Upcoming President Infinity – Version Amundsen – 1.9.7

Hi everyone,

This post will keep track of changes to the upcoming version of President Infinity v. Amundsen – 1.9.7, and includes an estimated release date for it (as with any estimate, this can change).

Est. release date: Saturday, April 25th.

Changes so far (this list will be updated as changes are implemented on this side, these changes will not be available until the version is released):

  • “Processing Turn” message date format changed, for example “11/02/2015” is now “Monday, November 2nd, 2015”
  • Main Screen > Surrogates can now fundraise
  • Main Screen > if Surrogate already Barnstorming, now can’t add Spinning
  • Main Screen > if Surrogate already Spinning, now can’t add Barnstorming
  • Surrogates Screen > wider
  • Surrogates Screen > now clearer what Surrogate’s Barnstorming, Fundraising, and Spin attributes are
  • Surrogates Screen > if Barnstorming, no longer shows, for example, ‘4/4/4 (in theme)’, but rather ‘Barnstorming Power 4′
  • Constituency Screen > added more popup help
  • Fixed bug where would get ‘successfully spun story’ message every time spun story, regardless of whether successful
  • Mac > fixed bug that caused game to exit before starting on some systems
  • 2016 > added Carly Fiorina, 2%, 10% in California
  • 2016 > added Lindsey Graham, 2%, 8% in South Carolina
  • 2016 > Ben Carson > Ground 1 -> 2
  • 2016 > Jim Webb > removed Barack Obama as Surrogate
  • 2016 > Endorsers > updated ids (for example, Joni Ernst now has an id of joni_ernst instead of tom_harkin)
  • 2016 > Endorsers > Mitch McConnell > Rand Paul -> 100
  • Offers > if get VP or endorsement of another player, if they are also an endorser then they are set to endorsed

37 thoughts on “Upcoming President Infinity – Version Amundsen – 1.9.7

  1. Main Screen > Surrogates can now fundraise.
    Main Screen > if Surrogate already Barnstorming, now can’t add Spinning.
    Main Screen > if Surrogate already Spinning, now can’t add Barnstorming.
    Surrogates Screen > wider.
    Surrogates Screen > now clearer what Surrogate’s Barnstorming, Fundraising, and Spin attributes are.
    Surrogates Screen > if Barnstorming, no longer shows, for example, ‘4/4/4 (in theme)’, but rather ‘Barnstorming Power 4′.
    Constituency Screen > added more popup help.
    Fixed bug where would get ‘successfully spun story’ message every time spun story, regardless of whether successful.

  2. Glad to see Carly will be included in this release. She is slowly rising in the polls, and can make a big impact on the GOP nomination. For starters, due to her ability to finance her own campaign, how much will she start with in the primaries?

  3. @Dallas Rising in the polls? She has been included in 11 national polls. She got 10% in one strange poll mid-march but in the other 10 polls she has only been polling between 1%-2%.

    Statewide she has been included in a few Iowa polls where she polls between 1% and 2%.
    In Kansas she got 0.37% in one poll and 0.46% in another. 1% in Nevada, 1.9%, less than 1%, a couple 1%’s and one 4% one from Gravis. 1% in NJ, 2% in SC. 0% in FL and 0.5% in WI.

    Besides those two polls where she gets 10% and 4%, she has been 2% or under in ever other poll nationally and statewide both before and after those 10% and 4% polls. At this point, I wouldn’t start her with anything above 2% in the game. I would give her more like 10% in CA though.

  4. In addition to Aaron’s question, what polls do you use to allocate percentages? RCP polling average?

  5. @Aaron re %s,

    Fiorina is at 2% nationally, with 10% in California, I believe.

    No decision yet on Pataki and Graham. Graham will probably start fairly strong in SC.

    @Eric,

    We use various publicly available polls, but I don’t believe we’ve been using the RCP average. Typically, it’s looking at recent national poll numbers as a basis, then look at state polls where available.

  6. 2016 > Endorsers > updated ids (for example, Joni Ernst now has an id of joni_ernst instead of tom_harkin).

  7. I’ve noticed on occasion that the election is called and then someone else wins. Also, and this is just a personal preference, I think it would be more exciting for the “race is called” prompt to occur later, say no earlier than “11pm EST”

    I’ve seen that thing popup as Illinois is coming in and its a buzz kill.

  8. @Nick,

    Thanks for this – election night will be modified regarding this, but I don’t have an ETA yet.

  9. I’m wondering if McConnell’s endorsement is really “100” and not, say, “75.” They disagree on so many things. Is it an official endorsement?

  10. @Jonathan,

    I believe Rand Paul secured McConnell’s endorsement in return for Paul’s endorsement during McConnell’s Senate campaign, when things were looking like Grimes might be competitive.

  11. Well Rubio isn’t the “front runner.” He has a MoE lead in the two most recent polls (Fox and Quinnipiac). Prior to that, he hasn’t had a lead since Spring 2013. While he has gotten a boost from his campaign launch, he is far from being considered the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. That is still Jeb Bush followed by Scott Walker, then it would be Rubio followed by Cruz, Huckabee and Paul.

  12. @Aaron,

    I think you’re right that there really isn’t a clear front runner (although Jonathan is right that technically, based on the latest polls, he’s probably the front runner at this point). Rather, there are 6 front runners (the ones you’ve named). It seems to me that any one of those are plausible winners of the nomination at this point.

