51 Responses to Release: President Forever 2016 v. 1.5.1

  1. anthony_270admin October 3, 2013 at 6:41 am #

    Hey everyone,

    This version is the same as 1.5.0, but with additional bug fixes mentioned in that thread, and an installer which works with the latest Internet Explorer.

  2. Jonathan October 3, 2013 at 7:38 am #

    Thanks!

  3. Jonathan October 3, 2013 at 1:57 pm #

    I like the new offer screen a lot.

  4. Jonathan October 3, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

    New Presidential Poll:
    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1959

    Clinton has “has the support of 61 percent of Democrats, compared to only 11 percent for Vice President Joe Biden and 7 percent for U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.”

    More importantly, “The poll also shows Clinton holding double-digit leads over leading Republican contenders.” Democrats should probably have a huge advantage at the start as the game is generally being updated according to recent poll results.

    Of Republicans, “The Republican field is more mixed, with 17 percent for U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, 13 percent for New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie, 12 percent for U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, 11 percent for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and 10 percent each for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.”
    This shows Cruz far below how he was presented in the poll last week, as he’s tied in 5th place with two others.

    In womano-a-mano matchups, Clinton tops leading Republicans:
    49 – 36 percent over Christie;
    53 – 36 percent over Paul;
    54 – 31 percent over Cruz.
    This also shows Cruz’s weakness in gaining moderates. Matched with Clinton, Clinton gets 61% of moderates over Cruz. Cruz does very poorly among women as well.

  5. SANC October 3, 2013 at 4:48 pm #

    The last time any party won 3 times in a row was so long ago I thought 2016 would be a shoe in for the Republicans but evidently I jumped the gun predicting stuff right after the 2012 election. They might win yet though, might.

  6. Jonathan October 3, 2013 at 5:10 pm #

    @SANC
    Reagan/Bush41 was three times in a row. That’s not too long ago.
    FDR/Truman was 5 times in a row.
    Harding/Coolidge/Hoover was 3 times in a row.
    McKinley/Roosevelt/Taft was 4 times in a row

    That’s all within post-Reconstruction America. Don’t want to count the Reconstruction era, because that wasn’t a fair matchup.

    @Anthony
    I had a 3-way tie and the delegates still were not released and added to the top two candidates at the convention.

  7. SANC October 3, 2013 at 5:51 pm #

    I’m not saying it’s impossible to win 3 or even more in a row any more but the Bush/Reagan thing was from 1980-1992 and 21 years does seem like a very long time if for no reasons other than it feels very long and even the highest life expectancies in the world don’t reach 90 even for females (I have no idea why females live longer but that’s geting a bit offtrack.)

  8. Dallas October 3, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

    I received this error when I tried opening the scenario screen and the candidate editor. “An invalid character was found in the text content. Line:4 in 2004 Pre. and This error is preventing me from editing and playing any scenarios.

  9. anthony_270admin October 3, 2013 at 6:10 pm #

    @Dallas,

    Are you saying you get an error message in the Campaign Editor for a custom 2004 scenario?

  10. David Jackson October 3, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    I loaded the games on an old computer no longer being used. How do I get the games back for my new computer?

  11. Dallas October 3, 2013 at 8:04 pm #

    No, I was trying to edit my custom 2008 scenario. I need to edit based on feedback from several users, but the error mentioned above prevents me from editing and even starting a scenario.

  12. anthony_270admin October 3, 2013 at 8:10 pm #

    @Dallas,

    If you send me a zipped (compressed) version of the scenario, I will look at it.

    http://270soft.com/contact/

  13. anthony_270admin October 3, 2013 at 8:11 pm #

    @David,

    You can request a redownload here, as long as the games are year 2008 and later:

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

    If not, please contact us here:

    http://270soft.com/contact/

  14. Jake October 4, 2013 at 12:58 am #

    Does the demo get this version?

  15. Jake October 4, 2013 at 1:10 am #

    Okay it does.
    Bloomberg’s charisma should be 2. He doesn’t connect with people.

