President Forever results thread... (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2024, 05:27:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Election and History Games (Moderator: Dereich)
  President Forever results thread... (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: President Forever results thread...  (Read 884187 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2005, 08:09:01 PM »

Ran both Kennedy and Nixon, trying to imitate the real life scenario



The race was highly entertaining. Kennedy was winning by a large margin when Nixon suddenly swung it back in the last weeks. Desperate catch-up efforts from Kennedy were to no avail.

Kennedy: 49% and 39.2 million votes, 184 EVs
Nixon: 49% and 38.9 million votes, 353 EVs

(that's right, Kennedy got Gored...poor guy) Kennedy won over 60% of the vote in PA and NY.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #51 on: August 15, 2005, 02:33:19 PM »

I ran as both a generic Republican and a generic Democrat, trying to create equal candidates. The Republican was centre-right on everything, the Democrat centre-left. They had equal stats on everything. The Republican had Cheney as running mate and was from Georgia himself, the Democrat was from New Jersey and had Clark for a running mate. The campaign was highly entertaining with the Republican starting out ahead and the Democrat slowly catching up. Towards the later stages of the campaign the battle was for two groups of states; the tossups, such as Minnesota, West Virginia, Missouri and New Mexico and the Republican-leaning states, such as Tennesse, Arizona, Georgia and Florida. As the Republican focused on consolidating his 270+ electoral base the Democrat tried to reach above 270 EVs. With two weeks left, the Republican had the Bush 2004 states minus Missouri, Virginia, West Virginia and New Mexico, plus Wisconsin, the Democrat had the Kerry states minus Wisconsin and Minnesota, plus Virginia and Missouri. Minnesota, West Virginia and New Mexico were tossups. The Republican was thus ahead by about 10 EVs. With one week left Minnesota swung to the Democrats and Nevada became a tossup. At this point it was becoming clear that West Virginia was likely to go Democrat as well, giving the Democratic candidate a narrow majority. The Republican camp, desperate to edge out a win found only one state where the number of undecided was high enough to offer hope of victory - Vermont. Pulling out of West Virginia they threw everything at Vermont. With one day left Nevada went Republican and Vermont was down to a one point difference. Both candidates needed to win two out of the trio WV, NM and VT. The results in all 3 states were within 3 points, the naitonal popular vote within tenths of percents.








Right/Cheney: 267 EVs
Left/Clark: 271 EVs
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2005, 07:20:58 AM »



Running a super-independent with 200 000 000 all 5s and centrist positions.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #53 on: August 27, 2005, 11:57:59 PM »

Same as above but now with 300 million instead of 200.



John Smith: 37%, 449 electoral votes
George W Bush: 31%, 52 electoral votes
John F Kerry: 30%, 37 electoral votes

You may note that the only states where someone got more than 40% were Bush in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Alaska. (Kerry got 50.9% in DC). All the states were relatively close (at least within 10 points, most within 5). Can't be bothered to post all the close results, but there were many. Bush and Kerry were redeuced to their few strongholds: IN, UT, WY, ID, AL, AK and OK for Bush (who also managed to get away with Arkansas and North Dakota), MA, RI and DC for Kerry (Kerry won MA by less than 3000 votes) He also won NJ and DE, the former by 5000 votes.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2005, 04:58:49 AM »

Hmm.  While this is very interesting, Colin, I doubt this is very realistic.  I don't think this game has any real concept of multi-dimensional issue dynamics, and it just calculates the left-to-ring average from the sum of each issue, instead of treating each issue seperately.  I'm very confused to why I repeatedly win Oklahoma, some of the great plains states, and even Arizona and New Hampshire at times, while I lose Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Mississippi quite often.  I would also say I should win Arkansas and West Virginia every time if I win any states at all.  It makes me think the game is just treating me as a generic centrist independent, considering my economic positions and social positions would just about cancel out, making me barely left of the center.

Preston, I think there are two key diffculties with the game.1: they don't allow for party strength to vary depending to candidates. With a populist Democrat the bloc strength in states like Arkansas and West Virginia would change quite a lot. 2: the regional issue centres are, to put it simply, wrong on many occassions. West Virginia is Centre on Free Trade. Need I say more?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #55 on: September 10, 2005, 04:36:36 AM »



Changed all the blips in the 1960 game and played as Decker to see what would happen:

Kennedy: 274 EVs, 49%
Nixon: 263 EVs, 46%
Faubus: 2%
Decker: 0%
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #56 on: September 19, 2005, 01:32:48 PM »



This was one of my most exciting races ever. I played as myself (moderate libertarian with leadership 2, charisma 3 and the rest 4s. Running mate was Hillary Clinton who added leadership)

Lundgren/Clinton: 48% (60 373 812) and 278 EVs
Bush/Cheney: 48% (60 117 059) and 260 EVs
Nader: 1%
Badnarik: 1%

