PF Scenario Improvement Task Force

[ilikeverin]

Hello Atlasian PFers!  A while ago (August 17, 2004 ) I mentioned creating an Atlas President Forever Scenario Improvement Task Force in response to the atrocious 1932 scenario PB was complaining (well, that was for lack of a better word, because his complaints were merited) about the bias, which I agreed with.

Looking back at my one-day-after-my-14th-birthday self, I thought it was a good idea.  So how 'bout we do it!

First orders of business:
1) Decide which scenario we're going to improve first.
2) Make some sort of interesting banner to put in our signatures, so we can look official and all that jazz.
3) DANCE WHILE DRINKING SPARKLING GRAPE JUICE!  WOOOOO!

[Jake]

No, fascist

[Defarge]

SPARKING APPLE JUICE OWNZ GRAPE JUICE!

[Gabu]

Sounds like a plan.

[nini2287]

I have an 1824 that I made awhile ago (I didnt post) but I wasn't too sure of the issues so if someone has more information, that would be great.

[Gustaf]

The 2000 scenario seems horribly slanted against Bush.

[ilikeverin]

We could always try something easier to start out with, like issue positions for 1992.

[Max Power]

The 2000 scenario seems horribly slanted against Bush.

Which one? If it's Gore vs. the Republicans, tell me why. I made it, so I can fix it. To avoid a Democratic bias, I usually ty to make it with a Republican bias, which is a neutral bias .

[Gustaf]

No, I thikn it was Gore v Bush. It gives Gore an overall score of 26 v Bush's I think 19.

[Gustaf]

Played the scenario in question and need I say more?

Gore: 60% or 75 443 137 votes and 512 EVs
Bush: 32% or 40 111 354 votes and 26 EVs
Nader: 6% or 7 484 640 votes

Best states:
Gore:
Washington, 73.2%
Ohio 70.7%
New Jersey 70.7%
Virginia 70.2%

Bush:
Idaho: 55%
Michigan: 49.6%
New Hampshire: 48%

Worse states:
Gore:
Idaho: 42.5%
New Hampshire: 43.9%
Hawaii: 46.9%
Iowa: 47.3%
Michigan: 47.5%

Bush:
Washington 20.1%

Can't be bothered to type more now...note though that Nader beat Bush in DC: 8.2% v 7.5% and that Nader got 19.2% in Vermont, 12.8% in California and 11.9% in Alaska.

I'd also like to note that I got 68% in Texas, 64% in Wyoming and 55% in Utah. I say, YEEEEEHARGH!

[Gustaf]

Reese, downloaded and played your scenario. It seemed more realistic, thought the eventual result was still a blow-out:



Gore v Bush v Nader v Buchanan

PV: 53-37-4-4

EV: 461-77

Best states:
Gore:
Rhode ISland: 66.6%
Massachusetts: 65.6%
New York: 63.1%
Washington: 60.5%

Bush:
Alaska: 59.1%
Idaho: 56.1%
Utah: 52.6%

Nader:
Arizona: 10.4%
Connecticut: 9.9%
New York: 9%

Buchanan:
Vermont: 17.1%
Kentucky: 13.7%
Mississippi: 13.7%
Alabama: 11.3%
North Dakota: 11%
Montana: 10.6%

Worse states:
Gore:
Alaska: 29.6%
Alabama: 35.9%
Idaho: 37.2%
Utah: 37.7%

Bush:
Rhode Island: 25.3%
Massachusetts: 26.7%
New York: 27.3%
Vermont: 29.2%

Nader:
Georgia, Mississippi&Kentucky: 0.9%

Buchanan:
Connecticut: 0% (27)
Maine: 0% (235)

Note though that in the last poll it was 44-40-4-4 and the elctoral vote was something like 301-227. I won by a late surge.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The DC numbers in 1976 are ridiculous, while it's still soli Dem Carter usually only gets around 60%.

[12th Doctor]

The DC numbers in 1976 are ridiculous, while it's still soli Dem Carter usually only gets around 60%.

That has been fixed.  It was a glitch in the system.  Download the new one.

1996 needs fixed, desperatly.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

oh yeah, Virginia in 1996, I changed the numbers on that myself since it was so far off.

[PBrunsel]

The DC numbers in 1976 are ridiculous, while it's still soli Dem Carter usually only gets around 60%.