  16. Jake October 4, 2013 at 1:44 am #

    Personal feelings being irrelevant, high integrity marks isn’t a vibe King seems to give off.
    More relevantly though, Perry should have high fundraising scores because he has access to a lot of fundraisers and maybe more money, although he might also not get as much in a second bid.
    McDonnell should have high corruption scores in light of recent stories about him, he should be set off and shouldn’t poll so strongly he immediately gets a good portion of the south. He doesn’t have any momentum for a bid and probably won’t run.

  17. Jake October 4, 2013 at 2:14 am #

    Since Christie expanded the healthcare law to his state and Perry wouldn’t, and Christie’s against the CR he should probably be a little to Perry’s left on healthcare.
    Grayson’s war on terror position should be to the left of the scale from Hillary’s and Biden’s, he’s proven to be less hawkish and pro-surveillance.

  18. Jonathan October 4, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    Agree with all the suggestions Jake makes in regards to these candidates abilities and platforms.

  19. anthony_270admin October 4, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    @Jake,

    Thanks for the feedback – noted. McDonnell is off by default – if for some reason he isn’t in your version, please let me know.

  20. anthony_270admin October 4, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

    @Jonathan,

    “I had a 3-way tie and the delegates still were not released and added to the top two candidates at the convention.”

    This is on the list of things to change.

  21. Jake October 5, 2013 at 6:39 pm #

    Maybe Howard Stern could be a VP candidate for the Libertarians? Since Ventura said he’ll make him his VP.

  22. Jonathan October 5, 2013 at 9:16 pm #

    I doubt he’d accept.

  23. Jonathan October 6, 2013 at 4:37 pm #

    When is the next update? What will it include?

  24. anthony_270admin October 7, 2013 at 8:51 am #

    @Jonathan,

    Don’t have a date for the next update, probably Fri. or Sat. of this week. I don’t know what it will include at this point – probably add more depth to the national endorser field, continue to improve gameplay, … we’ll see.

  25. Dallas October 7, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    I would love to see Michele Bachmann and Nikki Haley added to the 2016 scenario. Are these two possible contenders on the top of your list to add? Thanks.

  26. Jonathan October 7, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

    I’d like to see the following candidates, as I think they are as likely to run as anyone in the game currently.

    Dem: Howard Dean (publically expressed interest), Kirsten Gillibrand and John Kerry.

    Rep: Bachmann, Gingrich and Rice

  27. Jake October 7, 2013 at 5:26 pm #

    They’re not as likely to run as the big contenders and I don’t think Gingrich or Kerry would get in, but as much as someone like Sandoval and some of them might be more likely than McDonnell.
    I think we should add Rice and Barr.

  28. SANC October 7, 2013 at 6:25 pm #

    Just a nitpick but surely Taft’s stamina should be 1? He was the heaviest President to date, they once had to let some butter melt in his bath to get him out.

  29. SANC October 7, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

    I’ve just played 1964 as Goldwater and went way beyond the party goal. I didn’t win of course but I’m not in the highscores anyway. Must be a bug.

  30. Jonathan October 7, 2013 at 10:40 pm #

    People weren’t guided by people’s looks the same way people are now. Lots of ugly presidents in the past. He had a very amiable personality. Also Chris Christie is charismatic and he is not too far behind Taft. Someone like Coolidge, would lack charisma. Tyler and Andrew Johnson, neither ran for president or were renominated, would be the only fellows with a charisma of 1.

  31. SANC October 7, 2013 at 10:44 pm #

    I don’t disagree but I’m talking about stamina, not charisma.

  32. Jonah October 7, 2013 at 11:29 pm #

    Kerry, Gingrich and Rice, while not highly likely possibilities, would certianly add for an entertainment standpoint (Plus, Kerry’s reputation has increased due to his job as secretary of state, and Gingrich has left the door open on a run). Dean and Gillibrand should definitely be added though.

    As a minor point, I feel like some of the precentages need to be edited. I know the numbers will go back and forth over the next few years, (and the numbers are based off of “speculation if they ran”, not just existing polls, since name recognition does add to poll numbers) but there are just some numbers that don’t feel probable at all:

    Palin has the highest (or ties for highest) of all GOP candidates. Maybe in 2012 that would have happened, but not now. She’s been out of politics for a while, and isn’t even loved in her own party. I just don’t see that as being very likely. Same goes for Santorum, to a somewhat lesser extent. Typically, the runner up from the last cycle gets an advantage in early polls due to name recognition (Edwards in 2008, Romney and Huckabee in 2012), but Santorum’s numbers are still really low. Similarly, McDonnell (as mentioned previously) is too high. I know this is easy for us to switch by ourselves (I already have adjusted the percentages for my own copy), but with each update, it just feels to change the game dynamic so much by including some of these overpowered candidates.

