Vive Le Hughes (user search)

Good so far, but I think the GOP gained way too many seats in the Senate in 1930. There were only 33 Senate seats (I believe) for election that year, and the GOP had some of those Senate seats before 1930, so I seriously doubt the Democrats would lose all (or almost all) their Senate seats that were up for election that year. A more realistic gain for be 10 Senate seats for the Republicans. In 1930 in RL the Democrats gained 8 Senate seats, and the absolute maximum that the Democrats could have picked up that year was 20 Senate seats. I seriously doubt that the GOP will win the absolute maximum number of seats up for election that year--some Democratic incumbents in the South will survive. You know that only one-third of all seats in the Senate are up for election every two years, right? Other than that, keep up the good work.

Well, perhaps, but I noticed that the Democrats were *really* overinflated from their victories prior. I mean, who could imagine a Democratic majority of 58 in the twenties? Unthinkable. In RL 1928, The Democrats had 35 seats, so I just pushed them down to those levels.

Yes I know that one third of seats are up at midterms.

Even if the Dems were overinflated from their RL levels, that doesn't mean they will lose that much seats at once. Maybe in two elections, but since only one-third of Senate seats are up for election, that just seems to much to lose in one election. I'm assming you're not keeping a chart of which Senators are up for election are which ones are not? If not, I would honestly suggest making the Democrats lose about 10 seats. It's just so much more realistic. I seriously doubt there would be 21 vulnerable Democrats in that one election cycle--maybe in two or three election cycles, but not in one.

Well... ok. I'll change the seats to a net loss of sixteen instead.

Well, I am keeping (somewhat) of a chart, but I've been focusing on the people who are most crucial to the timeline working. I'm just a bit too lazy to go through everything, though.

It's good that you reduced the number of seats lost, but I still think that number should be reduced further. I believe the highest number of seats lost in one election after 1894 was 13 seats (which the GOP lost) in 1932. Thus, I think that the ideal loss for the Dems in this scenario would be 7-13 Senate seats. In RL, the GOP's large Senate majority was reduced throughout the course of several elections (1930, 1932, 1934, and 1936), with each election being a loss of 7-13 seats for the GOP. Thus, I think it would be most realistic for the Democrats to lose about 10 seats this cycle, with about 10 the next election, and another 10 the following election. I think that if there would be an approxiamtely equal number of vulnerable Senate Democrats in each of the election cycles (1930, 1932, and 1934), and if there would be about 30 vulnerable Democrats (out of 58, I believe), that would equal to a loss of about 10 Senate seats in each cycle. Besides, since the Dems didn't massively increase their Senate numbers in either 1924, 1926, or 1928, there would be no reason for them to lose so many seats and have so many vulnerable incumbents in this election.

For god's sake Roch, quit nitpicking.

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? May 04, 2024, 08:04:32 AM

News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more