Release: President Forever 2016 v. 1.4.4 Test Release 1

President Forever 2016 v. 1.4.4 Test Release 1 has been released. This adds Rick Perry to the 2016 scenario, increases Ted Cruz’s percentages (including a lead in Texas) and sets him to on by default, increase Joe Biden’s percentages and sets him to on by default, increases Hillary Clinton’s percentages, and more.

This is a Test Release, not an official release. You can download a Test Release by requesting a re-download e-mail at the link below. When you receive the e-mail, you will have both a President Forever 2016 link and a President Forever 2016 Test Release link. You will want to download the file from the Test Release link.

Note: if you are a President Forever 2012 owner, you are eligible for this upgrade.

To update:

http://270soft.com/updates-redownloads/

Version information:

http://270soft.com/updates-redownloads/president-forever-2016-version-information/

42 Responses to Release: President Forever 2016 v. 1.4.4 Test Release 1

  1. Jonathan July 15, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

    Excellent update!

    Here are some more things to consider when you have time.

    1. Mormons overwhelmingly vote for Mormon candidates. I’d make Huntsman way stronger in Utah. Even if he isn’t doing well nationally, he’d be very hard to defeated in Utah, if he lasts long enough to hold on to it.

    2. I had Rick Perry, Rand Paul, and Sarah Palin endorse John Hunstman over Scott Walker. I think it would be helpful if you created something that would make certain candidates way more likely to endorse certain candidates. For instance, I doubt Rand Paul would endorse anyone that was pro-interventionist policies. Huntsman is probably the most centrist Republican; he’s unlikely to win over the politicians mentioned above–he’s more in line with Christie or Romney.

    3. I think the candidates that are strong in a New England state would probably be a little stronger in other New England states as the region is smaller and is very likely to desire someone that is from the same area. Likewise, with the Deep South, the Tri-borough area (NY/NJ/CT) if a candidate is big in the NYC area (Christie and Bloomberg, if you make him). Some candidates may have huge rural appeal and some with urban appeal. I notice some candidates have a strength in one state and then the same numbers in all the other states.

    4. A poll was conducted, a Quinnipiac poll on 7/12. Clinton has a huge lead over Republican contenders. Christie is doing the best against her but still loses 46% to 40%. Should the Democrats start out stronger nationally?

    5. How about creating possible domestic, economic and international events to influence the election?

  2. Andres July 17, 2013 at 2:12 pm #

    Please create a escenario editor in order for us to have the possibility of creating completely new elections of other countries, cities, states, regions, etc.

  3. anthony_270admin July 17, 2013 at 2:17 pm #

    @Andres,

    Thanks for the feedback – it’s being worked on! Each new official release has featured an expansion of the editor. I cannot make any promises, but that will probably continue until it’s a full-featured editor.

  4. kevin July 18, 2013 at 1:03 pm #

    Will y’all add a feature where you can choose when to enter the election?? And maybe a time period where you can “test the waters” to see if you are well liked among the party in which they are running, so it would not impact how many times you have visited a state or increase the number of visits allowed in a state?

  5. Tayya July 19, 2013 at 3:03 pm #

    Fun bug – candidate editor enters “yes” or “no” instead of “1” or “0” when trying to change default_on. As a result, the function doesn’t work.

  6. anthony_270admin July 19, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

    @Tayya,

    Thanks for this bug report – I actually discovered it yesterday while doing scenario work. It’s fixed in the latest internal.

  7. anthony_270admin July 19, 2013 at 6:06 pm #

    @Kevin,

    Maybe – we’ll see.

  8. kevin July 21, 2013 at 10:35 am #

    I believe that you should change Marco Rubio’s immigration platform to center left, since be did help craft and then support the immigration reform bill that grants amnesty, I also think that Gun Control, Immigration, and Abortion issues should be raised in how big of an issue they will be

  9. SANC July 21, 2013 at 11:43 am #

    I don’t think so. When there’s a recession on people don’t care so much about social issues and I think this one will last as long as the Great Depression. The causes and devastation have been similar…

  10. kevin July 21, 2013 at 1:37 pm #

    also i believe you should take into consideration of bumping Perry’s percentages in states with high numbers of social conservatives due to the abortion law he pushed for and signed, as well as his stance on Gay rights, and even though there is a recession, the people have just seen a president trying to take away their gun rights and don’t agree with it and if the immigration bill does pass it will impact the recession even more, and abortion has really played into elections one way or another, Akin in Missouri, and among social conservatives look how far Santorum went in 2012. Social issues will always play into elections one way or another, especially in states with a high number of Christian conservatives

  11. kevin July 21, 2013 at 2:32 pm #

    I also think Christie is too strong his charisma is not as strong as other candidates on the list due to his “buddying” up with Obama as well on some of his stances

  12. Tayya July 21, 2013 at 2:41 pm #

    We should be -very- careful with making Perry any stronger, based on his megaflop in 2012, until we see evidence of him improving. There are other candidates with his issue positions that are stronger positioned.

  13. kevin July 21, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    Perry’s approval rating in Texas among everyone has risen 8 points since January, as well as an approval rating that satisfies over 70% of republicans in his home state, if Ted Cruz does no run, his percentage will need to be spiked up in at least Texas.

  14. SANC July 21, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

    Abortion, immigration and homosexuality are always controversial but 2012 was ultimately about the economy and not much else. It only grew a tiny bit so Obama was punished for a weak economy but the Republicans were hardly going to win just 4 years after being hammered due to the recession. More hardline candidates will always do better in the primaries than with the general population as the parties are more polarised than the people are which is why from Clinton on the Democrats have been centre-left economically and you had a Republican with what the game describes as a centrist position on abortion. Parties always change their views to what’s more popular eventually (both Labour and the Tories for example). Correct me if I’m wrong.

  15. kevin July 21, 2013 at 3:50 pm #

    Maybe not on the democratic side of things but n the republican side most candidates share the same views on the economy, tax rates, balanced budget, and such, so they have to decide who to vote for by looking into other positions, such as Homosexuality, Abortion, Gun Control, and such. You cannot tell me Santorum beat Romney in Iowa because of his views on the economy, which were identical to Romney. Romney failed to get social conservatives out to vote, which is still the party’s base, this was evident when Santorum won Mississippi, Alabama, and states like those and is also reflected by the way he lost states like Ohio and Michigan, he won rural voters, otherwise known as Social Conservatives, not the moderate republican city folks who go with whoever the media votes for and in my opinion as the republicans begin to nominate their candidate since the economic issues will be practically identical across the board, they will look to these three issues to decide who to vote for. therefore i believe these should be heightened issues is 2016, and you cant tell me Christie will not lose votes by his gun control stance or his abortion stance in states like Iowa, Texas, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi and so on. Marco Rubio is now trying to make up his Amnesty mistake by leading the charge of the 20 week abortion ban bill that the house passed. You canot tell me Republicans do not look at Social issues when they vote. just look at Iowa for the past two elections Social Conservatives won in both 2008 and 2012 and both practically coming from way behind at the beginning of the election cycles

  16. rfk1 July 21, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

    “I also think Christie is too strong his charisma is not as strong as other candidates on the list due to his “buddying” up with Obama as well on some of his stances”

    Charisma isn’t measured on the basis of issue positions or personal friendships that the candidate in question may or may not have, but rather on personal charm and strength. The issues you mention should be reflected (if anywhere) in his percentages and perhaps the news events, not his attributes.

  17. kevin July 21, 2013 at 4:32 pm #

    the reason i said that was because I believe his appeal to republicans is no longer as strong since these things.

  18. Jake July 22, 2013 at 12:07 am #

    You say people don’t care about the social issues, but Obama ran on the social issues, he ran pretty heavily on galvanizing his base on issues like abortion and his new gay marriage stance. On the other side of the spectrum, Santorum came far in the primaries due to his positions on social issues.

    Gun control should be a higher prioritized issue, it will be prominent in the next election. Rubio’s immigration stance should also be changed to center-left due to his amnesty bill.