That has been fixed.  It was a glitch in the system.  Download the new one.

1996 needs fixed, desperatly.

I'm working on that.

[Max Power]

Reese, downloaded and played your scenario. It seemed more realistic, thought the eventual result was still a blow-out:

Thanks. I plan on redoing the scenario. I will change the electoral trends and Georgia's flag and the platforms. I will also ad LaRouche and possibly a few Reform/Green candidates.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, 1996 is laughably off...Clinton with integrity 4 and Dole with an integrity of 2? Eh?

Casey, Nader starts out with 3%. That's more than he has ever got in a general election. Buchanan getting even 1% also seems a tad too high.

Now, on the stats of 2000 I would like a discussion. I think the most generous you can give Bush in stats for 2000 is something like this: 3-4-2-2-3-3-2

Leadership: Bush didn't show anything in particular here before 9/11 I say he gets a 3.

Integrity: The 4 might be controvesial, but he ran on his integrity a lot and with the Gore/Lieberman ticket getting a 4 Bush has to have the same.

Issue knowledge: We all know the stories and facts like not having visited any countries but Mexico speak for themselves. 2

Experience: Governor of Texas as sole experience isn't much. 2

The rest I leave unchanged. I don't know if Gore to balance out should have his charisma put even lower?

[PBrunsel]

I remade the 1996 Scenario, and many candidates are included. It is still biase toward Clinton, but that's historical seeing no one probably could of upset Clinton's win.

Three Republicans can beat Clinton though with relative ease. They are Arlen Specter, Pete Wilson, and Colin Powell. Republicans who always get crused are Alan Keyes, Morry Taylor, Phil Gramm, and Bob Dornan.

Buchanan, Dole, and Lugar can usualy hold off

I also included many other candidates for all parties.
Republicans include:

Bob Dole
Pat Buchanan
Arlen Specter
Alan Keyes
Pete Wilson
Morry Taylor
Phil Gramm
Bob Dornan
Richard Lugar
George W. Bush
George H.W. Bush
Tommy Thompson
Charles Grassley
Rush Limbaugh
Terry Branstad
Norman Schwarzkoph [I always misspell his name]
Barbara Bush
Ann Coulter
Colin Powell
Christine Todd-Whitman
Alfonse D'Amato
Newt Gingrich
Dick Cheney
John Ashcroft
Trent Lott
Pat Robertson
Ron Paul
Charleton Heston

For the Democrats Bill Clinton is the deafult nominee. I leave a scenario though in which an Intern Scandal makes Clinton drop out of the race:

Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Lloyd Bentsen
Gary Hart
Tom Harkin
Mario Cuomo
Hillary Clinton
Geraldine Ferraro
Evan Bayh
John Kerry
Dick Gephardt
Ted Kennedy
Zell Miller

For Independents it is one crazy ride:

Ross Perot
Colin Powell
Norman Schwarzkoph
Lyndon LaRouche
Howard Phillips
J. Curtis Frazier
Pat Buchanan
Alan Keyes
Phil Gramm
David McReynolds
Bernie Sanders
Mary Cal Hollis
Angela Davis
Bill Gates
Donald Trump
Angus King
Hulk Hogan
Pat Robertson
Ralph Nader
Wynona LaDuke

The fledling Libertarian Party was a tough one to find candidates for, but I managed:

Harry Browne
Art Oliver
Ron Paul
Vince McMahon
Clint Eastwood

Wow, that's a lot of candidates.

So I am working out the glitches of this sceanrio, but the candidates are done. I intend on submitting it by next week. The last time I submitted it it was rebuffed because of several program flaws and a missing file, so let's hope everything got done correctly this time.

[Max Power]

Yeah, 1996 is laughably off...Clinton with integrity 4 and Dole with an integrity of 2? Eh?

Casey, Nader starts out with 3%. That's more than he has ever got in a general election. Buchanan getting even 1% also seems a tad too high.

Now, on the stats of 2000 I would like a discussion. I think the most generous you can give Bush in stats for 2000 is something like this: 3-4-2-2-3-3-2

Leadership: Bush didn't show anything in particular here before 9/11 I say he gets a 3.

Integrity: The 4 might be controvesial, but he ran on his integrity a lot and with the Gore/Lieberman ticket getting a 4 Bush has to have the same.

