President Forever 2016 v. 1.6.3 Test Release 3 has been released!
This update adds a ‘stay in until convention’ attribute for leaders, improves the Crystal Ball Rankings Screen algorithm, adds a money coefficient that affects background fundraising, and allows for endorsers to be shifted up or down in the list in the editor, among other things.
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.
Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!
To update:
http://270soft.com/updates-redownloads/
Version information:
http://270soft.com/updates-redownloads/president-forever-2016-version-information/
Excellent! Thanks! This really helps with the old scenarios. I hope the delegate counts during the convention will be fixed soon.
Candidates in 1912 are still dropping out.
Thanks – I’ve identified the bug, new version forthcoming.
A new version released that fixes that bug – it should say Test Release 4 when you install.
Do you have a specific day in March that you are shooting for when it comes to the release of a Mac version?
When in March is the Mac version coming?
I’m a little confused about conventions.
@Toby,
Can you say more about this?
@Graham,
Target for the Mac version is March. There isn’t a specific date at this point.
@Elijah,
The Mac version is currently the top priority, and will be until it is released. The aim is to have it released in March, but there is no specific day at this point. As things develop, info will be posted to the blog.
I’m thinking that the 2016 candidates may need to be reordered based off of which candidates are polled and which have expressed interest.
Here are my suggestions.
For Republicans:
Christie, Paul, Bush, Cruz, Ryan, Rubio, Walker, Huckabee, Jindal, King
The rest would be off, including Thune, who is currently on.
For Democrats:
Clinton, Biden, Warren, Cuomo, O’Malley, Schweitzer
The rest would be off, including Warner, who is currently on.
Additionally, I’d greatly decrease Cuomo and O’Malley in the polls.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) should probably be added as a candidate. He could either be another independent party or (preferably) running for the Democratic nomination. He has been saying that he is prepared to run.
Can you give us a percentage of how much you have done in the Mac game?
I would turn Perry on as well
Are y’all thinking of adding the latest date a candidate can enter the race??? if so can y’all go ahead and remove all the so candidates who do not enter the race from the polls because i am still in the lead in a state, the latest Maine, and i am leading the field by 5 percentage points, second place is Paul Ryan, Rubio has 13% of the vote and is in 5th place, there are three candidates in the polls, but not in the race Ryan, Jindal, and Thune, Ryan has 23% of the vote, Jindal has 7%, and thune has 3%, and i had +2.5 momentum and Rubio had -1.7 momentum and he picks up all of there votes and i get the 5% undecided votes which i dont see someone with negative momentum having a 33% swing on election day
Somehow Perry got 11% on a recent poll.
@Jonathan
His CPAC speech probably grabbed a lot of attention.
Should endorsers who endorsed someone that wasn’t nominated be allowed to endorse again during the general election?
@Jonathan I have thought this too. Why wouldn’t they? Why wouldn’t Obama endorse Hilary if she won the nomination? Of course he would.
Also, I think each candidate should not just have a bonus for their home state, but should have slight bonuses in certain states, and (this would have to be created) negatives in certain states. That way there are drawbacks and strengths to certain candidates. For instance, Cruz would do worse in New England if nominated than Christie would.
In the next update, can Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) be put as a VP? Just interested in seeing how things would play out with him.
I actually want Mitt Romney in as a what-if candidate. He still does well in the polls that he’s in.
Considering Mitt Romney’s latest op.ed. piece in the Wall Street Journal I think one ought to consider putting him in the game. He has the ambition. Don’t ask me about polling for the nomination; I haven’t the slightest idea where he’d be in the nomination fight.
Can we also put this person as a VP option — I feel like Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry would pick her: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/susanne-atanus-congress-_n_4993555.html
@ Jonathan
I could also see Santorum and Huckabee choosing her as well
I don’t know about the bonuses and negatives, I think in the last couple election cycles, especially 2012, Santorum was from PA, won Iowa, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and if would have stayed in probably would have won Texas and other states far away from PA, I think the negatives are already expressed in the General election by the states republican vs. democratic population percentages
the negatives are also the candidates platform compared to the states
I don’t think the state platforms are strong enough then.
I think Santorum would be a great candidate for having negative bonuses, he’s probably do poorly in states that seem predominantly urban (outside of his home state). New England moderate Republicans or moderate independent would probably vote Democrat, or not vote at all, if Santorum, Palin, Bachman, Cruz, or anyone similar runs. Likewise, if Warren got the nomination for the Democrats, she’s have negatives in the deep south and tornado states (“flyover country”).
It may make less difference now, but in the older scenarios, this would probably be a bigger issue. JFK needed LBJ, not just to get Texas, but to insure that he got an entire region. Likewise, A southern democrat couldn’t get elected president after the Civil War, until LBJ in ’64. A Southern Democrat winning nomination before ’64 would probably not pick up northern states that would vote democrat, specifically NY.
what i have experienced is generally is that the conservatives do not win New Hampshire, this translates that when there are moderates in the race: Christie, Rubio, Bush and such, yes i call Rubio a moderate because he shares immigration view of most democrats and on some other issues he is more centralized than other candidates, that the Northeastern states do vote more moderately than states like Texas, South Carolina and such, thus if anything I would do platform bonuses and negatives per state.
Also, how well Santorum did in Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois tells me its not about your positions its how well you spread your message, maybe add articulation as an inherited like leadership experience, so Perry would be like a 2 or 3 and Cruz/Christie would be a 4 or 5, its just a thought.
I like your idea about articulation…I’d call it communication ability — but that might be tied in with charisma. However, Palin and GW Bush are charismatic but can barely communicate. Maybe debate is the same as communication.
I think it would be great if there were more variables for a president. I’ve suggested that experience be more compartmentalized — foreign policy exp, domestic, economic, etc. And governmental experience would be another one — Biden would be a 5 here. Each issue, policy speech, debate, is tied to these experience levels….one could be great at debating but have a handicap in a foreign policy debate for instance.
see, my opinion of perry is he has a higher issue familiarity than is represented in the and he is just a poor debator, yet if he has written a speech down he can communicate better, so maybe we do need communication skills to be implemented to play into speeches/rallies effectivness
Breaking down experience would be a great idea. You can have lots of government experience and still end up being named the worst finance minister in Europe (the late Brian Lenihan, The Economist gave him the label). As for articulation I feel that charisma plays too big of a role in the game as it is so I’m against adding any more talking related attributes, charisma may be the most important skill in politics but it’s not enough by itself.
@Sanc
While true, charisma is the most important attribute in getting elected. I wish most people voted on other factors, but it seems like they don’t. The more charismatic nominee has won in every election since Film and TV had been readily available.
FDR — more charismatic than all those running against him
Truman — who wasn’t charismatic, ran against Dewey, who had no personality
Eisenhower had more charisma than Stevenson in both elections
JFK over Nixon
LBJ over Goldwater
Nixon over Humphrey
Carter over Ford (Carter had some charisma before he was thought of as a failed president)
Reagan over Carter
Reagan over Mondale
Bush over Dukakis
Clinton over Bush
Clinton over Dole
Bush over Gore
Bush over Kerry
Obama over McCain
Obama over Romney
The next election will probably again go to the more charismatic of the two. Bill Clinton adds to Hillary Clinton’s charisma, as he will likely be campaigning side by side (strongest potential first spouse by far). Even though ability is way more important as president, charisma is what will get the president elected–who of the Republicans definitely has more charisma than the Clintons?
@Johnathon
I have seen Christie, Cruz, Perry, and Paul all raise crowds to their feet, just look at CPAC, some more than others, we still don’t know if Benghazi will effect Clinton during the next election cycle, nor do we know about “Bridgegate” and Christie, I believe that those could play into each of their charisma’s
so at this point i would say Cruz/rand Paul have more charisma, especially Cruz because he’s younger than the rest, think of Obama vs. Clinton 2008 young guy vs. older girl.
@anthony
when do you expect the knew update to be released?
The strength of the economy was also a factor or in 1964 and 1972 the policies. Not only that but I recently came across a study and it found that the candidate who said less about what he planned on doing in the future during a debate won in every single election the study covered.
@Anthony
Can you please make Santorum stronger in 2012? He never emerges as a contender and drops out about the same time Perry or Bachmann does. He should probably have an event boost or something that might get him much higher in Iowa and in other tornado states.
I think all Steering Council members should have webcam access, gps tracking and an intercom connection with Anthony at all times. This way he’s forced to respond to our questions within seconds of us asking them. Just kidding.
Hello!
I am enjoying PF 2016 a lot, but I do have one big wish: more “theater” on Election Night. In PF 2008, you had individual state calls and could slow down the pace of the election to give it a bit more drama. As of now, the election is very anti-climactic in 2016. States aren’t called and the election itself isn’t called until all votes are in, which is not remotely realistic.
Could we get at least a return to how election night worked in the 2008 edition? Thanks!
@Jonathan “Should endorsers who endorsed someone that wasn’t nominated be allowed to endorse again during the general election?”
Yes, if a candidate they endorsed drops out, they should be able to endorse again. Noted.
@Jonathan, “Also, I think each candidate should not just have a bonus for their home state, but should have slight bonuses in certain states, and (this would have to be created) negatives in certain states. That way there are drawbacks and strengths to certain candidates. For instance, Cruz would do worse in New England if nominated than Christie would.”
This can be done with the current game engine, and in the future the official candidates might be updated to reflect these kinds of percentage changes.
@Shawn “In the next update, can Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) be put as a VP? Just interested in seeing how things would play out with him.”
He’s on the list of candidates to be added – thanks.
@Jonathan “I actually want Mitt Romney in as a what-if candidate. He still does well in the polls that he’s in.”
Ya, that could be fun – noted.
@Kevin “when do you expect the knew update to be released?”
The next P4E16 update won’t be for awhile – next Windows Test Release should happen before the Mac version is released, which has a target of April 30th.
@Mark D “I am enjoying PF 2016 a lot, but I do have one big wish: more “theater” on Election Night. In PF 2008, you had individual state calls and could slow down the pace of the election to give it a bit more drama. As of now, the election is very anti-climactic in 2016. States aren’t called and the election itself isn’t called until all votes are in, which is not remotely realistic.”
It’s on the list of features to add – thanks.
April 30th?
is there a way that when you do private polls to just include candidates that have declared candidacy?
@Anthony
What can we expect for the April 30th update?
@Jonathan,
The next Windows release will feature the crossplatform architecture, and so will look a little bit different and probably have some other functional differences.
Almost every time I’ve played this game lately, it says that someone has locked up the nomination before they have reached 50%+1 delegates, e.g. I’m playing as Cruz against Christie and it has just turned June, Christie is on course to win the nomination but only has 1050 delegates yet the game has said that he has the nomination locked up. I’ve also had this happen as the player, even when I’ve only had ~900 delegates and not even sure I’m going to win.
I have been noticing since this last update release that once a scandal has been researched, the icon at the bottom still shows as if it were still researching, however if I click on the icon to bring up the research window and that then will show the scandal that is available.
Also: will the next update include a population update from the 2000 census the game still contains? Numbers from the 2010 census would be nice.
Just a reminder that in the 1968 campaign, the Democrats should be stronger than the Republicans in the states that Wallace carries. This can be shown by just looking at the results and seeing how many voted Rep and how many voted Dem. Whereas they would become Republican, they still hadn’t totally abandoned their traditional party at that moment.
How about creating something that will allow you to sort results and view statistics…state %s, money raised, total endorsers, of every candidate? If demographics are ever added, those could be here as well.
i think demographics is something to look into now that its become increasing relevant lately. in primaries id think Ideology,race,age and income. there platform and location should change for demographics. for example low income democrats are more left wing on economic issues but more centrist on others. so in a primary that demographic would get behind candidates with similar platforms. for that specific demographic would probably help in states like Michigan or Illinois. in older campaigns these were also very important for example 1968 with Humpreys labor unions,RFKS poor and minority’s and McCarthy Liberals
That’s been considered a long time ago. Not sure if it’s going to be put in though. Age, religion and voter registration are easily found though.
Instead of the game abruptly ending when you lose the primaries, can we have the game automatically speed through the General Election, so we can see how it turned out?
@Jonathan re game ending when lose primaries,
That’s a good idea – we’ll see. Basically, I’ll want the ability to switch to another candidate, or enter a ‘viewing mode’ where you can view what happens turn by turn.
That would be cool
It’s May 3rd and still no update.
Still really think that the numbers should be skewed towards Clinton in all match ups involving her. You have the primary skewed to a landslide in her direction, but the general election puts her initially trailing. While polling this early is unreliable, there is a reliable trend of Clinton ahead (nationally) between 5 and 10 or more points against all of her rivals. For example Florida starts off red, however polling as of May 1st puts Clinton up by 18-26 points over Paul, Christie, Ryan, Huckabee, and Cruz. The only two in that state with better numbers are bush (Clinton tops him by 8) and Rubio (Clinton tops him by 12) which is expected with their home-state slant. A poll in Florida back in January shows margins for most of those match ups well within the margin of error of the current one. These are not small leads, or match-ups that fluctuate between one candidate and the other, these are decisive leads. These cannot be ignored in the game can they? Much less have the game set up to by default go against these numbers. In 3 months, the only poll I have seen with Clinton not ahead was in Colorado where she was losing to Paul by 5 points. Instead of Rep ahead 40.3% to Dem’s 39.7 at the start: a Dem lead of 41-39 would be more appropriate. This still undercuts Clinton’s lead by a significant number, but it would more accurately represent the polling and political climate surrounding her and the potential GOP field.
I keep getting Republicans winning Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, three states that always vote Democrat. I’m sure it could be closer, but the game seems to think they’ll be more Red than not.
I think that would be an easy fix by updating the game I reflect current demographics rather than 2000 demographics. The way the numbers in the game are set up, they have a very large slant towards the GOP.
However, one state on this list could actually be swaying over to a red state. Watching gubernatorial elections and local elections in Wisconsin, it appears that Wisconsin could swing red in elections to come. Also, other states like these include Nevada and Colorado. Oregon and Michigan are far fetched though to go red in 2016
In latest CNN poll Perry has better percentages than Cruz and Walker. Also it shows him one percentage point behind Christie.I think Christie has hit a bump in the road similar to Romney in 2008 primaries, as well as Clinton in 2008. Christie’s percentages may need to lowered
Yeah, all the candidates need to be updated.
I seriously doubt Wisconsin will go read. Definitely not Michigan or Oregon. However, I do think Colorado will be red and Nevada is a toss-up.
Yes, I also agree there is a GOP slant in the game. I don’t think it was purposely made that way, but it exists, and has for awhile now. Even if I edit the game to reflect Clinton’s current lead, she still loses 90% of the time if I start in the primaries. She’ll win 80% of the time if I start in the general election, however.
Bug:
In the 2016 scenario, when you look at the “Electoral Vote Sing info” window: the “last election” it refers to is 2008 and not 2012 (which it obviously should be). Therefore, it shows Indiana and North Carolina to be Republican pickups rather than holds in 2016.
@Aaron,
Thanks for this – I’ve noted it.
@Kevin re Perry and percentages,
Thanks for this – percentages will be updated in a little bit, maybe a month or so.
@Aaron re general election starting numbers and Clinton,
We’ll be looking at these numbers way closer to the election – I feel 2 years out is too far for them to really indicative of where things will be come Jul.-Aug. 2016.
Nixon was always known for not being charismatic or telegenic. His charisma needs to be 2 in the 1968 scenario.
Honestly, I cringed when I saw the Tea Party Express leaning towards Christie, and Freedomworks going for Ryan. Right-wing talk radio probably won’t go with Christie, and Crossroads should support Bush. Establishment groups should support their candidates like Christie or Bush, and Tea Party groups should go with Tea Party candidates like Paul or Cruz.
Tea Party organizations aren’t going to support Christie.
Heritage also shouldn’t lean towards Huntsman.
@Jake re Nixon,
Thanks for this – noted.
Re endorsements, we’ll be fine-tuning the way endorsements work – feedback noted.
Also, Christie should be weakened significantly or dropped. New article: http://pando.com/2014/05/08/exclusive-christie-officials-gave-millions-in-taxpayer-funds-to-major-tech-vc-in-apparent-violation-of-pay-to-play-rules/
@Anthony have you considered the idea of bringing DLC or a expansion pack to P4E16? I am aware of the ongoing, free content you provide, however, I think you would benefit even more if you created purchasable content “packs” that could go anywhere from $5-$10. Just a idea.
@Dallas,
Right now, the focus is on increasing the value in the game. Expansion packs might happen later on, but the core U.S. elections I want as part of the game proper.
When is the next release?
Will the update change the %s of the 2016 candidates? I think Warren should be a little bit stronger and all the other Dems (excluding Clinton and Biden) should be behind Warren in %s
Also, Palin and Santorum should be much weaker, with Huckabee at the same level as Christie, Bush, Paul, who should all be tied. Rubio should be weaker.
Palin and Santorum have identical poll %s and are too strong–they are basically almost front-runner #s. When they shouldn’t be.
Look forward to the update, whenever it occurs.
@Jonathan,
After the Mac Beta release.
%s will be updated once the Mac version is officially released.
Hope this helps.
@Anthony…not sure if this is a bug…but I have noticed this numerous times…Joe Biden is the only Democrat left in the primaries..the majority endorsing him. He will still run attack ads against the other Democrats. One time, during the general election, he ran a attack ad against Hillary Clinton. Weird. She endorsed him and withdrew from the primaries so why does the AI run a attack ad against her? This has happened in the Republican primaries too. Cruz runs a attack ad against Rand Paul, even though he is no longer in the race.
Thanks for this – sounds like a bug – noted.
@Will “Almost every time I’ve played this game lately, it says that someone has locked up the nomination before they have reached 50%+1 delegates, e.g. I’m playing as Cruz against Christie and it has just turned June, Christie is on course to win the nomination but only has 1050 delegates yet the game has said that he has the nomination locked up. I’ve also had this happen as the player, even when I’ve only had ~900 delegates and not even sure I’m going to win.”
That’s interesting. The next major feature to be implemented is enhanced conventions, and this sort of issue will be looked at carefully then. Thanks for this.
When will 2014 Congress come out? It’s June 1st so we are officially midway 2014. 🙂
@Anthony
Two questions:
1) Do we have a ballpark estimate for when the new update for P4E ’16 will come out for Windows?
2) For the next update will Jim Webb be included for the Dems? He seems to be flirting with the idea.
Thanks!!
1. No, it will be released after the Mac Beta. I don’t know when that will happen.
2. Re Jim Webb, good idea – noted.
@KM,
The map is P4E16 for Mac Beta, then P4E16 for Windows update, then P4E16 for Mac official, then C4E14. Official mid-way is approx. July 1st. 😉
Can you edit the game so that you can have billions of dollars for parties without the game crashing before the election
@Landon,
Thanks for this – noted.
Odd proliferation of adbots lately, it seems. Or am I just now seeing them?
It’s a constant cat-and-mouse game – seems there was some change in certain adbots that made the comment filter not quite as accurate.