Best states:

Bush:
Utah (74.3%)
Idaho (74.1%)
Nebraska (72.6%)
Alabama (69.3%)
Wyoming (69.1%)

Lundgren:
Oregon (64.4%)
Michigan (63.9%)
Pennsylvania (61.9%)
Washington (61%)
Iowa (60.9%)
Minnesota (60.5%)

Nader:
Illinois (8.2%)
Wisconsin (5.5%)
Vermont (5.3%)
Arizona (4.7%)
Utah (3.5%)

Badnarik:
Arizona (6.4%)
Texas (3.7%)
Nevada (2.9%)

Closest states:
Missouri, Lundgren by 0.0% (1 743 votes)
Florida, Bush by 1% (70 033 votes)

This one was really close, swinging back and forth. With one day left I was one point ahead in Florida, one behind in Missouri, so when I lost Florida I thought it was all over...


Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #57 on: September 19, 2005, 05:52:39 PM »



Tweaked the game to make it more realistic (weakening Carter, generally).

Carter/Mondale: 48%, 354 EVs
Reagan/Bush: 43%, 184 EVs
Anderson/Lucey: 5%, 0 EVs

Best states:

Carter:
Tennessee (65.6%)
Kentucky (64.6%)
Georgia (64.4%)
Texas (60.5%)
Pennsylvania (60.5%) (it's funny, I always do extremely well in Pennsylvania, regardless of time and candidate Huh)

Reagan:
Utah (71.5%)
Idaho (64%)
North Dakota (62.3%)
Nebraska (62.2%)
Wyoming (61.9%)
Nevada (60%)

Andersson:
California (19.9%)
Vermont (18.9%)
Rhode Island (15.2%)
Massachussetts (14.2%)
Colorado (13.6%)

Closest states:
West Virginia, Carter by 0.2% or about 1 600 votes
Missouri, Reagan by 1.3% or about 30 000 votes
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #58 on: October 05, 2005, 03:13:32 AM »



Tweaked the 1984 game to make it more Reagan-friendly (closer to the real-life result). Without dynamism it's damn near unwinnable. I played as Mondale.

Mondale: 48%, 253 EVs
Reagan: 50%, 285 EVs
LaRouche: 0%
Bergland: 0%

There were no really close states, though Michigan and California were the tossups heading into the election. I won Michigan 52.8% v 47%, Reagan won California 53.3% v 44.6%. Sad

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #59 on: March 31, 2006, 04:25:50 PM »

I wanted to create a super-independent and see how well I could do. To give myself any sort of chance I did this: Gave Mr. John SMith 5s on everything and something like 300 million USD. Then I let Kerry and Bush plunge themselves into the most negative campaign in human history focusing only on tearing each other apart. Both were shocked by severe scandals, the worse being Bush power 20 which dragged on for a long time. Kerry held a brief lead with 300+ EVs after a while, but then lost ground constantly towards the end. On election day:



Bush: 33.5% and 159 EVs
Kerry: 30.51% and 32 EVs
Smith: 35.99% and 347 EVs

Best states:

Bush:
Utah (47.1%)
Idaho (44.8%)
Wyoming (44.7%)
Alabama (43.5%)
Oklahoma (42.9%)

Kerry:
Massachusetts (40.2%)
Rhode Island (40.1%)
Vermont (38%)
Maryland (36%)
New York (36.4%)

Smith:
Arkansas (38.7%)
Tennessee (38.4%)
Lousiana (38.2%)
Illinois (37.9%)
Ohio (37.6%)

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #60 on: April 16, 2006, 02:03:53 PM »



I tweaked the 1948 scenario to closer resemble actual results and played as Thurmond to see how it would play out. The way I played was basically focusing on running an anti-Truman campaign in the South to see how far I could get there. I ran out of money towards the end, partially because I foolishly campaigned in my safe states, trying to drive up the base. I haven't managed to fix the vote numbers yet, they're messed up, but:

Dewey: 43%, 283 EVs
Truman: 40% 199 EVs
Thurmond: 19%, 49 EVs
Wallace: 3%, 0 EVs

Closest states:
Tennessee, Truman over Dewey by 0.7%
Georgia, Truman over Thurmond by 1.7%
Pennsylvania, Dewey over Truman by 1.8%

Most other states weren't really close. I got:

Virginia: 42.6%
Louisiana: 64.6%
Alabama: 79.6%
South Carolina: 85.9%
Mississippi: 93.6%



Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #61 on: April 16, 2006, 02:07:11 PM »


How did you manage to win 347 electoral votes and yet not get over 40% in a single state?

Well, that's what happens when you run a focused campaign and have no core constituency. Pushing the Bush+Kerry total below 60% is pretty much impossible, I'm afraid.