Issue knowledge: We all know the stories and facts like not having visited any countries but Mexico speak for themselves. 2

Experience: Governor of Texas as sole experience isn't much. 2

The rest I leave unchanged. I don't know if Gore to balance out should have his charisma put even lower?

But Nader had 5% in some polls. I was just trying to make it more realistic.

I will edit the changes you suggested.

Oh, and by the way. Did you know the money amounts are the total amounts of money all the candidates raised throughout the campaign?

[Gustaf]

No, I didn't know that...if you've researched it and all, then good.

Generally, the candidates should start out slightly below the result they eventually got, or at least not way above it. (Unless the campaign changed dramatically towards the end or something. Carter v Reagan is a good exampple of that happening.)

[12th Doctor]

Yeah, 1996 is laughably off...Clinton with integrity 4 and Dole with an integrity of 2? Eh?

Casey, Nader starts out with 3%. That's more than he has ever got in a general election. Buchanan getting even 1% also seems a tad too high.

Now, on the stats of 2000 I would like a discussion. I think the most generous you can give Bush in stats for 2000 is something like this: 3-4-2-2-3-3-2

Leadership: Bush didn't show anything in particular here before 9/11 I say he gets a 3.

Integrity: The 4 might be controvesial, but he ran on his integrity a lot and with the Gore/Lieberman ticket getting a 4 Bush has to have the same.

Issue knowledge: We all know the stories and facts like not having visited any countries but Mexico speak for themselves. 2

Experience: Governor of Texas as sole experience isn't much. 2

The rest I leave unchanged. I don't know if Gore to balance out should have his charisma put even lower?

Casey has a tendency to make, ummmm, slanted senarios.  Check out the stats he gives Santorum in his PA Gov '06 senario.

Leadership=1!?  WTF!?!?

[Sarnstrom]

I remade the 1996 Scenario, and many candidates are included. It is still biase toward Clinton, but that's historical seeing no one probably could of upset Clinton's win.

Three Republicans can beat Clinton though with relative ease. They are Arlen Specter, Pete Wilson, and Colin Powell. Republicans who always get crused are Alan Keyes, Morry Taylor, Phil Gramm, and Bob Dornan.

Buchanan, Dole, and Lugar can usualy hold off

I also included many other candidates for all parties.
Republicans include:

Bob Dole
Pat Buchanan
Arlen Specter
Alan Keyes
Pete Wilson
Morry Taylor
Phil Gramm
Bob Dornan
Richard Lugar
George W. Bush
George H.W. Bush
Tommy Thompson
Charles Grassley
Rush Limbaugh
Terry Branstad
Norman Schwarzkoph [I always misspell his name]
Barbara Bush
Ann Coulter
Colin Powell
Christine Todd-Whitman
Alfonse D'Amato
Newt Gingrich
Dick Cheney
John Ashcroft
Trent Lott
Pat Robertson
Ron Paul
Charleton Heston

For the Democrats Bill Clinton is the deafult nominee. I leave a scenario though in which an Intern Scandal makes Clinton drop out of the race:

Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Lloyd Bentsen
Gary Hart
Tom Harkin
Mario Cuomo
Hillary Clinton
Geraldine Ferraro
Evan Bayh
John Kerry
Dick Gephardt
Ted Kennedy
Zell Miller

For Independents it is one crazy ride:

Ross Perot
Colin Powell
Norman Schwarzkoph
Lyndon LaRouche
Howard Phillips
J. Curtis Frazier
Pat Buchanan
Alan Keyes
Phil Gramm
David McReynolds
Bernie Sanders
Mary Cal Hollis
Angela Davis
Bill Gates
Donald Trump
Angus King
Hulk Hogan
Pat Robertson
Ralph Nader
Wynona LaDuke

The fledling Libertarian Party was a tough one to find candidates for, but I managed:

Harry Browne
Art Oliver
Ron Paul
Vince McMahon
Clint Eastwood

Wow, that's a lot of candidates.

So I am working out the glitches of this sceanrio, but the candidates are done. I intend on submitting it by next week. The last time I submitted it it was rebuffed because of several program flaws and a missing file, so let's hope everything got done correctly this time.

If you still have this scenario could you please send it to me: asarnstrom@yahoo.com