoral vote victory, but he lost the nationwide popular vote, 49% to Polk for 48.8% to Clay and 2.2% to Birney. Its the only time I've seen Clay win in the electoral college and lose the nationwide popular vote, I've seen the opposite lots of times. He won New York, with Fillmore as his running mate, by 0.5% and Pennsylvania by 0.1%. The system stated that Clay's performance was better than 96.8% of the games played so far on normal.
Click to expand...

I just followed this strategy with Clay/Frelinghuysen ticket and carried the election along with New York. Apparently I've been playing this game wrong for so long...
 

Lacktoastandtolerant

Galba Otho Vitelius said:
...Clay needs 138 electoral votes to win. He will always carry Kentucky, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont, even self sabotage games...
Click to expand...
This is a bit beside the point, but it is actually possible to lose Kentucky, Maryland, Connecticut, and Massachusetts as Clay. Vermont and Rhode Island are the only two states he is truly guaranteed.

As for strategy, I'm not entirely sure if equivocating and then opposing annexation is the best strategy, but I am pretty sure that at the very least equivocating is important to it. Here's a win with Clay with equivocation and then pro annexation, failed to take Pennsylvania but mostly made up for it with Indiana and Georgia
 
Corocora

Corocora

www.americanhistoryusa.com

American History USA

Click to see the Electoral College map from my game, and then try it yourself!
www.americanhistoryusa.com www.americanhistoryusa.com
After some 30-40 attempts I finally got a Clinton 388-150 Electoral College victory with the Sunbelt Strategy. Funnily enough I tended to do better in games where Clinton did "poorly" against Trump in the debate than in games where her performance was "widely praised", the health issue remaining equal. Also really didn't expect this run to be the one since in a previous attempt I'd gotten more favorable margins in states like Ohio and Virginia and still lost Texas by 0.7%, so it was quite the shock when I actually over-performed specifically there to take the W.
Thanks to Col. Angus, can confirm his is a legit strat.
 

Galba Otho Vitelius

I remember reading Ted White style campaign books about the election of 1976, and in one of them Jules Witcover pointed out that Ford could have won in the electoral college and lost the nationwide popular vote by flipping Ohio and Wisconsin. They were close enough Carter states that this was possible.
 

Byz

I'm struggling with winning as WJB on normal. I have run a pro-Silver, social conservative, moderate foreign policy, moderate pro-Labor platform, and generally get pretty good results with that. I always take the moderate course on civil rights that avoids pissing off the south. Three times in a row I won the popular vote, but barely lost Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa to lose the election.

Is it possible to win with a liberal WJB, or do you have to take a more conservative tack on labor issues to stand a chance? Here's my most recent game as Bryan.
 
Worffan101

Worffan101

TheByzantineOttoman said:
I'm struggling with winning as WJB on normal. I have run a pro-Silver, social conservative, moderate foreign policy, moderate pro-Labor platform, and generally get pretty good results with that. I always take the moderate course on civil rights that avoids pissing off the south. Three times in a row I won the popular vote, but barely lost Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa to lose the election.

Is it possible to win with a liberal WJB, or do you have to take a more conservative tack on labor issues to stand a chance? Here's my most recent game as Bryan.
Click to expand...
Moderate on prohibition and tariffs, that is a good stance. Also say that there should have been more time for negotiation in the pullman strike.
 

Byz

Worffan101 said:
Moderate on prohibition and tariffs, that is a good stance. Also say that there should have been more time for negotiation in the pullman strike.
Click to expand...
Hm. That's what I've been doing, and they do seem to be the best options. RNG is just not favoring me, I suppose. Or maybe I need a different VP.
 

Galba Otho Vitelius

I get nationwide popular vote wins and electoral college defeats with Bryan quite frequently.

However, I've gotten a nationwide popular vote loss and electoral college victory as Bryan by giving one speech in New York, getting the Tammany Hall question, Bryan gives a pro-Tammany Hall answer and carries New York. Usually the pro-Tammany Hall answer just costs Bryan votes in the Midwest without carrying New York, but on occasion he will carry New York and that is enough to win an electoral college victory. However, in most games, the question doesn't come up.

If Bryan goes to the West Coast, he carries those states, though it seems to come at the cost of Indiana.

It seems a moderate pro-labor, moderate on other policies than labor and silver coinage, go to the West Coast is the right strategy, but Bryan is still at a disadvantage and you are still at the mercy of the randomness of the algorithm to win. Granted, I have not tried running with Stevenson as Bryan's running mate and that might be the key.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top