Colin, please, please send me that file. I've been noticing the same thing but haven't had the time to fix it.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #62 on: April 16, 2006, 03:21:36 PM »
« Edited: April 16, 2006, 03:37:35 PM by Gustaf »



Tweaked the populations of Dixie to make it more realistic and focused my campaign more on Dixie:

Dewey: 44%, 266 EVs
Truman: 44%, 170 EVs
Thurmond: 8%, 95 EVs
Wallace: 2%, 0 EVs

(Dewey won the PV by 270 000 votes)

The decisive state was Iowa, which Dewey won by less than 1500 votes, 47.7% v 47.6%

Thurmond's closest win was North Carolina, by around 8%.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #63 on: April 25, 2006, 08:33:25 PM »



Played as Truman this time. Tried to focus on the North, which went pretty well. Dewey kept gaining on me but towards the end I won the debates, got my ads going and picked up steam. I was hit by 3 or 4 scandals but could spin most of them away. I had solid leads in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois going into election day. New York and California were tossups. I dominated most other states so I was pretty confident. Dewey mostly over-performed, winning CA, NY and MI but that still wasn't enough.

Truman: 47% 358 EVs
Dewey: 41% 135 EVs
Thurmond: 8% 38 EVs
Wallace: 2%
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2006, 09:25:46 PM »



Played as Truman again. This time I increased Truman's stamina and charisma but lowered his overall support by 2%, so as to make it closer to the real-life Truman come-back. I also decreased Thurmond's funding and gave Wallace the equal amount, to make things more fair between the two. The campaign mostly went like before, but a lot better for me. Dewey was hit by a scandal that eventually reached level 12. I was damaged a lot too though by scandals.

Truman: 48%, 388 EVs
Dewey: 35%, 105 EVs
Thurmond: 6%, 38 EVs
Wallace: 8%, 0 EVs

Best states:

Thurmond:
Mississippi: 92.9%
Alabama: 86.2%
South Carolina: 79.2%
Louisiana: 60.3%

Truman:
Oklahoma: 66.3%
Texas: 62.5%
New Mexico: 60.5%
Massachusetts: 60.1%

Dewey:
Vermont: 60.1%
Maine: 58.2%
South Dakota: 57.1%
Wisconsin: 56.2%

Wallace:
California: 20.7%
Montana: 15.1%
New YOrk: 14.4%
Virginia: 14%
Florida: 13.7%

Closest state:
Tennessee:
Truman: 35.5%
Thurmond: 34.8%
Dewey: 18.7%
Wallace: 10.8%
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #65 on: April 26, 2006, 12:02:58 AM »

I played as both Truman and Dewey to make things intereresting. Both candidates ran very negative campaigns. They won one debate each. Truman got his ads out first and held Dewey below 50 EVs, but then ran out of money. Dewey then struck back, conquering most of the nation in turn. Truman then clawed his way back slowly, slowly until this was the election day map:



Election night started out well for Dewey with a better than expected result in Indiana and winning both IN and KY.

Next came another strong Dewey result in FLorida followed by Truman's first win, in Georgia. South Carolina went surprisingly strongly for Thurmond, New Hampshire was too close to call. The rest to Dewey. North Carolina was another good pick'up for Dewey, while Ohio was too close to call. Truman fans were happy about the close to 70% result in WV.

CT and DE were two more big Dewey wins, but then came an unexpectedly large Truman win in IL - a big set-back for the Dewey camp. In yet another blow Truman carried Pennsylvania. But there were consolations too. Dewey surprisingly stole Truman's home state Missouri by a whole 5 points. Thurmond broke 80% in Mississippi, again over-performing.

Truman rolled on, picking up Arkansas next.

But the next batch was good news for Dewey. With New York, Colorado and Arizona too close to call, he won Minnesota by a land-slide,  a state thought to lean Truman. He also managed strong showings in the Dakotas, Nebraska and Kansas, all thought to be vulnerable.

Otherwise, things went as expected, Dewey did surprisingly well in Nevada, breaking 50% but the rest of the states were dull.

Dewey supporters took a deeo breath of relief after California opted by a clear margin for their candidate, 7.2%. Oregon and Washington were the awaited big Truman wins.

New Hampshire was now called for Truman, a major shock. But only minutes later Ohio is called for Dewey. The two are now neck to neck. Next Arizona is called for Truman. Dewey will need New York to win an electoral majority. When Colorado is called for Dewey it becomes clear that Truman can no longer win the election. But as New York is finally declared as Truman 46.3%, Dewey 44.3% and Wallace 8.7% the election is over.



Truman: 47%, 263 EVs
Dewey: 45%, 230 EVs
Thurmond: 4%, 38 EVs
Wallace: 3%

Congress elects Truman.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #66 on: April 26, 2006, 03:41:18 AM »
« Edited: April 26, 2006, 03:46:52 AM by Gustaf »



Played as myself. My leadership of 2 is always a bother, but this time things went smoothly. I couldn't afford polling so I had no idea of what my strategy should be.

Lundgren: 49%, 356 EVs
Bush: 47%, 182 EVs
Nader: 1%
Badnarik: 1%
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #67 on: May 03, 2006, 10:39:18 AM »



I don't know how Verin does it, that's for sure...

Reagan: 44%, 412 EVs
Carter: 38%, 117 EVs
Anderson: 16%, 9 EVs
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #68 on: May 03, 2006, 11:40:18 AM »



Edwards: 55%, 467 EVs
Bush: 40%, 71 EVs
Rest: 2%, 0 EVs

Edwards Best states:

Massachusetts: 70.1%
Vermont: 67.6%
Rhode Island: 67.5%
New York: 64.8%
Pennsylvania: 64.8%

Bush Best states:
Utah: 63.5%
Idaho: 62.7%
Alabama: 60.7%
Nebraska: 57.1%
Alaska: 57.0%

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #69 on: May 03, 2006, 03:01:15 PM »



This is something I had wanted to do for a long time. I basically pitched my 2 generic candidates (centre-right and centre-left respectively on all issues, same chraracteristics, etc) against each other and made their electoral strategies the exact opposite of what it should be. I wanted to see how well you could do on your opponent's home ground if that was all you focused on.

Smith (R): 49%, 281 EVs
Struan (D): 47%, 257 EVs
Nader: 1%
Badnarik: 1%

Best Smith states:

New Jersey: 56.7%
Hawaii: 56.6%
Rhode Island: 55.8%
Illinois: 55.6%
Massachusetts: 55.5%

Best Struan States:

DC: 62.0%
Florida: 55.9%
Ohio: 55.8%
Missouri: 55.5%
Colorado: 54.7%

CLosest states:

Nebraska: Smith by 0.6%
Oklahoma: Struan by 1.1%
South Dakota: Struan by 1.3%
Arkansas: Struan by 1.7%

Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #70 on: May 05, 2006, 03:55:20 PM »

I don't know how Verin does it, that's for sure...

I don't know about Ilikeverin, but this is my third-party strategy that I posted a while back, which works pretty well (I always win at least one state, even as someone like Nader):

1. Pick a few low-population states that all lean in one direction (i.e., they are either all Republican or all Democratic).  The reason for this is that advertising costs are proportional to the population of the state.

2. Start making ads in this sequence:

  a. Leadership - You
  b. Leadership - Attacking candidate towards whom the states in part 1 lean
  c. Experience - You
  d. Experience - Attacking candidate towards whom the states in part 1 lean

If integrity becomes more important than any of these two issues, swap that in for whichever one of the two is less important than integrity.

3. Start researching a scandal on the candidate towards whom the states in part 1 lean.

4. Use all available PP and CP to get every single endorsement, especially the ones that give you money.

5. Once all endorsements are received, do nothing but fundraising.

6. Run all ads in as many states as you can while still having some money left the day before election day.

7. Ensure that you have 4 ads the day before election day.  Run all four of them in all 50 states + DC the day before election day.

8. Hope for a good outcome.  I routinely get above 20% of the popular vote.  If you aren't roughly $20 million in the hole on election day, you didn't do it right.

Well, that is basically my strategy as well. I guess the problem is that I'm used to trying to win all the time...with Perot I usually campaigned on Leadership/Perot, Integrity/Attacking Clinton and Issue Familiarity/Attacking Bush. I first made a Highly Successfull ad for myself and then varied between attack ads and so on, constantly focusing on my electoral strategy. Usually works pretty well.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #71 on: May 07, 2006, 08:09:24 AM »



Tried more of Gabu's strategy. Didn't work all that well though.

Reagan: 45% 421 EVs
Carter: 36% 113 EVs
Adnerson: 17% 4 EVs
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #72 on: May 11, 2006, 07:32:22 AM »

                                                                                                                          Adjusted the 2000 scenario (Gore v Republicans) to more real-life and played as both. THere was just no way GOre could resist Bush's ads though. He also got hit by a scandal and recovered just a little by election day.                                                                                                                      Bush: 50%, 450 EVs                                                                                                                   Gore: 39%, 88 EVs, Nader: 3%, Buchanan: 6%
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #73 on: May 19, 2006, 03:53:58 PM »

I chrushed Kennedy as Nixon:

Image Link

Nixon: 62%, 514 EVs
Kennedy: 35%, 23 EVs
Faubus: 1%
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,778


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

« Reply #74 on: May 20, 2006, 05:14:28 PM »

Image Link

Me: 501 EVs, 58%
Bush: 37 EVs, 38%
Nader: 2%
Badnarik: 1%
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 11 queries.