President Forever results thread...

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I always play with dynamism off. I actually might try turning it on sometime & watching the carnage.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I decided to run an election with dynamism on.

Johnson/Humphrey, 81%, 538 EVs
Goldwater/Miller, 15%, 0 EVs
Hass/Blomen, 1%, 0 EVs
DeBerry/Shaw, 1%, 0 EVs

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Ran in 1952 as Adlai Stevenson. At one point, I had three scandals on Eisenhower at once. I ended up winning without too much difficulty. Maine was decided by 183 votes (!).

Stevenson/Sparkman, 57%, 514 EVs
Eisenhower/Nixon, 39%, 17 EVs
Faubus/Crommelin, 2%, 0 EVs
Decker/Munn, 0%, 0 EVs

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I always play with dynamism off. I actually might try turning it on sometime & watching the carnage.

Same here.

     I think I might have to hold back to give the computer a chance.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Are you playing PF+P? If so, that makes perfect sense.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I once played a 1932 scenario where Alabama was lean Hoover. When I get home, I'll download the scenario and dig around through the guts of the data.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I once played a 1932 scenario where Alabama was lean Hoover. When I get home, I'll download the scenario and dig around through the guts of the data.

Something similar happened to me as well, though it wasn't 1932 but rather 1908 Taft vs. Bryan. I believe in that scenario Taft sweeped the South and Bryan took out most of New England. The funny thing as well was that people on the 80soft forum believed that it was a great scenario. Silly supposed political geeks that believe that every result in past Presidential Elections was similar to 2004.

     One thing that annoys me is when the map at the beginning is the same as the election day one IRL. I find it hard to believe that Truman was leading by ~70 EVs in mid-September of 1948.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I checked out the scenario. Nixon leads 48-42 in WA & McGovern leads 77-12 in DC, according to the electorate_trends.p4e. Yet, they're somehow switched in the game. I guess you could just switch their values in the file so it works as it's supposed to.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Way back when, I remember playing this game and managing to beat Reagan with Ted Kennedy in 1980 with a 269-269 tie. Don't ask me how I did it, but it took many, many hours and re-matches to pull off. With that said, trust me when I say that Reagan is UNBEATABLE in 1984. There is absolutely no way to beat him.

     . . .

     Ran 1984 as Mondale. I hit Reagan with two huge scandals on the home stretch. New Mexico was decided by 717 votes. Kentucky was decided by 755 votes. Georgia was decided by 4,614 votes.

     To the dismay of Naso, Mondale broke 60% in Ohio.

Mondale/Ferraro, 55%, 394 EVs
Reagan/Bush, 43%, 144 EVs
Bergland/Lewis, 0%, 0 EVs
LaRouche/Davis, 0%, 0 EVs

     You were saying?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Way back when, I remember playing this game and managing to beat Reagan with Ted Kennedy in 1980 with a 269-269 tie. Don't ask me how I did it, but it took many, many hours and re-matches to pull off. With that said, trust me when I say that Reagan is UNBEATABLE in 1984. There is absolutely no way to beat him.

     . . .

     Ran 1984 as Mondale. I hit Reagan with two huge scandals on the home stretch. New Mexico was decided by 717 votes. Kentucky was decided by 755 votes. Georgia was decided by 4,614 votes.

     To the dismay of Naso, Mondale broke 60% in Ohio.

Mondale/Ferraro, 55%, 394 EVs
Reagan/Bush, 43%, 144 EVs
Bergland/Lewis, 0%, 0 EVs
LaRouche/Davis, 0%, 0 EVs

     You were saying?

Maybe I am mixing this up with another game? I think the one I played was called President Forever 1988. Or maybe it was President Elect. Either way, I spent hours trying to beat Reagan in '84 and only came away with a handful of states no matter what I did.

     Most likely. Even without the two scandals, I was still in a dead heat with him. Beating him is not easy by any means, but it's still very doable.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I ran as McGovern in 1972. Running four ads in every state at the end is officially the most overpowered tactic in all of President Forever. Missouri was decided by 1,205 votes. Colorado was won by 1,450 votes. Montana by 3,396 votes. Oregon was won by 5,204 votes.

McGovern/Shriver, 55%, 478 EVs
Nixon/Agnew, 42%, 60 EVs
Hospers/Nathan, 1%, 0 EVs
Schmitz/Anderson, 1%, 0 EVs

[Associate Justice PiT]

When the other party has no real primary, they always get a landslide map at the start of the GE.

Yeah, I know, I was more agreeing with PiT's comment that ads are incredibly powerful in the game and that running a maximum number of hard-hitting ads right before the election often will dramatically swing the result.

     Indeed. Before I ran the ads, I was ahead by maybe ~50 EVs. Same thing has happened every other time I've tried it. I think I'll stop ad blitzing right before the election.

[Associate Justice PiT]

He doesn't.  He loses VA, AL, and MS.  He barely won in TN, LA and AR, and it was very close in SC.

But still this is Hubert Humphrey we are talking about Ben. His stance on Civil Rights would have alienated potential supporters of his in the South, thus resulting in the South to overwhelmingly vote for Harry Byrd. That's what I think anyways.

In RL that'd be true, but not in P4E+P, where I gave Byrd the actual numbers from 1960; leaving him viable in only AL, MS, LA, and AR.  Maybe I'll boost his numbers somewhat in the South.

     I would. It's unrealistic that Byrd would do that badly in places like GA & NC with Humphrey as the nominee.

[Associate Justice PiT]

He doesn't.  He loses VA, AL, and MS.  He barely won in TN, LA and AR, and it was very close in SC.