  13. @Anthony

    Would it be too much to make a scroll bar on the candidate/scenario intro/bios? In 1916, I was typing out long informative bios for each candidate, but they get cut off.

    Basically my format I’m going for is this:

    The blurb: “Can a business man with no political experience win the nomination?” or something like that.

    Bio up to the election time:

    Information about the strengths and weaknesses of their campaign

    What actually happened to them in the election and their career after the election.

    If they are a what-if candidate, I’d explain that reasons for why they are in the game, followed by an instructions on who should be turned ON and who should be turned OFF.

  14. @Jonathan,

    I’ve added it to the to-do list as something to look at. I think it’s a good idea to allow campaign designers more space for candidate blurbs.

  15. @Eric,

    The leader attributes are a composite of how someone is perceived and how they are. So, those sorts of poll numbers are a piece of evidence in support of a change to 4 Leader and 2 Integrity, but in themselves I don’t think are sufficient.

    @Bubbles,

    Not for the time being. The Steering Council recently voted against a Trump addition, but for a Chafee addition. If he’s still campaigning in a month or two, that might change.

  16. I’d say Hillary Clinton’s leadership and integrity numbers are about where they should be. If she’s an integrity of 2 or a leadership of 4, then it will probably be revealed by the time of the convention.

    I think she could be a leadership of 4, but it’s hard to tell if she has command of the party because of her leadership skills or for other reasons. I’d probably place her at 4, though.

    I don’t think her integrity is just about as high or low as any other politician; therefore, 3 is good. Her scandals are fairly minor. They aren’t slowing her down like Christie’s scandals are doing to him.

  17. On another note, I wouldn’t be surprised if Chafee and O’Malley are running to show that Clinton is a moderate. O’Malley,who is really more moderate than Clinton, will run to her left, and Chafee to the right. She’ll appeal to progressives by being more liberal than Chafee, and she’ll appeal to centrists for being more moderate than O’Malley.

    Although not planned, the 1948 election was similar. Many think the reason Harry S Truman scored a surprise victory against Thomas Dewey is because he had two democrats running to the left (Wallace-Progressive) and right (Thurmond-States Rights) of him, which protected Truman from called of being labeled a Socialist and appealed to Northerners for not seeming too Conservative.

    Basically, I think the O’Malley and Chafee candidacies are designed to help Clinton. She can also debate them and get practice. I think its a good move.

  18. Offers > if get VP or endorsement of another player, if they are also an endorser then they are set to endorsed.

  19. @Jonathan
    There’s a difference between “any other politician” and “presidential candidate”. People expect better of the latter. Your comparison with Christie is thin: Christie’s major scandals are hugging Obama after Sandy and closing two lanes on a bridge. Clinton has a decades-long history of being investigated for financial irregularities. This includes lobbying on behalf of specific companies that just happened to give generously to the Clinton Foundation. Even if it’s not specifically bribery, it indicates that she can be influenced rather easily. Besides, in this day and age “about as corrupt as any other politician” is not exactly a strong selling point in an election.
    Christie is not being “slowed down”: he never really had momentum in the first place. He became popular for being brash and publicly venting frustration, which connected with millions who shout at their TV screens. His policies and record hurt him enough. Besides, he doesn’t have the affirmative action defense.

    Truman may have won because of that, but it was probably more because he came across as an exciting, dynamic “man of the people” while Dewey was an aloof elitist. Clinton is trying the “born in a log cabin” campaign that worked so well for William Henry Harrison, but people today know better. It doesn’t help her that she tries to sound like a left-wing populist (“topple the 1%”), people are reminded that she IS the 1%.
    If O’Malley’s and Chafee’s runs are for the purpose you suggest, why is Clinton trying so hard to sound left-wing? And O’Malley is criss-crossing the country, spending tremendous time and effort on his not-yet-official run; his running to the left is more likely an attempt to get the Elizabeth Warren wing to support him.

  20. @Eric

    I disagree with most of this comment. If you look at Christie’s poll numbers a year ago, he was often a frontrunner. Additionally, he was seen as doing better than all other Republicans in the general election polls. Now look at his polls after each scandal, he never recovers from them. He’s pretty much been hammered down to insignificant (although, I think he can improve once the debates start).

    Clinton’s scandals have done little to her, almost to the point that people forget about them. She isn’t associated with scandal; yet, Christie is much more attached to that word if you pay close attention to the media. Although, I think it’s a reasonable argument to say that a lot of his decline is due to New Jersey’s economy; yet, NJ supports him for president.

    You may be right about O’Malley really trying to run for president. I wasn’t saying that wasn’t the case. I was saying that I wouldn’t be surprised if they were trying something like that. You ask, why is Clinton trying so hard to sound “left-wing?” It’s the same reason why Republican candidates are trying to sound “right-wing.” They’re playing to their base right now. If you ask most progressive Democrats, such as myself, we don’t really consider her that left-wing. We think of her as a main-stream liberal, which is center-left. Remember, Obama campaigned as left-wing, but ended up being center-left, with rare flashes of left, although Republicans will try to claim he’s far-left, just as Democrats will try to claim that Romney, Bush or McCain are far-right. It’s politics.

Leave a Comment