Jump to content
The Political Lounge

The 2020 Democratic Primary - Robust Testing Forum


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:


Same election, d3 die

image.png.d5b8311c5b6a5fd088ebd3f2f4ffeb10.png

Texas and Wisconsin almost but not quite allow Trump to sue for the election results ala Bush v. Gore (tbh that's gotta be an achievement) as the majority was supplied by Arizona 50-49.

The map looks great, but the margins are so weird. Florida is solidly for Trump but Wyoming and Kentucky are highly competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arkansas Progressive said:

The bonuses for margins only kick-in if the sub-points are 6 or more. Wyoming never gets there, same with KY or the Plains. OK this time was R+2 margin, despite being an R+3 leaning state.

Not sure I understand. If you had to calculate PV for WY, KY, and FL, what would be the ballpark estimates based on these results?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things that jump out in both elections are CA and NV. I feel like their margins should be swapped, maybe even have NV be less blue. Same for OR in that it should probably be more blue.

What happens if you bump up the state partisan lean by +1, then +2, etc while using the d6?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

Not sure I understand. If you had to calculate PV for WY, KY, and FL, what would be the ballpark estimates based on these results?

before you do a die roll all of the campaign bonuses and maluses are calculted for sub-points. in 

Trump Bonuses in FL

  • +1 for 1st debate
  • +1 for state party pref (FL is R+1)
  • -1 for puritan
  • +1 for experience
  • +2 for home state
  • +1 for home region
  • +2 for enthusiastic base (+1 for that due to party meters and +1 since FL like RW populists)
  • +1 for preferred ideology in general
  • -2 for Domestic and economic crisis

that's 7

Compared to Dean

  • +1 for VP debate
  • +1 for 2nd debate
  • +1 for challenging party 
  • -1 for puritan
  • -1 for general party pref
  • -1 least preferred ideology (FL hates liberals)
  • +1 from the meters

That's

7 + (D3: 1) = 8
0 + (D3: 2) = 2
Margin: 6
Florida is R+1, the margin of 6 gives Trump +5 on the margin, bringing it to +11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Things that jump out in both elections are CA and NV. I feel like their margins should be swapped, maybe even have NV be less blue. Same for OR in that it should probably be more blue.

What happens if you bump up the state partisan lean by +1, then +2, etc while using the d6?

CA doesn't like Libs and no candidate has it as a home region, so it's D+3 (+3) and Meter impacts (+1) = 4 for Dean (everything else cancelled out)
Trump is -1 (everything else cancelled and meter impacts are -2) so it's a margin of 5

Die rolls gave Dean +1, Trump +2 leaving us 5-1 = 4 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Things that jump out in both elections are CA and NV. I feel like their margins should be swapped, maybe even have NV be less blue. Same for OR in that it should probably be more blue.

What happens if you bump up the state partisan lean by +1, then +2, etc while using the d6?

I'd have to re-roll a D6 but I can add +1 to all leans then plus 2

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Arkansas Progressive said:

CA doesn't like Libs and no candidate has it as a home region, so it's D+3 (+3) and Meter impacts (+1) = 4 for Dean (everything else cancelled out)
Trump is -1 (everything else cancelled and meter impacts are -2) so it's a margin of 5

Die rolls gave Dean +1, Trump +2 leaving us 5-1 = 4 

Also, CA doesn't like Liberals? That seems weird to me. I saw CA is +1 Prog and LW. I would probably change that to +1 Lib and Prog. CA is more Democratic than progressive on most policies, but I know that might be just me knowing the state politics a bit more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Also, CA doesn't like Liberals? That seems weird to me. I saw CA is +1 Prog and LW. I would probably change that to +1 Lib and Prog. CA is more Democratic than progressive on most policies, but I know that might be just me knowing the state politics a bit more. 

Dean would have gotten +1 if he had max ideology enthusiasm, but he does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

Also, CA doesn't like Liberals? That seems weird to me. I saw CA is +1 Prog and LW. I would probably change that to +1 Lib and Prog. CA is more Democratic than progressive on most policies, but I know that might be just me knowing the state politics a bit more. 

Lib, Prog and LW Pop, I suppose but I'm just using what I got now. I'll likely re-sim when I get new shit from Ted (after V finishes his historical revisionism) this evening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Are you getting the state party preference in there?  I'd assume that you are, especially since the states mostly look right.  But I didn't see you reference that California prefers the blue party, that's why I ask.

yea CA does it's +3, which is added. Honestly the forumula is a hastle trying to see what is and isn't added, so I probably forgot to mention it (as it's relevance wasn't necessary to why the sub points in CA ended up being 4 to -1, a d6 I just rolled gives a 8-3 margin so it's only five points, not enough to qualify for the +15 if it were 7 or more. which is a shame

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be too late in development to add something like this, but should we consider maybe capping the number of swing states that are feasibly in play in each election? Maybe have certain requirements that have to be triggered to make a landslide possible? Especially in the modern era, a map where Florida's voting to the right of Mississippi is notably odd. Maybe a rule where in an election like 2020, assuming both candidates are reasonably matched, the only states in play are the closest 15 or so based on in-game data at the beginning of the turn? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

It may be too late in development to add something like this, but should we consider maybe capping the number of swing states that are feasibly in play in each election? Maybe have certain requirements that have to be triggered to make a landslide possible? Especially in the modern era, a map where Florida's voting to the right of Mississippi is notably odd. Maybe a rule where in an election like 2020, assuming both candidates are reasonably matched, the only states in play are the closest 15 or so based on in-game data at the beginning of the turn? 

Closest how? and What margins are we using for the states that are "not in play"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Arkansas Progressive said:

Closest how? and What margins are we using for the states that are "not in play"

In my mind I'm imagining the states that either have a party preference of 1 or less, but idk how many states that would actually end up being in practice. Then for the states that aren't in play, we just have a range of PV margins that get randomly selected. If like, Indiana votes to the right of Nebraska slightly (I'm imagining like 63-37 to 59-41), I feel like that's less immersion breaking than MS and CA being battleground states. Again, no clue if that's doable in general, let alone at this stage in development.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ShortKing said:

It may be too late in development to add something like this, but should we consider maybe capping the number of swing states that are feasibly in play in each election? Maybe have certain requirements that have to be triggered to make a landslide possible? Especially in the modern era, a map where Florida's voting to the right of Mississippi is notably odd. Maybe a rule where in an election like 2020, assuming both candidates are reasonably matched, the only states in play are the closest 15 or so based on in-game data at the beginning of the turn? 

I like this idea, but realize that it might require quite a bit of extra time. You could take the states that don't have a party lean to them and define them as swing states and maybe randomly throw in a few from the +1 category so the map isn't static (would mimic Obama winnings IN and MO or Trump winning MI, WI, and PA). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ich_bin_Tyler said:

I like this idea, but realize that it might require quite a bit of extra time. You could take the states that don't have a party lean to them and define them as swing states and maybe randomly throw in a few from the +1 category so the map isn't static (would mimic Obama winnings IN and MO or Trump winning MI, WI, and PA). 

there are states that don't have party lean

it's 0 in the pref section

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So under my idea, these 12 states would be the "battleground" for the election. The Dems could flip all these, including Montana, if they do everything right and get really lucky with the rolls, but you wouldn't see them flipping Kansas or doing better in Alabama than North Carolina. That is assuming you could even do these changes under the best circumstances, let alone right now as we're crunched for time in election changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...