    Also, I feel like Jeb Bush should get higher numbers in Florida. Ranking in the mid-lower level in his own state just doesn’t make sense, especially considering how popular of a governor he was. He doesn’t have to be higher than Rubio, or even Christie, but at least higher than Ryan, Palin, Santorum and Huckabee.

  33. Jonathan October 8, 2013 at 12:27 pm #

    @SANC
    Oops, sorry SANC. I misread what you wrote. Yes, I agree. He also didn’t really even campaign at all.

  34. Jonathan October 8, 2013 at 12:31 pm #

    I agree that Jeb Bush should be a little stronger. I also think his brother would campaign for him as the Bush-stigma is wearing off a bit and some people, oddly, would prefer him to Obama. @Anthony please add George W Bush to Jeb Bush. Maybe change GHW Bush to Bush Family.

  35. Jake October 9, 2013 at 12:24 am #

    He should be added for Jeb but since they’re different former Presidents like Clinton and Carter etc. they should be separate endorsees. Admittedly though this would give Jeb an unfair advantage, especially since Crossroads (which I think we should also have) would support Jeb too.
    Basically if he runs he’ll have the whole Bushie cabal and Hillary would have the Obama cabal (though it could go to Biden if he runs) and her hubby’s.
    How are Bush and Obama all that different anyways?
    While the Bush stigma is wearing off, most people still don’t want to elect a third Bush and a larger portion of the right than ever (including libertarians and any serious Tea Partier) rejects Bush, his family and his ideology.

    It was during Obama’s first year that the neocons were stronger and a lot of the right made Cheney their hero, saying W would be vindicated. Now it’s Obama’s fifth year, and though there still are people who think Bush was good the right mostly looks up to Paul and Cruz. The theme’s also changed from Obama being an appeaser like Cheney claimed to an Orwellian, statist and warmongering figure. That’s a noticeable shift, and it doesn’t look favorable to the Bush family. Bush still has supporters however, but I don’t see a lot of people wanting Jeb to be President.

  36. Jake October 9, 2013 at 12:30 am #

    Although maybe Jeb won’t run, because I think Crossroads and the rest of their group want to elect Christie. If Jeb runs he’ll be obligated to be the Bushes’ and Rove’s first choice.

  37. anthony_270admin October 9, 2013 at 6:58 am #

    @Jonathan re: Bushes,

    Yes, it’s on the list to add W. and P. Bush as surrogates for J. Bush.

  38. anthony_270admin October 9, 2013 at 7:02 am #

    @Jonah,

    Thanks re: feedback on percentages. Are you saying you think Santorum is too high, or should be higher?

  39. anthony_270admin October 9, 2013 at 7:03 am #

    @SANC re: possible highscore bug, noted – I’ll look into it.

  40. anthony_270admin October 9, 2013 at 7:08 am #

    @Dallas re: Bachmann and Haley,

    They’re on the list – no estimate on when they might be added yet, though.

  41. Jonathan October 9, 2013 at 7:09 pm #

    How about the Kennedy Family as endorsers?

  42. SANC October 9, 2013 at 8:32 pm #

    As far as I know a number of the candidates are also endorsers but don’t automatically endorse themselves.

  43. Jake October 10, 2013 at 1:19 am #

    Coolidge was around before the press was as focused on personality as it is now and he wasn’t talkative. I think he’d be a 1 charisma.

  44. Jonathan October 10, 2013 at 8:18 am #

    @Jake. I think I’d give him a 2 in charisma. He seemed to have had some popularity. His stamina would definitely be a 1. He required about 14 hours of sleep.

    I often try to think what passed presidents would get in the charisma category. Some are perplexing. Washington might be a 5 because he was the most popular person in the World (maybe internationally as well); however, he wasn’t personally that charismatic. I’d probably still give him a 5.

