TZMB

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Why would Sanders and Cruz consider running to be a protest? They aren't running for the OMRLP or the Rhinoceros Party, you know?

they run on seperate parties. the conservatives would be protesting Collins and the progessives would be protesting manchin. I honestly just wanted a chaotic four way map lol

want chaos?

2024

Manchin and Collins win their respective parties nominations. Sanders and Cruz run out of protest.

A four way tie.

1 hour ago, Zenobiyl said:

LBJ and Goldwater win the 1968 nominations, leading to a massive surge in third party support. The Democratic Party splits between segregationist George Wallace and anti-war activist George McGovern. Goldwater wins an abysmally low % of the popular vote due to the democratic split.

My head hurts

What are some of your strangest or most interesting "what if" election maps. Can be any country.

An example would be Gore vs. Bush Sr. 1988 or Obama vs. Trump 2012

Also any gains in Missouri would likely be cut down somewhat by a lack of turnout in St. Louis. A conservative Dem like Bayh would be a trade off in a lot of places. You would be sacrificing a lot of turnout from cities for gains in rural areas.

As close as 2004 was, I believe the only prospective candidate who stood much of a chance of defeating W was Evan Bayh. The field was simply too liberal at a time where social conservatism dominated large swaths of the country. That said, I think Bayh would stand to do better in the midwest and the south whereas Bush would stand to do better on the east and west coasts. 

The Clinton states in the south, I believe would be less than 10% margins. Keep in mind, Kerry, a Massachusetts liberal, kept Missouri and Arkansas within 10%. A conservative Democrat like Evan Bayh could likely compete in these states. 

As in OTL, Ohio would be the deciding state, but the margin would be pretty close to Florida. Bayh would be more competitive in rural Ohio but at the cost of support and turnout in the cities. This would be a net positive but I don't think it would be enough to flip the Buckeye state.

Indiana would be close but Bush's incumbency, I believe would push him over the edge. Allen County and the suburbs around Indy, while rich in ancestral democrats, are ruby red in 2004 on the presidential level. Bayh would have the advantage in southern Indiana leaning more Democratic but Bush's popularity in the Indy burbs would be too much for Bayh to overcome in a Presidential race against an incumbent.

Florida would be decided by around a 1% margin. Bush held good margins in Miami-Dade and I don't see Bayh cutting into that.

Bayh could win Iowa. it's a relatively swing state at this point and it would probably go for a moderate midwestern Democrat. 

Overall, Bush has an edge here. 

a bit late but here we go

Vice President: @Dobs

Secretary of State: @jvikings1

Secretary of Treasury: @Pringles

Attorney General:  @SilentLiberty

Secretary of Defense: @Beetlejuice 

Secretary of Interior: @Cal

Secretary of Agriculture: @WVProgressive

Secretary of Commerce: @Patine 

Secretary of Labor: @Kitten

Secretary of Health and Human Services: @Rodja

Secretary of Urban Development: @DakotaHale

Secretary of Transportation: @Sean F Kennedy 

Secretary of Energy: @Cenzonico

Secretary of Education: @vcczar

Secretary of Veteran's Affairs: @ConservativeElector2

Secretary of Homeland Security: @Zenobiyl

Is this still going?

Pete Buttigieg Announces Run for President in South Bend

Pete Buttigieg approaches the podium, supporters cheering, as he announces a run for president. He cites the need to bridge pragmatism with bold ideas as a way to unite the Democratic Party. He emphasizes that he is neither the candidate who will burn the system down nor will he abide by business as usual. He promises real, practical reform that benefits all Americans. Not just talking points. He discusses a "Medicare-for-All who want it" plan as well as investing in renewable energy and raising the minimum wage. 

Would it be too late to enter? If not here are my top 3

1. Pete Buttigieg

2. Amy Klobuchar

3. Andrew Yang

1 minute ago, Cenzonico said:

The New UI? That's an insult to 2010 mobile games.

LOL yes! It's virtually unplayable. It doesn't look at all like a finished game that people pay for.

1 minute ago, Patine said:

That's why I'm keeping (and even using) his older games. Plus, they're finished products - not awaiting constant updates.

The current UI is a total joke. Looks like a mobile game from 2010

What's the actual deal with Anthony and PI anyways? Not only have the games gotten worse but he's become an unbearable asshole. The 270soft community used to be friendly, active, and fun. Even if the games were flawed, the community was great. Now he's virtually made the community a dictatorship and the games are completely unplayable and share the quality of PC game from 2002. His 2008 P4E is much more fun and playable than whatever he's putting out now.

1 hour ago, Timur said:

I'm sure Reagan knew that Soviet Union had control over Eastern Europe (except Yugoslavia).😁

This is true. But he also has the disadvantage of 1976 simply not having caught up to his ideas yet.

It took an inflation crisis, staggering unemployment, Carter's weakness as President, among other factors that led to Reagan's landslide win.

None of these factors exist in 1976. Watergate is still fresh on everyone's mind, the GOP is dealing with party exhaustion, holding the presidency since 1968. 1964 is a lot fresher in the minds of voters and Reagan evokes Goldwater to a lot of people at this time.

That said '76 Reagan has his own disadvantages and advantages compared to Ford.

Reagan, for one will probably start much further behind than Ford. This will help and hurt him. The Carter camp would likely underestimate him significantly. The GOP on the other hand, would be in disarray and many would have a hard time supporting Reagan after defeating an incumbent president. The money would come in pretty slow at first in my opinion. Shifting establishment support from Ford to Reagan would be painful and slow.

Reagan would definitely make up for a lot of his polling defecit with Carter in the debates. I think it goes without saying that Reagan is one of the most skilled political debaters of the 20th century, perhaps all time.

Also Reagan is going to do better in some areas and worse in others than Ford. I think Reagan would do better in the industrial Midwest (aside from Michigan, Fords home state), parts of the south, and assuredly the west coast. Ford does much better in places like New York, Maine and New Jersey. Places that are generally a lot more liberal on social issues.

Overall this was a winnable election for Reagan no doubt and the margins here are super close. It wouldn't surprise me if Reagan would have managed an upset. 

Here's my prediction on what would have happened if Reagan faced Carter in '76. keep in mind that 1980 and 1976 are two completely different worlds.

I'd say Reagan would start off behind and catch up in the debates. I think Carter would narrowly defeat Reagan due to his strength in the south. I think Reagan would have overall performed better than Ford but, without an inflation crisis, I don't think his economic ideas would have helped him.  That said, Reagan may very well win the popular vote and this would have put him in a great place to beat Carter in '80.

Carter's only pickup would be Maine along with it's second district. I just don't think Reagan's unapologetic conservatism would have bode him well in the north and Carter's strength with rural voters in ME-02 would narrowly give him the state.

Seriously, its much more capable and active here. Plus the PI games are going a bit downhill. Any other good polsims?