  19. anthony_270admin July 22, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

    @Jake,

    Noted re: Rubio’s immigration position – thx.

  20. anthony_270admin July 22, 2013 at 3:01 pm #

    @Kevin re: Rubio’s immigration position – thx.

  21. Jonathan July 22, 2013 at 6:00 pm #

    How about a way to to grow PIP pts? I think it could be similar to increasing the campaign strengths, but sped up by how high the momentum is. That way a weak candidate that is hot can gain PIPs quicker, and then use these PIPs to try and force candidates out of the raise or to gain endorsements quicker.

    The reason for this is that I made a really weak candidate with 3 PIPs. I’m tied with two candidates in the polls with the three of us nearly splitting the delegates. We are headed to convention. Joe Biden shows that he’d drop out, but I’m out of PIPs and I’m sure Hilary Clinton is as well. We can’t campaign anymore because the primaries are up. I’d like to be able to try and win Biden over.

  22. Jonathan July 22, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

    Also, we all three stayed in the race until the convention. There’s a glitch. I was forced to drop out of the race, as I was in 3rd place, and had to release my delegates. None of the delegates were released, even though I had almost 1,000. I probably could have handed the election to Biden, as I was on good terms with him. However, Clinton won because she had the most delegates when my delegates, or the 4 total delegates from Warren and Grayson, were not released.

    I’d also like to see the possibility of a compromise choice if the delegates are released and one of the two remaining candidates do not reach a majority. Perhaps the candidate with the best relations for both remaining candidates. Or, you could just make it random.

  23. Nick July 29, 2013 at 1:48 am #

    1. I believe Gov. Perry should have a larger national and Texas percentage as he has huge national name recognition and has a reputation of fighting the Obama administration
    2. Huntsman should probably have a larger percentage (3+%) for the west coast as he could make a strong appeal to moderate republicans

  24. Nick July 29, 2013 at 1:49 am #

    also, great job keep it up

  25. Jonathan July 29, 2013 at 1:27 pm #

    I agree that Huntsman would probably be much stronger than he currently is. I’d make him much much stronger in Utah, and to some degree in NV, CO, and AZ, because of the Mormon populations.

  26. kevin July 31, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

    I have to agree with Nick on Perry, whether people like it or not he has made a “comeback” of sorts. his approval rating is going up in Texas and his Public Polling numbers are always 3-6% lower than what he ends up with on election night. so the polls dont reflect him well at all

  27. Jonathan August 4, 2013 at 1:09 pm #

    Here is a poll that might help with updating percentages: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

  28. Jake August 8, 2013 at 11:45 pm #

    Just for reference with Santorum’s free trade position if it helps, he wants to give benefits to companies if they don’t outsource and voted against NAFTA.

    If you’re going back over the 2012 election, I’m wondering if you’d add Pawlenty, Cain, Palin, and Trump.

  29. Jeff August 10, 2013 at 5:07 pm #

    I won the nomination in June as a Democrat, then fast forwarded to the convention. Did almost nothing (mostly spacebar), and ended up winning about 65% of the vote. Should I not be fast forwarding with this test release?

  30. Andres August 11, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

    I think the game has become too easy to win if you have at least one theme against your mayor opponent. I still win by huge margins.

    I’m winning the general election 75% – 25%. With the hardest mode and having one of the themes against the candidate of the other party.

    I think this needs to be fixed.

  31. Jonathan August 14, 2013 at 5:15 pm #

    I think ads in general are too strong. If you accumulate enough money and put all of it into ads on the last 5 days of the election, you can usually throw the election in your favor. I think maybe barnstorming, or TV interviews probably have more of an impact than the ads in real life, although ads are important.

  32. kevin August 14, 2013 at 6:04 pm #

    Recently i have noticed that if you Google Ted Cruz and select news all you see is how he is popular among Iowinians, can yall bump his percentages in Iowa for this reason?

  33. Jonathan August 19, 2013 at 3:45 pm #

    Scott Brown is publically considering running for president. He has no real chance, but he may run.

