President Forever 2016 v. 1.4.9 Test Release 1 has been released. This adds the Green party, sets Marco Rubio’s immigration position to center-left, expands the Campaign Editor to include creating and deleting issues, fixes a few bugs, 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.
103 thoughts on “Release: President Forever 2016 v. 1.4.9 Test Release 1”
I think yall are under estimating Cruz powerin the primaries, in a recent poll, he gets 10% of the NH vote, and comes in 4th, behind paul 20% Christie 19% and Bush 14%, he also has been making a splash in Iowa, and percentages might need to be bumped up there. Bob Vander Plaats as well as other christian leaders in Iowa are praising Ted Cruz. Also his newest polling numbers nationally is at 8% and yall have him@ 5%
Also, is there a way that we could promote issues to high profile issues on the editor or could there be one???
Cruz should be higher, he’s polling better than people like McDonnell and Thune.
Bob Vander Plaats would probably stay with Santorum.
I have a question about these two updates:
“- Editor > fixed bug when made new party
– Editor > fixed bug when deleted leader”
On a previous version I attempted a scenario in which I did both of those things. When I tried to open it in the game I got the following error: “Access violation at address 031E5215 in module ‘xmltok.dll’. Write of address 04F48000”. Does this update fix that issue? I want to know for sure before I attempt such a scenario again.
@Kevin re: Cruz, thanks for this feedback – noted.
Re: issue profiles, yes. Go to ‘Regions’. Select the region from the drop-down box (or click ‘United States’). In the ‘Issues’ box, then set the Profile.
Those bug fixes fixed errors that occurred in the Editor, causing an error message (and probably would then cause an error in the game).
I can’t say whether the problem you were experiencing in particular was caused by them or not.
Please note the Editor is still considered to be in Beta. If you experience a problem with the latest version of the Editor, please e-mail us and I can look at it ( http://270soft.com/contact/ ).
Rep. Peter King of NY has already filed paper work to run for president. He’s further along in the process than all the other people in the game. If I remember correctly, he’s running to counter people like Cruz and Rand Paul, who he thinks are dangerous to the Republican party. He considers them knee-jerk isolationists:
Interesting…. I don’t know if he could stop them but best of luck to him… will y’all consider raising Cruz’s charisma everywhere he goes he seems to draw large crowds
I wouldn’t say he’s charismatic, I just think a lot of people agree with him or he knows how to make people think they agree with him. Charisma generally goes along with someone who is a great speaker, I don’t think he’s spectacular in that department. He also hasn’t the personality that Christie has. I’d just maybe raise his issue knowledge, perhaps, or debate skills to 4 (if they aren’t already). I’d give him a 3 for charisma, which is average.
Thanks for this – agreed. Cruz’s IF and Debating 3 -> 4 in latest internal
Re: Rep. King, now at top of list of possibles to add.
I would say Cruz has a folksy sort of soft charisma – I would give him a 3.5 if I could.
I would suggest maybe adding Syria as an Issue
Rep. Peter King now added in the latest internal.
@Kevin re: Syria, good point. I’m wondering whether it will still be on the radar in 2 years, though.
Here’s another Peter King article. He calls Cruz “a fraud”. You may want to make his relationship with Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, and any similar to them, as really poor. Maybe make him more supportive of more moderate Republicans like Christie and Huntsman. As such, he probably won’t be high in the polls in areas that are supportive of Cruz or Paul. He’d probably do better in areas that are known for moderate conservatives–his native NY, ME, MA, RI and CT.
oops forgot the article:
@Jonathan re: relations, good point – noted.
This link gives some interesting information. In the latest polls the leaders for Republican primaries are:
Alaska: Rand Paul and Jeb Bush are pretty strong here.
Arkansas: Rand Paul with Rubio close behind
Iowa: Rubio, Paul, Ryan are pretty even
Louisiana: Paul and Bush are about tied here.
New Hampshire: Paul and Christie are about tied here.
New Jersey: Christie destroys all other Republican candidates.
Ohio: Christie and Paul are tied
Virginia: Bush, Christie and Paul are about tied.
Wisconsin: Ryan is strong, Walker is 2nd, but pretty far behind.
Wyoming: Paul is leading
Hillary Clinton appears to lead every state for the Democrats.
Statewide recent polls for president. Will list only the surprises:
Clinton is leading in Arkansas
Christie leading in Colorado
Iowa is a tie
Clinton leads in Louisiana unless Bush is the nominee, then it is a tie
Also Michigan is strongly Democratic in the polls and it seems to go red a lot when i play. Same with Wisconsin.
Peter King would easily be ‘far-right’ on every topic related to military intervention but not conservative on economic issues. Where does this place him on the chart compared to someone like Paul?
Military intervention/defense spending/Iran/Syria?/war on terror-all far-right (King’s one of the most hawkish neoconservatives there is)
Government spending-probably center?
Gun control-Left or possibly center-left.
Being that Paul’s ‘left’ on the military-related issues, who does the game’s chart pin as further ‘right’?
He’s highly vindictive, and as such would have low charisma.
I don’t know Peter King enough to know what his charisma might be. However, this is Peter King on the Issues:
He’s very anti-abortion
He’s against gay marriage
He’s definitely right on education
He might be slightly left on Environment
He’s probably right on military intervention, rather than far-right. I don’t think he’s insane.
He’s pro-guns, but not overly so.
He follows Ryan on Health Care
I think he’ll like Huntsman on domestic issues a lot but while he’s a hawk, would he be enough of a war hawk for someone like King?
On another matter, I think it would be interesting to have the 1992 election in the scenarios with Clinton, Bush, Perot, and Buchanan. Possibly 1996.
Who would be far-right on military intervention as an example? King’s one of the most hardline people there on this along with McCain and Graham. From my observances of him he’s as hardline on military intervention as for example Tancredo would be on immigration.
King would proudly claim the label. There’s no nuances or moderation at all in any of his statements on topics related to it, he criticized Obama for seeking Congress to go to war in Syria and is a staunch defender of the NSA.
I’ve also heard he supports the assault weapons ban and the background checks bill. He’d be left or maybe center-left on guns.
He strongly opposes staying out of Iran per OnTheIssues (in other words, he wants to invade them which is the far-right position), and is rated D by the NRA indicating a pro-gun control stance.
And he is running for President because he sees Cruz, Paul, and the majority of 2013 Republicans as peaceniks. Who could be to his ‘right’ on military intervention?
I’d agree that he would be far-right if he’s clamoring for war against Iran and North Korea. A far-right interventionist would be trying to invade everything. A far-left interventionist would not go to war even if a holocaust were, and possibly if another 9-11 occurred plotted from a new country.
I rechecked the Iran position and I don’t know anybody, especially nobody in office who’s openly advocated that we should invade North Korea and the right-wing position is to invade Iran so I don’t know who we could say is far-right on that.
But is there anybody you would say is far-right on military intervention, as an example? King’s one of the two most neoconservative members of the House and I don’t see anybody to his ‘right’ on intervention.
While not on the Iran issue, I think he makes explicit he’s far-right on the military intervention, Syria (he criticized Obama for eventually consulting Congress) and war on terror issues.
We will see how Anthony judges this. If I made the game, I’d make him “right”, because I don’t think he’s always for war, just as a far-left person should be never for war. That’s just my rationale on the far-right and far-left positions. Those should always be used for extremist positions, bordering on the insane. I think he’s definitely a warhawk, but not clamoring for war at every opportunity.
I think he along with PNAC, McCain and Graham for example are always for war. I’ve actually been looking forward to when someone with that position would be added. It’d also ‘distinguish’ him on the WOT issue from many also since he so strongly supports the NSA.
Paul’s stats are ‘far-left’ on I think one military-related issue and ‘left’ish on others.
Depending on the issue, I don’t think it’s necessarily insane to have a hardline position on an issue (though invading NK for example would be clearly insane). While it’s clear if a person’s position is more hardline than most people’s, rather it makes them crazy can be up to people to decide.
I think King is just jealous of Cruz and Paul because they are making a bigger splash in current politics than he ever has..
Thanks guys for this discussion of King’s positions. Just to be clear, the Far-Left to Far-Right spectrum isn’t designed to capture only the views of those who are sitting members of Congress and so on. When deciding the positions, I look at the descriptions. If at some point I think the description isn’t quite right, I can change that. ‘Far-Left’ and ‘Far-Right’ are designed to be extremist positions that would rarely if ever fit a high-profile elected member of one of the two major parties.
Also a possible VP candidate for Paul or Cruz is Seen. Mike Lee
There are people in the scenario who are far-left or far-right on other issues though. It’s not that rare or necessarily crazy depending on the issue, just more hardline than most and an indication most of the time one probably feels strongly about the issue. Though other issues typically don’t have people in office with the far-right or left position).
This is probably TMI, but throughout the 2008, 12, and 16 scenarios for an incomplete list:
Huckabee and Bachmann are far-right on abortion, Warren is far-left on it.
Paul and Paul are far-right on government spending.
Paul, Paul, Cruz, and Johnson are far-right on education.
Cruz, Palin, Johnson, Perry, Bachmann, and Ventura are far-right on gun control (IMO Paul would be there too, as someone who has said if they could get the votes to have them all banned they would, Feinstein would be far-left but of course she’s not going to run for President).
Paul, Paul, Palin, and Johnson are far-right on healthcare. (Kucinich and Clinton are far-left on healthcare in 08)
Tancredo, Bachmann, and Hunter are far-right on immigration.
Paul, Paul and Cruz are far-right on role of government.
Cruz and Ventura are far-right on tax rates.
Paul, Johnson and Ventura are far-left on defense spending.
Paul, Paul, Perry, Johnson, and Ventura are far-right on Social Security.
Paul and Paul are far-right on unions.
Paul and Paul are far-left on WOT.
Paul was far-left and Hunter was far-right on homeland security (He was certainly a hawk, but McCain and Rudy were probably as hawkish as him from what I know) (McCain would be far-right on military intervention).
Kucinich was far-left on Iran & Iraq.
and Bachmann was far-right on SMM (because of her husband’s clinics).
I understand and agree with you though, that since nobody has been on a far-position on the military intervention issue yet and since it’s far positions imply either invading countries pretty much for the heck of it and never going to war even if attacked that it would be different from a lot of other issues on that. WOT would be different though.
I misread SMM as S and M and I thought, what? Now I realise you mean Same Sex Marriage.
There are a couple of bugs that I’ve noticed over a few releases.
1. After I fast forward to the nomination, when I create ads they are listed on the second screen (so I have to press the down arrow to see them) even though I haven’t created any other ads.
2. Also after I fast forward, my party’s momentum doesn’t appear, only the other party’s momentum.
“Also a possible VP candidate for Paul or Cruz is Seen. Mike Lee”
Good point – noted.
Thanks for this – noted.
I was playing the 2012 election, which was good fun after playing the 2016 exclusively. Can’t wait for more scenarios. Anyway, three things that need to be fixed in this election are:
1) Herman Cain set on “off”
2) Santorum is too weak. He always gets destroyed.
3) Ron Paul drops out early and endorses candidates he’d never endorse. Certain politicians should stay in no matter what and/or not endorse anyone unless they’re nearly identical to their platform.
Herman Cain is in the 2012 scenario now? When did they add him?
He should be set on and your other points also should be changed.
No, he isn’t. I’m suggestion he should be and turned “off”; unless, candidates are capable of dropping out before the primaries.
There’s a number of events about him and they’re nothing but deadwood as it is. Anyway, in the 1912 scenario the Socialists are overpowered. I just played a game where they won over 4 million votes and came 3rd in some states; this has been an issue for years I think; a small party doesn’t get attacked and so they can just increase votes unihindred in spite of their low money. This isn’t due to any poor play on my part either, I won the popular vote; as Taft! The fact that I was 92 electoral votes short and Wilson 58 short didn’t matter because the Congress is Republican. I also think the party goal for the Republicans is too high. They only won 8 electoral votes historically and have to win 266 to get a highscore? While these games are too easy (but very fun nonetheless, mind) with how powerful ads are and the amount of undecided and leaning voters I doubt you could pull off that feat. Long post I know but these things have glared at me for years apart from the 1912 issues of course.
Oh one more thing. Surely the labor unions would be Left and not Right.
Yeah, labor unions should be left in 1912, or at any time. 1912 is in Beta Mode, Anthony hasn’t been improving it since it was released. It will probably operate much differently once he cleans it up. I hope there’s a way to have TR start a 3rd party if he doesn’t get nomination, rather than having to elect him as running separately at the beginning of the primaries. This would also add more surprise in all the elections if there is a chance a strong losing candidate, with a high level of independence, loses the nomination.
1912 is way more playable than when it came out first, almost finished I’d say.
I kind of wish the game, rather than having just a % of voters you have to win over, have to win over a % of a type of voters. For instance, Tea Party voters, libertarians, paleo-conservatives, progressives, independents, rhinos, dinos, family labor, moderates, etc. Certain politicians would be capable of winning these people to their side and some would never be able to win a certain group of voters. This would make the game much tougher for a Cruz vs Clinton matchup. One would have a challenge trying to get Cruz to cater to moderates, he’d have to change his political platform–make compromises–in order to win them over and hope his base doesn’t become upset. Also, picking a VP that helps solidify the ticket, for instance, what McCain did by picking Palin, might strengthen the ticket because the ticket now reaches to more voters; however, it can backlash, as the Palin choice did, and send independents, moderates and rinos to Obama’s ticket.
Is there any way to add events to scenarios?
That actually wouldn’t be that challenging of a scenario: Like Jeb Bush, Clinton would get the party’s partisans but wouldn’t be able to attract independent voters and even a good number of anti-war progressives may side with Paul or Cruz over her.
Well, still a tough match of course, but it certainly wouldn’t mean Cruz et al would be doomed by Hillary unless they change their positions.
Because of her baggage, Clinton tends to get a lot of scandals in the game. I think it’s appropriate.
I think the scandals are a little too extreme. Republicans almost win every election that Clinton is in, because her scandals knock down the entire Democratic party by 10 pts. I think it would hurt herself, but wouldn’t impact the party that much during the primaries. I think she could be prone to a scandals, but she is constantly hit with them until the Republicans end up taking Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida and never giving them back. I do think she should get a lot of scandals, but I’d like to see it toned down on how it effects the entire party.
Ted Cruz might have a higher “how well known” number since his 21 hour 19 min filibuster for defunding Obamacare.
Also might raise his numbers, kinda like paul and his 13 hour drone filibuster
Also will yall be making a 2014 version for congress forever?
Also on his feet for 21 hours and 19 minutes might mean his stamina might need to be bumped up…
He also alienated a lot of republicans. The media is tearing him apart. Even Rubio and rand Paul slightly distance themselves from Cruz. I think it was a political blunder for Cruz. If anything it would decrease his skills as a candidate in the game.
If Paul and Rubio “distanced themselves” from him they wouldn’t have helped him Rubio asked a 50 minute question so Cruz could rest his voice… you would have think Paul would have distanced himself with his drone filibuster but he sky rocketed in the polls. Younger conservatives like to see people standing up for what we believe in and that is exactly what Cruz did, and Paul did earlier. I still don’t know anyone who could still go on after a 21 hour and 19 min filibuster and still ask for more time… BIG STATEMENT by Cruz and I appreciate him actually listening to the American people unlike McCain and side with the democrats. And the only reason the media is ripping on him is because the media is Obama’s puppets, they see nothing a republican does as good and everything a democrat does is like gold. I would like to see Cruz debate Clinton. He would get the truth about Benghazi out of her and more.
You can always edit Ted Cruz 5’s in every category if that is what you consider as accurate. Personally, I think he’s cancerous, but I’m a Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich-type progressive. I don’t like the mainstream parties either, but I consider Cruz’s direction the best worse than both mainstream parties. I do give him props for not wanting to go into wars, but I’m not one-issue voter. I care more about social programs, education, wage laws, healthcare, jobs, worker’s rights, and most importantly, diminishing the income gap inequality. I’m sort of disappointed that there isn’t a politician I really like for the 2016 election. There’s a whole horde of those I dislike–Cruz, Paul, Perry, Palin, Bachman. The one Republican I admire is Jon Huntsman. But I still wouldn’t vote for him over a Democrat, unless the Democrat was so unintelligent that he’d ruin the party.
Bernie Sanders>Dennis Kucinich>Alan Grayson>Elizabeth Warren>Barack Obama>Hillary Clinton>Jon Huntsman>Chris Christie>Mitt Romney>John McCain>Vladimir Putin>George W. Bush>Rand Paul>Ron Paul>Rick Perry>Ted Cruz>Sarah Palin
Well if it makes you people feel any better with my combination of views one candidate or party will nearly always look about as bad as the other. Thankfully I don’t have to choose between Democrat or Republican but I do pay attention to the whole thing so I know what the internet is on about. Luckily in Ireland I do have a party to identify with, even if not strongly. I waited years in my teens to get the vote and ever since I’ve had it I’ve voted at every possible opportunity (the coalition’s 7TH referendum in only its 3rd year is coming up and I can’t wait).
I’m just wondering, don’t take it as anything else but how can you be a Kucinich progressive if you prefer MIC-owned establishment figures like Hillary, Obama, Christie, and war-happy Peter King, Romney, McCain, and Bush over Paul and Cruz? Kucinich is actually a lot closer to Paul than to Hillary or the wimpy media-approved “moderates” that the MSNBC/CNN liberals trot out and think we should take as gospel (and lecture us if we dislike even though they would react the same if the tactic was used on them).
I’m a hardcore libertarian and even I’ve learned to like Alan Grayson even though I disagree with him on some things and used to dislike him for his tendency to make inflammatory partisan attack dog statements and misrepresent a lot of people on healthcare, until I found out how good he was on a lot of things. He’s great on the Fed, the NSA (that’s not “supporting the allegedly ‘scandal-free’ president” like the MSNBC authoritarians want) and has been on the frontline fighting the push for war in Syria, if the game’s correct he’s even for gun rights, so he’s one of my favorite Democrats and the only one I play with much.
I think it’s important people unite against the government establishment that’s oppressing everybody instead of getting mired in partisan finger-pointing blame games that distract from the fact that they’re all in the same game together and there’s not much difference between most of them rather it’s Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Jeb, Christie, Cuomo, Biden, or Hillary. The media only wants people to obsess over the letter after a politician’s name and say “it’s okay when we do it”.
Most of them don’t have principles like Paul and Cruz do.
I actually prefer Kucinich or Grayson to a McCain or a Bush. (I think if Grayson runs he might own Hillary in the debates even though unfortunately wouldn’t win, which would be a delight to see) I think the establishment in both parties and the divide and conquer partisanship they spread are doing a lot of damage to the country.
Paul and Cruz have an uphill battle running against the establishment’s machine in the election, but they’ll bring up points against Hillary and the GOP establishment that most Americans agree with.
If the election’s fair Paul might even win it.
I care more about social issues than whether or not we go to war. I prefer we never go to war, but that isn’t what I base my vote on. Socially, Kucinich is closer to Obama and Clinton than Paul or Cruz. I believe in liberal-progressive social programs and will vote for candidates based on these, rather than on foreign policy or defense programs. Cruz and Paul want to cut education funding, get rid of minimum wage, etc. Regular Republicans at least can compromise. I’d move to Europe if Cruz or Paul were elected; although, I think they haven’t a shot in a general election, as all moderates, and most independents would never follow their radicalism. Likewise, kucinich or I would never get elected, because we’re radicals, too, just the other direction of Cruz and Paul.
@Jake, part 2
Basically, I care a lot about poor people, disadvantaged people, immigrants, and minorities. Kucinich does/did a lot for them. Cruz/Paul only believe in the pursuit of happiness for people who are well off or in the situation where they can pursue it. Some people need help.
When will the new update be out?
I’ve been doing a lot of work in the core data structures of the game to allow for adding features. I’m guessing end of next week will be a new version, including an Independent Bloomberg candidacy as an option in the 2016 campaign.
Excellent! Can’t wait!
He’d probably have a lot of money, like Perot did (even more, actually). He’d probably instantly start off better than, at least, the Green Party. His strength would be in states with large cities that have Fortune 500 companies, centrist. I’d say the tri-state area of NY, CT, and NJ he’d have about 10% at the start (if he ran). He’d have 5% in Massachusetts (he was born there, too), Florida (Jewish population and big businesses), Illinois (bc of Chicago), California (LA, and SF). 3% in Texas (Dallas, Houston), and 1% everywhere else.
He’d have high stamina, issue knowledge and debate. His charisma would be low (rich and history of flip flopping). His PAC might be stronger than normal. He’d probably be more scandal prone than other politicians. His ad strength would be really strong because he owns a media company. Basically, he’d start out weak, but he’s got more strengths than Perot had going in. The Economist would probably favor him. However, he’d have an impossible time with middle america and with anyone that isn’t center-left, centrist, or center-right.
Cruz now leads Public Policy’s National Polling. Granted, this is probably (and, for the sake of democracy, hopefully) just a bump from the latest Healthcare debate. Just further evidence, however, of what people mentioned before, that Cruz’s numbers should increase.
It also says he gets only 4% with moderates in that poll. Christie gets 34% with moderates. This means the poll was taken overwhelmingly by very conservative republicans which means it isn’t accurate. This also shows he’d get trampled in a general election as independents would probably pick the most moderate candidate. Cruz is a radical. He’d lose in a landslide. He’d probably get on as a Vice President at best.
For the record, PPP don’t weight for partisan and ideological identification. A big part of the Republicans who answered the poll simply happened to identify as somewhat or very conservative, and a relatively small part identified as moderate. Cruz certainly does have different appeal to the Republican primary electorate than to the general electorate, though.
I’d also disagree somewhat with Jonathan’s assessment of Bloomberg’s strengths – he wouldn’t reach 10% in NY-NJ-CT, as the “moderates” are becoming more and more partisan. 5% tops. His areas of strength I agree big with, though. I’d guess he should start at around 2% nationally, but sitting on huge amounts of cash.
it is a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY POLL, and they might view themselves “very conservative” because of their view on one thing. Also there are more conservative or very conservative voters than moderate voters in the Republican Party so it is very accurate, but again no poll is accurate except the one that matters THE ELECTION.
here is the statistical breakdown of the poll
Still very conservatives would be outnumbered by moderates and conservatives. Christie tops cruz if you consider moderates and conservatives and leave out the very conservatives. I’d say nationally that Christie still tops the list with Cruz Paul bush Ryan and Rubio about tied. It is a misleading poll. You have to take in account the sizes of the actual ideologies. This poll shows that very conservatives disproportionately answered the poll. They may have been more eager to answer because they’re more opinionated. Moderates waffle around around until closer to the election and so may not have been interested in the poll.
I’d really like certain candidates to be better at picking up moderates, independents, base supporters and extremists on each side of the spectrum. This way, someone like Christie or huntsman might have a hard time in the primaries but will do well in the general election. Someone like Cruz might do well in the primaries but get trounced in the general election. It would make politicians have to flip flop to try and win voters, which is realistic. Also some politicians never evolve on issues like Ron Paul or Ted Cruz so they’d be less likely to pick up the people they need to.
Mitt Romney also had to flip flop on issues and he was a MODERATE!!! I don’t think modersaates fair better in elections, if that was the case Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have won his election, and note i have won the primaries with Christie Cruz and Paul, but the only ones i have one the presidential election with are Cruz and Paul, when i won with Paul, Cruz was vp and when i won with Cruz, Paul was my VP. I would support an increase in Cruz’s numbers and Stamina.
Also make a note on page 3, with the break down of ideologies, Ted Cruz got 32% of the “Very Liberal” vote, 16% of the “Somewhat Liberal” vote, 4% of the “Moderate Vote”, 13^% of the “Somewhat Conservative” vote, and 34% of the “Very Conservative” vote, only behind Christie by 6% of Very liberal voters, and 3% behind him on Somewhat Liberal voters, therefore the argument that Cruz doesn’t appeal to anyone but extreme conservatives
First things first – the Republicans calling themselves “very liberal” and even “somewhat liberal” are too few to use as a meaningful sample size. They might be people trolling the pollster, or with generally idiosyncratic views.
@Jonathan: While the very conservative may be more enthusiastic about answering the poll, they are also more enthusiastic about voting in the primaries. I’d say the numbers make sense.
That isn’t good reasoning. You can’t base an increase in numbers or abilities based off of a computer game. A Cruz/Paul or Paul/Cruz ticket would be particularly bad for a Republican party, because it would ignore more than half of their voters, who consider Cruz and Paul pariah. That ticket would give Hillary Clinton a landslide victory, and possibly splinter the Republican party permanently.
Reagan won because Carter was an extremely poor president who lost support from his own party. Obama, as much as one dislikes him, still had a lot of personal popularity from his party going into 2012. Hillary Clinton is even more popular and respected than Obama.
Personally, I think Romney did extremely well versus Obama. I was afraid he might win. A lot of that was because he was a moderate that switched back to more moderate talk right before the election. He pretended to be “severely” conservative to win those votes over and picked Paul Ryan to balance his ticket. Ted Cruz would need someone like Jon Huntsman to balance his ticket, because he’s so extreme. It would also be a nice gesture to those who do not like Cruz in the Republican party, and it would show some sign that he’d be willing to listen to other views. Romney ended up getting a lot of his endorsements to stave off Santorum or Gingrich winning the nomination, because they knew Romney would have wider appeal. Cruz hasn’t wide appeal. I say this as someone who loved Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich did not have wide appeal and as much as I think he’d carry a great platform as a president, I know he’d never get elected because you have to appeal to moderates, your base, and your more extreme elements, and, hopefully, some people from the other party. Cruz can only count on half of his party. The game would be more realistic if you collected voters from each type of voter. If it’s ten days until the election and moderates are overwhelmingly undecided, you can’t expect Cruz to pick any of them up unless he says stuff that makes him sound like Chris Christie and not Ted Cruz. It’s the basic nature of politics.
Yeah, that “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” part of the poll is confusing. I don’t know what there definition is. I don’t know if that means libertarians, or something more socialist. I think the former rather than the latter, because he’s completely against almost everything a socialist/progressive/green party person would want. Therefore, if that is talking about libertarians, then that is another small % of the entire pie. Moderate and somewhat conservative are probably the largest pieces, that’s where he fairs worst.
Anyway, it’s up to Anthony. It’s his game, but hopefully he’ll consider more than just one misleading poll. I’m kind of glad the media is hyping up Ted Cruz because it will be easier to knock him back down, because there’s about 3 years left to discredit him.
Here are factions for both parties to consider, possibly for the game as well.
FIscal Conservatives: example, Jeb Bush
Social Conservatives (Tea Party): Santorum, Huckabee, Palin, Perry
Neocons: McCain, Cheney, Peter King
Moderates: Huntsman, Christie
Centrist: Colin Powell, Schwarzenegger (these voters can even vote Democrat)
Libertarian: Paul and Paul
Republican voters: Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, LGBTs
Each would have a different amount of voters (with some overlap) and each would vote or would not vote for certain politicians based off of that candidates platforms. Social Conservatives would naturally support candidates that are “Right” or “Far right” on the social issues, for example.
Progressive Democrats: Kucinich, Grayson, Sanders (Socialist)
Liberal Democrats: Obama, Ted Kennedy (was one), Pelosi
New Democrats (Centrist): Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner
Blue Dog Democrats (Conservative): Landrieu, Zell Miller (these could possibly vote for a moderate Republican)
Minority Democrat voters: Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, LGBTs
Likewise, certain politicians based off of their platforms would have the ability to attract certain voters or drive them away. My heroes, Kucinich or Sanders, would unfortunately, drive Blue Dogs and New Democrats possibly to vote for a Republican. Likewise, Cruz/Paul would push certain elements into voting for a Democrat or to not voting at all. As much as I like Kucinich/Sanders, I realize I’d have to settle with the most progressive Democrat that can reach out to the most voters. I think including these voters in the game would bring a lot of realism, and more strategic depth to the game, as well as more realistic results.
A lot of Independents have a deep aversion to politicians in general and thus to establishment candidates and people who have been in politics for decades or look like they’re getting by due to their family connections like Clinton or Bush. Many independents, conservative and liberal, don’t like fence-sitting. Paul or Cruz would do better with them than someone with as much baggage as Clinton.
And look at Perot, or to a lesser extent Nader. If you alienate your base, they might stay home or vote for a third party candidate who’s closer to their views.
PPP sampled primary voters, most republicans would prefer cruz to christie because there’s more that are ideological conservatives than moderates. PPP has never been known as conservative-leaning.
The media in general and to a lot of people on even fox would prefer to promote christie or huntsman than cruz.
Jeb Bush wouldn’t appeal to fiscal conservatives, he’d appeal to the GOP establishment and the people who loved his brother (who fiscal conservatives like the club for growth weren’t wild about), perhaps Hispanics also. More moderate than anything.
The Tea Party would be fiscal conservatives, and many of them don’t consider Huckabee or Santorum (Huck with more of them) one of their own. Both have a combination of religious right views with support for government programs that alienate the Tea Party though they do firmly appeal to the religious right faction. Palin’s not as explicitly religious right as them though still appeals to them, and Perry is evangelical but also can make pitches to fiscal tea partiers, which Santorum and Huckabee can’t do.
Santorum and Huckabee would be in the religious right faction and Bush would be moderate/establishment.
Cruz, Palin, and Perry would also appeal to the religious right, but unlike the above two they can make pitches to the fiscal cons also. You could say they’re in the mainline tea party faction.
Though they might not have a major candidate who fits their views 100% in the next election, there’s also the paleoconservative faction.
Why is it the “centrist” Republicans can be willing to vote for any Democrat, but the “conservative” Democrats (I personally don’t consider Landrieu one but that’s my take) will only vote for a moderate Republican regardless of the Democrats’ candidate?
Your concept’s interesting enough but we can’t have biases rather it’s either of ours in the game.
There’s also single-issue voters that could be considered.
For instance, voters who only care about abortion on both sides.
That was just a mistype. I should have typed that those specific Republicans might vote for a moderate/centrist Democrat. Sorry for that error. I didn’t leave that out to be biased. I just somehow forgot to type it, or thought it was understood that that was what I meant.
I agree that single-issue voters should be considered.
I listed Bush as a fiscal conservative because he is considered such on wikipedia.
I do understand that many independents don’t like fence-sitter, but you aren’t going to have a Kucinich or Sanders Progressive voting for a Ted Cruz, just because he’s anti-establishment. They’d (myself included) would probably leave the country if he or Paul were elected. Far-left voters will either vote Green, Socialist or for the Democratic candidate any time over a Republican, Christie or Cruz. Likewise, I can’t fathom a Cruz supporter voting for Kucinich over Chris Christie, because of Kucinich’s views on guns, abortion, welfare, education, unions, tax, etc. Only single-issue independents might jump the whole political spectrum to vote for someone that might be the polar opposite of their best interest.
I was thinking about setting a limit of 82%; that is no candidate can get any higher than this on a nationwide scale to simulate single issue fanatics who wouldn’t vote for a candidate who’s against just one of their views if he or she walked across the Potomac in the morning. In practice I don’t know how a candidate could get to 82 anyway unless they were opposed though even then strange things can happen (Jef Davis won the only Confederate election unopposed but 0.3% of the votes weren’t for him, I don’t understand this.)
Well maybe they would because Christie and Kucinich have the same gun viewa
Wikipedia can sometimes be unreliable and I say that as an occasional editor.
I know we’re working on redoing the 2008 scenario first, what election will be added to the editor after that?
A lot of libertarians I know like Kucinich more than GW Bush (who we consider a socialist anyways), and Paul has some liberal fans (though Cruz likely won’t get many) but different voters make different things their big issues.
I’ve been wanting Roseanne added to the Green Party roster, but honestly I don’t know what many of her positions would be.
Which reminds me, her name recognition is an advantage over a lot of third party candidates. Name recognition could be a factor in how people vote.
“Wikipedia can sometimes be unreliable and I say that as an occasional editor.” Yes indeed. I only tend to rely on it if I don’t think there’s a better source like for how US Presidential elections went I look at that Stamford course or the Civil War Trust for American Civil War information.
I edit and create wikipedia articles also. I suppose any Republican can be considered fiscal conservatives. I suppose what the article meant was that he was a Republican more for fiscal reasons than social reasons.
Some of Huntsman’s issues should probably be changed according to:
Same-Sex marriage should go from Center to Center-Left or Left for him.
Military intervention looks like it should go from right to center-right
War on Terror, likewise, looks like he should go from right to center-right
Going to states profiles due to recent state recall elections in Colorado where 2 democratic state senators, in very democratic districts i might add, were thrown out of office because of votes supporting gun control, would this change the states profile on how high the issue is ranked as well as on the position??
He wasn’t called a fiscal conservative because he is one but because someone either had bad information, worked for his campaign, or just wanted to put down whatever they wanted. Wikipedia’s like that a lot. From what I know he mainly focuses on education-related issues (I think he supports common core) and immigration.
Both his father Mr. “read my lips, no new taxes” and his brother Mr. TARP, Medicare Part D and two unfunded wars were famously not fiscally conservative. You’d be surprised how many Republicans aren’t, but really many in both parties are owned by big businesses. Corporatism it’s called.
Should we have a name recognition stat so candidates everyone knows have a polling advantage over little-known candidates?
I don’t think a name recognition stat is necessary. Well-known politicians will just have a higher% at the beginning of the game because they’re well-known. Although, it might be nice to have so low-profile politicians, like Alan Grayson, can strengthen their name recognition so they can improve their campaigning skills.
On another note, I’d like to see the endorsers who endorsed a losing candidate in the primaries have the chance to endorse the eventual nominee. For instance, Bill Clinton supported his wife, but then supported Obama. Likewise, candidates that drop out should be able to campaign for the eventual nominee, even if they aren’t in Congress. Also, I think when the general election starts, I think the PIP price for having an endorser campaign should be changed to CP pts, because these people would now be fighting for their party’s dominance. In short, they’re fighting for themselves, also, at this point. And usually, all the Congress men are campaigning for their candidate as it gets close to the election.
How about some randomized events for 2016. I know we don’t know what will happen, but you could give some sort of % chance that the economy goes up or down, or a political party’s approval rating goes up or down, or some issues becomes more or less important because of some sort of event. You could replace all these fictional events once we actually get closer to the time that the game takes place, but these events would bring more realism to the game.
@Jonathan re: randomized events,
I think this is a good idea. There could be branching timelines based on current trajectories and possible changes. It’s just a matter of priorities right now, but I would like to see this happen.
“I’d like to see the endorsers who endorsed a losing candidate in the primaries have the chance to endorse the eventual nominee. For instance, Bill Clinton supported his wife, but then supported Obama. Likewise, candidates that drop out should be able to campaign for the eventual nominee, even if they aren’t in Congress. Also, I think when the general election starts, I think the PIP price for having an endorser campaign should be changed to CP pts, because these people would now be fighting for their party’s dominance. In short, they’re fighting for themselves, also, at this point. And usually, all the Congress men are campaigning for their candidate as it gets close to the election.”
All good points, noted.
@Jake re: name recognition stat,
It’s a good idea – there was one in 2008, but it made things more complex while I didn’t feel it added significant playability. It’s something to think about, however – thanks for this.
Chuck Hagel would be a possible VP for Bloomberg. Hagel is mentioned as saying he’d share a ticket with him. This is on Bloomberg’s wikipedia page. I don’t if you had any speculative VP choices for him yet, but that’s the only tangible choice I can find. Trump is a very off possibility, but Bloomberg is probably too wise to select him. I could see him picking someone more progressive than himself to off-set his billionaire image.
Bloomberg/Trump would make the ticket ineligible for New York’s electoral votes, and both are too connected with New York to “do a Cheney” and switch their residency.
Good point. I didn’t think about that.