But still this is Hubert Humphrey we are talking about Ben. His stance on Civil Rights would have alienated potential supporters of his in the South, thus resulting in the South to overwhelmingly vote for Harry Byrd. That's what I think anyways.

In RL that'd be true, but not in P4E+P, where I gave Byrd the actual numbers from 1960; leaving him viable in only AL, MS, LA, and AR.  Maybe I'll boost his numbers somewhat in the South.

     I would. It's unrealistic that Byrd would do that badly in places like GA & NC with Humphrey as the nominee.

I was thinking I'm put him everywhere Thurmond appeared on the ballot, with Thurmond's numbers, but make him a lot stronger in Virginia.

     Are you going to bother putting him on the ballot in CA & ND?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Ford           514  59.2%
Carter          25  37.9%
McCarthy       0    2.9%

     McCarthy did rather well there.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Beat FDR!!!

Hoover 339
FDR      188

     Congratulations. Did you do it with or without ad blitzing?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Beat FDR!!!

Hoover 339
FDR      188

In a way you must be wondering how come you didn't win Iowa for Hoover, with such a big score.

     I managed to win IA back when I ran 1932.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Hoover: 57% PV, 393 EV
Roosevelt: 43% PV, 138 EV

Was this on the original PF for the one with the primaries? Texas was 80% and SC was 98% for Roosevelt on the PF+P which I played on.

Original.  I didn't know they had one for 1932; can you give a link?

It's in the forum on 80soft.com

The one for the original had Hoover and FSR tied when you first start off. In the PF+P game, FDR leads 46-28 nationally when you first start off. The south never moves as FDR still broke 90% in SC, TX, AZ, MS, and AL even though he lost the race. That's why I was so happy I came back and beat him.

     I remember that when I started off in the original, I was ahead in PA & VT & tied in a few other states. In total, there were maybe 10-12 states where FDR was leading by less than 10%.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Hoover: 57% PV, 393 EV
Roosevelt: 43% PV, 138 EV

Was this on the original PF for the one with the primaries? Texas was 80% and SC was 98% for Roosevelt on the PF+P which I played on.

Original.  I didn't know they had one for 1932; can you give a link?

It's in the forum on 80soft.com

The one for the original had Hoover and FSR tied when you first start off. In the PF+P game, FDR leads 46-28 nationally when you first start off. The south never moves as FDR still broke 90% in SC, TX, AZ, MS, and AL even though he lost the race. That's why I was so happy I came back and beat him.

     I remember that when I started off in the original, I was ahead in PA & VT & tied in a few other states. In total, there were maybe 10-12 states where FDR was leading by less than 10%.

When I started it, the two were tied at 44% or so. The south was way too close, because any Democrat would get 90% or so whatever the result was nationally in most states.

     Perhaps they were actually different versions of the scenario?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Hoover: 57% PV, 393 EV
Roosevelt: 43% PV, 138 EV

Was this on the original PF for the one with the primaries? Texas was 80% and SC was 98% for Roosevelt on the PF+P which I played on.

Original.  I didn't know they had one for 1932; can you give a link?

It's in the forum on 80soft.com

The one for the original had Hoover and FSR tied when you first start off. In the PF+P game, FDR leads 46-28 nationally when you first start off. The south never moves as FDR still broke 90% in SC, TX, AZ, MS, and AL even though he lost the race. That's why I was so happy I came back and beat him.

     I remember that when I started off in the original, I was ahead in PA & VT & tied in a few other states. In total, there were maybe 10-12 states where FDR was leading by less than 10%.

When I started it, the two were tied at 44% or so. The south was way too close, because any Democrat would get 90% or so whatever the result was nationally in most states.

     Perhaps they were actually different versions of the scenario?

It could have been. I haven't downloaded any scenario on the original PF since 2004. But the south should not move on a good 1932 scenario, especially the deep south.

     When I ran in 1932, I won by 14%, but FDR still won most of the South rather decisively:

     PBrunsel would be proud. Hoover starts out very weakly in this scenario, but ads are cheap, so it doesn't matter much. I also got about five scandals on Roosevelt, including two right before election day.

Hoover/Curtis, 52%, 434 EVs
Roosevelt/Garner, 38%, 98 EVs
Thomas/Maurer, 6%, 0 EVs
Foster/????, 2%, 0 EVs

     Not great, but a step in the right direction.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I ran 1860 as a straight up Lincoln v. Bell, and got this:

Lincoln: 73% PV, 303 EV
Bell: 27% PV, 0 EV

How does one get <50% in a two way race?

South Carolina didn't hold elections back then for electors. Therefore, the evcalc shows SC as >30% on all maps until they started holding elections.

     That always annoys me. I usually just edit the URL to reflect the result that PF gives. Even though it isn't accurate, it helps reflect the margin of the election's outcome.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Some states sure are weird. For example, as a Republican, I've never lost Florida, and only won Iowa once. And as a Democrat, I rarely win Florida and Missouri. Louisiana is always extmremely difficult to win as a Republican, as is New Hampshire.

     I've found that time & time again, regardless of year, party, campaign, etc., Colorado is consistently one of my worst states. I can't count the number of 48-state landslides I have won where I have lost Colorado.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Another play-through of the 2008 Atlas Forever I'm working on with Badnarik.

(R)-Santiago Drexler: 299 EV 48.5%
(D)-Evan Gutierrez: 239 EV 45.7%
(I)-Connor Flynn: 0 EV 5.2%
(Li)-Michael Badnarik: 0 EV 0.6%

     Yay, I won!

[Associate Justice PiT]

I wasn't included...
*sobs silently*