The Campaign Trail!

Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
15,602
Attention OT political junkies!

There's an awesome browser game on the American History USA website that let's you play one of three presidential campaigns (1896, 1968, and 2012), pick your running mate, and then answer several policy and travel questions. At the end of the game, it gives you an election night run-down of which states you won and lost.

I've been fooling around with it, and finally managed a win in '68 with Humphrey. Went with Kennedy as VP, took a strong stand against Vietnam, and backed Medicare and Great Society while dancing around the law and order stuff. I think pushing Nixon on the debates is a good gamble, the October surprise was a toughie but it paid off for me.

attachment.php


Unfortunately, the script crashed before I could take a picture of the map, but I managed to take the West Coast, the Industrial Midwest, Texas, and Kentucky which carried me to victory. Wallace did pretty well in the South, I think he picked up South Carolina over his normal states. I was not competitive there because I praised Earl Warren. Nixon carried the rest of the upper South, Florida, and the Great Plains but that wasn't enough.

So, play and post your maps!
 

Attachments

  • Humphrey Wins 68 - Overall View.jpg
    Humphrey Wins 68 - Overall View.jpg
    170.7 KB · Views: 2,345
Early in the 2012 campaign season, Obama decided that he didn't want to be president anymore. He proceeded to disown the ACA, condemn gay marriage, and totally abandon his Latino base. The result:

Spoiler :
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • obama.PNG
    obama.PNG
    243.2 KB · Views: 2,881
Intentionally losing as the opposition can be a lot of fun. Sometimes, though, it backfires: I played as a pro-silver anti-tariff wet McKinley, but still won in the EC 242 to 209. Managed to lose the popular vote 47 to 51, though, so I'm happy there. :)
 
I thought surely the fine people of the rust belt and the mid-atlantic would finally heed the wisdom of true conservatism if I gave them the attention they deserved so pretty much every campaign stop was Ohio, New York, Illinois, Penn, Indiana, etc. Wallace swept the South, I got some mountain and western states, and Humphrey cleaned up everywhere else. I think in hindsight I should have made a strong play for the south and the west and just gave the finger to basically everywhere I actually concentrated on.

My stances were brutally anti-communist, fairly pro civil rights, and I'd say middle of the road worker rights.
 
Nixon usually wins as a stronger law-and-order type, and if you play a bit cynically to get the anti-war vote it usually works in your favor. You might have sent the anti-war voters right back to Humphrey.
 
I tried to beat Obama with Romney by being a liberal and it didn't work. So I guess Romney was screwed either way.

I don't think so. I just beat Obama.
Spoiler :

attachment.php



attachment.php



I was basically pro-America on foreign issues (a good way to appeal to both sides), moderate republican on economic issues, and mostly neutral on social issues. I went with the "republican party is a tent" focus and kept that in mind. Heavy campaigning in rural rust belt and Florida.

I didn't actually get the popular vote though. But neither did Clinton or Bush II.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 11.01.40 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 11.01.40 PM.png
    167.3 KB · Views: 2,250
  • Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 11.01.59 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-01-06 at 11.01.59 PM.png
    345.2 KB · Views: 2,506
Yeah that's probably impossible to do. I called it unconstitutional to appease my angry republican base. And I only won Florida by .47% and I won Penn by .03%. This was about 3 electoral votes closer than the 2000 election. Angry libs might take it to the Supreme Court. Poor sports.
 
I've seen Romney victories around 300 EV. Are you guys picking the uplifting message, surrogates attack option for the first question? I think it's the strongest option on the table.
 
300!? Earlier I posted a Romney victory of 524 EV!

I went with the coalition one and made Jindal my VP. I agree though, the surrogate one is probably stronger. How do you think the number of questions will effect the outcome?
 
300!? Earlier I posted a Romney victory of 524 EV!

I went with the coalition one and made Jindal my VP. I agree though, the surrogate one is probably stronger. How do you think the number of questions will effect the outcome?

I meant playing as Romney. :rolleyes:

With fewer questions, the same issues don't come up every time. And there are always a few travel questions (I have a theory that the cities in the state matter, but I can't prove it) that burn up some slots. I would think short games have higher variability, while you see just about everything in a long game. So it could help or hurt depending on what is drawn.

I've only played two 50-question games, the rest were 13 and 25 question games.
 
One question for possible future stabs at this. On my first, and currently only, campaign, I did the 80 question option. What are most of you using? I ask because it was ridiculously time consuming for just a spot of election what if fun.
 
I've suffered a close defeat as Romney, earning 266 against 270 for Obama.

UPDATE: Okay, I've just won the 1896 election as William J. Bryan by focusing on the Midwest while being a vocal supporter of free silver.
 
I meant playing as Romney. :rolleyes:

Maybe I needed the mischief face.

I used the surrogate strategy and lost, getting the same results as 2012. I don't quite get how to execute it correctly because I switched back to the coalition one and beat Obama 303 to 235.

@VR: I've been playing on 25 questions.
 
I got this result while playing as a Liberal Pro-Civil Rights Nixon with George Romney as running mate.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • liberalnixon.jpg
    liberalnixon.jpg
    232 KB · Views: 2,259
Back
Top Bottom