Figuring the Baseline Vote
 Rating the Quality of the Campaign - Generic
 Rating the Quality of the Campaign - Case-Specific
 The Random Effects
 Scorecard for Determining Election Results

Figuring the Baseline Vote
The first component any election is the baseline. This is the amount of the vote we expect each candidate would receive if there were no campaign or luck involved. In other words, this is the vote total we would expect before the simulation begins. The baseline vote for both candidates in each of the races is provided below. The Democratic baseline vote should be listed in line 1 of the scorecard for determining election results.

Rating The Quality of the Campaign - Generic
The baseline vote is, of course, merely the starting point in determining election results. The quality of the campaign each candidate runs will also play a role in determining how the election goes. Below, you are asked to rate the performance of each candidate's commercials, stump speeches, and debates. Once this is done, you will be asked to go to the Scorecard for Determining Election Results to convert the ratings to gains or losses from the baseline results.

Commercials
Rate the effectiveness of each of the commercials done by the candidates on a scale from 1-5. To determine how effective a commercial is, you can use the advice section to see what commercials should accomplish, and then rate the commercials on what they did. After rating the commercials, enter the average rating for the Democrat's commercials on line 2a of the scorecard and the average rating for the Republican's commercials on line 2b of the scorecard.

Give the commercial a "1" if, after it ends, you're absolutely clueless about why that commercial would have encouraged you to vote for that candidate. A "1" is given to a truly dreadful commercial.

Give the commercial a "2" if you can see the point behind the commercial, but it is put together so poorly that you're just not at all convinced. A "2" is given to a poor commercial.

Give the commercial a "3" if its central point is clear and you are somewhat, but not overwhelmingly, convinced by it. A "3" is given to an average commercial.

Give the commercial a "4" if its central point is very clear and you are convinced by it. A "4" is given to a commercial that you rate as good.

Give the commercial a "5" if it is extremely convincing and effective. A "5" is given to that rare commercial that is excellent and memorable.

Stump Speeches
Rate each speech on a scale from 1-5, the performance of each candidate. Each of the different speeches should be rated based on how well they met the central criterion of the speech. After rating the speeches, enter the average rating for the Democrat's speeches on line 3a of the scorecard and the average rating for the Republican's speeches on line 3b of the scorecard.

Introductory stump speech - how well did this speech introduce the candidate and his/her central campaign themes? Does the speech make you think this is someone worth listening to in the future?

Specialized audience speech - how well did this speech excite the group the candidate chose to address? Would this speech make these supporters excited enough about his/her campaign to open their pocketbooks and support the candidacy with money? Will they turn out to vote for the candidate?

Election night speech - does this speech fire up the supporters to get out and vote? Is the speech exciting enough to keep supporters thinking victory?

Debates
Rate each candidate's performance on each of the following criteria on a scale from 1-5, where 1 indicates the poorest performance in this area and 5 represents the best. Then, add the total points awarded to each candidate. Put the total score for the Democrat candidate on line 4a of the scorecard and the total score for the Republicans on line 4b of the scorecard.

Competence - did the candidate appear to show he/she would be a competent member of Congress? Did the candidate do his/her homework? Were answers to the questions appropriate?

Performance - did the candidate perform well? Did he/she "look" the part and "act" the part? Did the candidate speak clearly?

Mistakes - did the candidate make any critical mistake during the debate? Were the inevitable minor mistakes harmful to the candidate or did they just get bypassed during the debate?

Opening and closing statements - how well done were they? Did they summarize points nicely and offer a strong reason to vote for the candidate?

Memorability - will you remember anything positive about this performance ten minutes after the debate ends, or did the candidate have no good lines/explanations/comments that left an impression?

Rating the Quality of the Campaign - Case-Specific
While answers to the general question of how well each campaign did matter, each campaign also has specific goals it is trying to accomplish. The extent to which each campaign is able to achieve these goals goes a long way toward determining whether or not it will win. For each of the following items, record whether you strongly agree (5 points), agree (4 points), are neutral (3 points), disagree (2 points), or strongly disagree (1 point). Your agreement or disagreement with the statement should be based on the campaign, not on your personal preferences. Then, add your points from this section and put the resulting figure on line 6a of the scorecard.

(Please note that in order to make the totals from this section easily convertible to the scorecard, some items are awkwardly phrased in the negative. There is no way to get around this and still be able to keep the scorecard simple. Please read the questions carefully before answering them in order to be sure you are getting the correct meaning.)

Case Study #1 - Max Dodge (D-Inc.) vs. Charles Green (R)


1. Max Dodge was able to convince voters that this election was a question of who could do more for them in terms of bringing benefits back to the district.

2. Charles Green was unable to successfully raise issues on which he disagrees with the policy positions of Max Dodge.

3. Military spending played a small role as an issue in this campaign.

4. Max Dodge campaigned as a moderate rather than as a strong liberal.

Case Study #2 - Mary Rodriguez (D) vs. Kurt Bullard (R)


1. Abortion played a really minor role in this campaign.

2. This campaign was really about the environment; that was one issue that got a lot of attention in speeches, debates, etc.

3. Kurt Bullard was unable to draw blood about Mary Rodriguez being a career politician.

4. Rodriguez did a better job than Bullard articulating her position on taxing and spending issues.

Case Study #3 - John Violet (D-Inc.) vs. Richard Casper (R)


1. John Violet was able to convince the voters that he has done a good job representing them during the many years he has served in Congress.

2. After the campaign, I have been convinced that errors of judgment committed in one's personal life have little to do with one's ability to serve in elective office.

3. Richard Casper is a lightweight who has no real business serving in Congress.

4. John Violet handled the drunk-driving issue about as well as anybody could handle such an incident.

Case Study #4 - Scott Sykes (D) vs. Peter Fairchild (R-Inc.)


1. Peter Fairchild has spent far too much time dealing with social issues and not enough time dealing with issues of concern to the district.

2. Scott Sykes has convinced the district's voters that he will devote considerable attention to successfully solving the nation's farm crisis.

3. Peter Fairchild was unsuccessful in articulating his conservative position on the abortion issue.

4. This campaign has demonstrated to me that we need a consensus-seeking, less-rigid person representing our district in Congress.

Case Study #5 - Regina Flett (D-Inc.) vs. Al Sparks (R-Inc.)


1. Regina Flett did a fine job appealing to the interests of African-American voters in her district on issues such as income redistribution and affirmative action.

2. Al Sparks was ineffective in swaying voters with the abortion issue.

3. Al Sparks was painted as the candidate of the business interests and not as the candidate of the workers.

4. Regina Flett ran a dynamic enough campaign that it is likely to lead to higher turnout among her core constituents.

The Random Effects
Now that we have assessed the baseline and the adjustments to it based on general and specific campaign issues, the final step is to include a random component. Campaign results sometimes come down to dumb luck - how the weather is, events happening in the district separate from the campaign that actually affect the campaign, other stuff going on not captured by the scorecard, alignment of the cosmos, etc. To account for this random effect, go to the Listing of Random Numbers, select one at random (this number is to the adjustment to the Democrat's total) and enter it on line 7 of the scorecard.

Listing of Random Numbers
In order to determine the random effects that influence a campaign, select one of the following numbers at random from the table and insert it on line 7 of the scorecard. This becomes the random adjustment made to the Democrat's vote total.