    Charisma 5: Washington, Jackson, Grant (because viewed as a savior of the Union), TRoosevelt, FDR, JFK, Reagan (or 4), Clinton (or 4), Obama (or 4; maybe 5 the first time and 4 the second time)

    Charisma 4: Jefferson, Monroe, WHHarrison, Pierce, Lincoln, Cleveland (both times), Wilson, Harding, Eisenhower, GWBush

    Charisma 3: Van Buren, Polk, Taylor (would be 1 if not for war record), Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, McKinley, Taft, LBJ, Carter, GHWBush

    Charisma 2: JAdams, Madison, JQAdams, Buchanan, BHarrison, Coolidge, Hoover, Truman, Nixon, Ford

    Charisma 1: Tyler, Fillmore, AJohnson

  45. Jonathan October 11, 2013 at 4:54 pm #

    @Anthony

    I’ve made this request before, but I have some data now. I think the game is programmed to give the Republicans an inaccurate and unfair advantage. I don’t know if this is because Clinton is constantly hit by major scandals. This hurts her party and they never seem to recover. And when they seem to recover, the Republican party leaps up by 10%. Although this can/could happen, it shouldn’t happen all the time. Additionally, Clinton survived the Benghazi criticism. I don’t think she should be any more scandal-ridden than any of the other top contenders. I don’t know if this “glitch” occurs because of internal programming, or because of Clinton.

    I space-barred through 5 primaries. I played as Green and did nothing. Except for Green and Libertarian, I only used candidates that were already “On”. Here were the results in all 5 elections.

    The results:
    389 58.2 — Christie over Clinton
    464 54.5 — Christie over Biden
    404 52.0 — Christie over Cuomo
    418 57.5 — Christie over Clinton
    337 47.1 — Christie over Cuomo

    The shutdown has really hit the GOP hard (much harder than the Dems), I think the Democrats should start out with a big advantage. Also, Clinton soars above GOP candidates in polls. If this cannot be done, can you at least balance out the parties in the game? The simulation seems to work normally if I start with the general election, but the primary is pre-programmed for a CPU GOP landslide over a CPU DEM candidate.

  46. Jonathan October 11, 2013 at 6:09 pm #

    @Anthony part 2.

    State results last poll done in each state.
    (various polls collected by wikipedia:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016)

    Strong Republican (lead 10+)
    West Virginia
    Wyoming

    Leans Republican (lead by 3-9):
    Alaska
    Colorado
    Kansas
    Texas

    Toss up:
    Arkansas
    Florida
    Georgia
    Iowa
    Louisiana
    Montana

    Leans Democrat (lead by 3-9)
    Kentucky
    Minnesota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    North Carolina
    Pennsylvania
    Virginia
    Wisconsin

    Strong Democrat (lead 10+)
    Michigan
    New York
    Ohio

    I think some of the states at the primary point should change colors:

    Minnesota, Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin. Should definitely be some shade of Blue instead of a toss up or Red.

    I can’t find anything that should turn Red according to polls that isn’t already Red.

    Florida and Iowa should be toss ups. These are poll #s BEFORE the shutdown. The new polls may even favor Democrats even more. The current game favors the Republics both in the poll #s in the states and internally throughout the primaries, as I state in the post above.

  47. SANC October 11, 2013 at 8:27 pm #

    According to a Wall Street Journal poll only 24% of Americans have a favourable view of the Republicans, the lowest in the poll’s 24 year history.

  48. Jake October 12, 2013 at 10:37 pm #

    At least a good part of the Republicans’ low favorability numbers is because, unlike liberals who typically love their party and it’s leaders, a lot of conservatives are upset at their party’s leaders for their tendency to cave in and ineptness, along with general anti-long term incumbent feelings. So liberals don’t like them by default and many conservatives don’t like them either hence only 24% approval. What do the Democrats get in the same poll?
    I don’t hear liberals talk about primarying Reid or Pelosi, while a lot of conservatives want Boehner and McConnell gone.

  49. Jonathan October 12, 2013 at 10:53 pm #

    The poll that has Rep party at 24% has Dem party at 42%. Tea party ranks even lower than Reps in polls.

  50. Jake October 12, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

    What does it say about their numbers?

  51. Jonathan October 12, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

    They were about 2% lower than mainstream republicans

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes