President Forever 2016 v. 1.6.1 Released!

President Forever 2016 v. 1.6.1 has been released! This version adds an initial 1968 Beta campaign, and fixes a couple of bugs, among other things.

Feedback welcome on the 1968 Beta in particular!

Credits: thanks to Nelson Perras for very significant design contributions on the 1968 campaign.

Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!

To update:

Version information:

26 thoughts on “President Forever 2016 v. 1.6.1 Released!”

  1. The 1968 campaign gameplay should change once we have a feature currently being worked on fully implemented that allows players to enter the race at variable times.

  2. I have yet to playthrough (right about to start a game as RFK or LBJ), but the first thing I noticed was that RFK has waaaaaaay too much experience in relation to Nixon. RFK having 5 experience for being Attorney General and short time in the Senate doesn’t make sense when compared to Nixon having 3 experience despite being Vice President, a one time Presidential nominee and a member of Congress. I’d put Nixon up at a 4 or even a 5, as going into office he was one of the most experienced candidates in modern political history (experience was practically his entire campaign platform).

  3. I’d have Nixon at 4 at most, because he’s kind of out of the loop–7 years out of federal office.
    RFK would probably be a 4. He was the go-to-guy for one president (his brother), he was also Attorney General and a Senator.

  4. 1912 has error messages when trying to edit candidates’s personal surrogates, platforms, pac, etc. It also has error messages when trying to change the percentages.

    I’m about 60% done with creating endorsers for 1912.

  5. Two comments about the 1968 scenario:

    It seems as if there is no way of starting the scenario without turning on George Wallace. Attempting to start (with primaries) without him brings up a “You must select at least 2 parties” message, even with candidates from the Dems and Reps selected.

    Also, the Kennedy brothers (Bobby and Ted) are completely indistinguishable in the scenario (by both name and color). I tried running the scenario with them running against each other and it just wasn’t workable.

  6. One thing I noticed: the endorsers need to somehow not be able to endorse certain people or parties. I just space-barred through with George Wallace to see how it would play out. John Birch ended up endorsing RFK. Harry S Truman and Gore Vidal endorsed Nixon. Vidal hated RFK, so that might make sense if RFK had been the candidate, however. Truman would never have endorsed Nixon over a Democrat.

    There needs to be an option that an endorser would never accept certain people or certain parties. This would help alot in scenarios from 1968 and before as both parties have liberal and conservative wings. It would prevent La Follette from endorsing William Jennings Bryan or something like that.

  7. @Jonah and Jonathan re Experience,

    Thanks for this – Robert Kennedy and Nixon both set to 4 in latest internal.

  8. @Jonathan, “There needs to be an option that an endorser would never accept certain people or certain parties.”

    Yes, this feature is near the top of the to-do list.

  9. Which scenario will you make after 1968? ’68 is a great election. Glad you included it so early in the process.

  10. I think Ted Kennedy is too high in the polls. He would carry some of RFKs people, but to many, he wouldn’t be viewed as highly as RFK. Half of the RFK people would jump to McCarthy.

  11. Also, Republicans are too strong and the Democrats are too weak in the deep South.

    In the states that Wallace won, the 2nd place party was:

    Democrat in: Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana
    Republican in: Georgia and Arkansas, but a near tie in Arkansas.

    Currently, the game has the Republicans far out-performing the Democrats in these regions.

  12. Brooke is also problematic. If he gets the nomination or becomes a front runner, I think Democrats and Wallace would get a boost in the former Confederacy; although, the African-American vote would probably be more prevalent.

    Imagine a Brooke-Wallace debate!

  13. Just letting you know that I fixed the personal surrogate issue with adding this to the text file. There was nothing listed in this area. I’ll obviously change the names from Jeanette Rubio.:



  14. I can’t figure out the problem with editing the percentages in the 1912 scenario. I’ve looked at the percentages text file for the 2016 campaign and compared it to the 1912 percentages text file, and I can’t find anything strange in the html.

  15. @Jonathan,

    1912 > percentages.xml > add a “primaries /” tag to the shift section.

    I can’t display the code here, as it uses angular brackets. I’ll e-mail you what should be added.

  16. I know it’s early, but I’m wondering if we should lower Christie’s integrity for this latest scandal, if the results become more concretely negative. I think if he bows out of the race, he should still stay in the game as a “what-if” but with lower integrity.

    Honestly, even though I’d never vote Republican, I hope he doesn’t drop out, as I’d like Republicans like him (minus scandal(s)) and Huntsman to change the Republican party back to something closer to the Republicans of 1860-1968. But oh well. haha.

  17. @Jonathan. I honestly believe the Tea Party is the future, considering we hold the GOP and inside the belt way candidates accountable for their disastrous actions (Obamacare, Patriot Act, more taxes, just to name a few) . I would never support anyone more to the left than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul, and Ron Paul. Nominating a moderate really dented the GOP’s chance of winning the general election because the nominee was not Conservative enough, causing millions of conservatives to stay home. The GOP needs a nominee with principle, and real common sense solutions. Potential candidates listed above share those qualities..and will be more considered than someone who talks like a conservative and acts like a Liberal. Sorry for getting off topic. I simply enjoy playing the 1968 scenario. Good job!

  18. I like 1968 too. I like playing as Brooke and having a Brooke/Rockefeller tickets. Although, I would have voted for RFK or McCarthy during that time, if I had been around.

    About your heroes, Dallas. I respect your enthusiasm, but I don’t think those candidates are flexible enough to compromise. The presidency requires some flexibility. If 20% of the country is very liberal, and 20% very conservative and 60% in the middle (I’m sort of guessing here). Then someone very liberal (like me) or very conservative (like you) won’t be able to really do much, even win, if we don’t, at times, make those who disagree with us feel like a part of the system. For instance, I’m very liberal, but I see the gun thing as way less important as, say, education. I’d be willing to basically do nothing on the gun issue in order to get some support for my progressive education agenda. Although, most of this would be done by cutting defense spending.

Leave a Comment