Clout and Capital

Yah, it seems like they just separated the capital and clout this time around so that they could have three buildings instead of two. When they didn't even add one new endorsement to the mix but add a building that is a waste, it is irksome.

On this subject, what other endorsements could be added to this game? One could be +15 Public Education and -15 School Vouchers

In theory, you could have an endorsment for every single issue. In the real world, there is a group for and against just about every issue out there, and anything like that could easily be incorporated into PM. I totally agree with the TC. The buildings and Clout go to complete waste after maybe 15-20 turns! It would be nice to have it affect something else later. Another option would have been to make it harder to recieve clout and/or endorsements. If this was the case (and it appears they already tried this since the amount of clout needed goes up) then you might need to save the clout for later in the game. Or, how about only releasing a batch of endorsements every few weeks, randomly. If no one grabs them with the clout they've been saving, they disappear and then a new batch of endorsements appear. IDK, its a complex issue, and really the system isn't that bad at all, but I think it has the possibility to be so much more!

The system works well, but there are just too few endorsements to be had. Inevitably, I always wind up with a large stock of clout and nothing to spend it on.

You can destroy your "Clout HQ" after you have earned all the clout that you can spend.  But yeah, no one really objects to having more of everything (endorsements, interviews, candidates, candidate body parts, etc...).

I've done that a few times but i stratigically place all headquaters for maxium affect, and that just feels like an unnessecary expense(wether that means the adjacent states lost awareness bonus or the cost of setting up a different headquaters in its spot in terms of stamina and money.) guess its time to start look into xml again.

my mom is a teacher and yea that would definitly work it'd have to be a teachers union i do hope they make it

I agree that the clout system is kinda broken. Once you rush to your endorsements you have a bunch of white elephant buildings hanging around with no purpose, and a pile of clout that should be useful someplace else.

Sure, you could tear down the buildings, but what's the point other than being able to build a different building? There's no maintenance cost, and I doubt a lot of people are doing this unless I'm missing some sort of advanced strategy.

I like the idea of clout being able to get you more TV exposure. x clout points finagles you a spot on 60 seconds, etc.

Otherwise, a great game that I just picked up. Thanks!

Personally, I like the Clout/Capital system a lot better than the 2004 system. But I would like to see Clout be able to be transferred into something else at a reduced benefit. In other words, after spending 30 Clout on my last endorsement, maybe I could buy Capital at a rate of 3 to 1; or as others suggested, spend large chunks on forcing an interview.

I find that in harder levels, your opponents always seem to be able to win endorsements on practically the first day. They can even win an endorsement each day on their own side and then immediately start taking endorsements from the other side (For example, a republican can win one conservative special interest group each day. Once he has them all, he can take one liberal group each day.). It is very unfair, players have no competitive presence in the endorsement war because they have to build an outreach center and wait until he has enough clout points. By that time, his opponent practically has half of the groups already, and you can buy only one and you immediately have barely any clout left. It's like your opponent starts out with 1000 clout points to begin the game. Thus:

A: It's too easy for an opponent to look bipartisan.

B: Groups on your political side don't endorse you, so you can't rally your base.

C: It should not be so easy to win a group on the other side. In fact, it gets unrealistic when republican wins a group for affirmative action or abortion rights, or a democrat wins a group for gun rights and Christianity promotion.

D: It should hurt you to win groups on the other side, not make you look moderate and bipartisan.

Also, why is the homeland security group conservative, are they saying thet democrats believe in allowing terrorism?!?!