  34. ASX August 20, 2013 at 10:34 pm #

    kevin – you said “[on] the republican side most candidates share the same views on the economy, tax rates, balanced budget, and such” but I would argue there’s a substantial difference between the supply side philosophies of some (Gingrich), the Austrian philosophy of a few (Rand and Ron Paul), and the monetarist philosophy of most of the GOP. But more to the point of voters, while general economic philosophy isn’t terribly important in the primaries, what is important is a candidate’s economic plan. Think of Herman Cain, do you think he became a poll leader in 2012 because of social issues? No, it was because his 9-9-9 plan was a message readily comprehended by the average voters as a reasonable method for simplifying the tax structure and boosting the economy, whether or not it was actually feasible. Where Romney constantly stumbled was his inability to deliver a thorough, consistent message on how he would repair the economy or decrease tax burdens; he simply pointed out what was wrong with others’ agendas. So, you’re right in a sense, perhaps platform stances aren’t very important on economic policy. But in another sense, it would seem delivery of an economic message is very important, which I suppose is borne out by ads, barnstorming, and policy speeches etc.

  35. kevin August 21, 2013 at 11:33 am #

    ASX- I think thats more of the line of the issue familiarity part of things, and the point I was trying to make was that Santorum and Romney’s stances on government spending and economic policies were pretty much identica, and Santorum won races and made some of them more contentious because of his social issue stances and the consistency of his stances on things like health care, abortions, and gun control, therefore high profile issues like gun control and abortion as well as immigration should be higher ranked during at least the primaries, if not the general election

  36. ASX August 23, 2013 at 8:46 am #

    I think ultimately the relative consistency of his stances on social issues (which you mentioned) was Santorum’s key to winning support, rather than his actual stances per se. Sure, he won a segment of the vote by virtue of his positions, but I mean, he still ultimately lost.

    I was wondering, when is the “beta” label going to come off the 1912 scenario? I’ve really been looking forward to a polished version of that!

  37. anthony_270admin August 23, 2013 at 9:03 am #

    @ASX, 1912 will remain in Beta for awhile. Right now, the focus is on PM4E Aus 2013, and then there are a bunch of things for P4E16 on the list.

  38. DJP53916 September 1, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

    I know this is off topic, but I had to ask…

    I can’t remember, but wasn’t there plans to expand even more with past elections, beyond what you’ve already put together?

    I know I personally would love to see a scenario for 1920. Very contested primaries for both parties (8 candidates for each party, not counting Theodore Roosevelt, who died in 1919), Harding winning the Republican nomination after 10 ballots, Cox winning the Democrat nomination after 44 ballots (both men from Ohio, and both “compromise candidates” for their party), Eugene V. Debs running for the Socialist Party from prison, and Harding being the first candidate to break 60% in a general election.

    Political leanings, candidates, biases, and ideologies aside, it really was a fascinating election cycle. At least I think so.

    Anyways, this game you guys have put together never fails to entertain and amuse me. I’ve yet to be bored with it, no matter how I try to play. Keep up the great work. It’s greatly appreciated. I can’t even begin to imagine how much work and effort this game takes.

  39. Jonathan September 3, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    1920 would include TRoosevelt was a possible option as he was planning on running before he died. An interesting “What if”

  40. Jacob September 7, 2013 at 12:11 pm #

    There should be a green party candidate in the game, if possible. They are the fourth largest party in the United States right now, so it would be great if you could include Jill Stein!

  41. Jonathan September 8, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

    There’s no guarantee Jill Stein will lead it this year. They seem to constantly pick a different leader. I guess the may definitely be a candidate. There’s a guy named Charles Brannan that said he’s definitely running for the Green Party ticket. He should be included to compete for the job.

  42. anthony_270admin September 9, 2013 at 7:58 am #

    @Jacob,

    Thanks for this feedback – a Green party for 2016 is near the top of the to-do list, and should be added soon. We’ll probably include Jill Stein for now, and perhaps one or more other possibilities.

    @Jonathan,

    Thanks for this mention – noted.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes