Hi again guys. Just want to repeat my congratulations and appreciation for the work you've done. Thanks for keeping one of my favorite little obsessions alive every 4 years. It's something I have come to look forward to around this season. Here's my gripes, anal-retentiveness, and genuinely good-spirited observations on Issues and Traits, as well as Balance:

Political Issues:

- Opposite Issues: I think some of the issues are worded, either in title or in body, incorrectly. For instance, Donald Trump has a -30 rating in Secure Borders, indicating that he does not favor secure borders. Also, Repeal Obamacare is favored by Democrats and not Republicans - the wording in the body is such that a Supporter of Repeal(ing?) Obamacare believes that Obamacare is a good thing.

- Vague Issues: There are a few issues that could use some clarifying. "Addressing Climate Change" is a great issue that I think takes away the need for an issue like "The Environment" and specifies exactly what the issue at hand is, with supporting and opposing viewpoints. It's unclear exactly what is meant with both of these issues present - Carly Fiorina, for instance, has -10 Environment but +10 Addressing Climate Change.

A politician saying that they Support or Oppose the EU Refugee Crisis wouldn't be saying anything all that clear. Something like "Accepting Syrian Refugees" might hit home a bit more. Others might be "Hillary's Emails" (maybe "Addressing Hillary's Emails" or "Investigating Hillary's Emails") and the Russian issue I can't quite recall, which could be something like "Confronting Russian Aggression."

- Pointed Issues: I don't believe that there is bias in the issues for the most part, just occasionally in how they are titled. For instance, it is easy for any politician in the nation to say they support "The Environment," "Religious Freedom," "Gun Rights," "Secure Borders" or "A Strong Military." I definitely appreciate the need to explain issues in short, recognizable phrases, but maybe "Increased Gun Regulation," and the specific "Building a Wall" might give more specificity. Of course, if it's a flavor thing so that certain candidates can say "I support A Strong Military," that's great, but then there maybe shouldn't be other candidates that have a rating of -20 on A Strong Military. I don't know. I guess it's a flavor thing, and you wouldn't necessarily give a speech with the topic "I oppose Religious Freedom," but maybe its appearance in their stats correctly gives fuel to those that would say "Hillary Clinton opposes Religious Freedom" or "Donald Trump opposes The Environment." It is the kind of things they say after all - hey, maybe each side could call each issue something different, haha.

- Issue Points: I'm pretty sure some of these candidates have like 180 points to spend on issues and created characters don't. I don't necessarily have a problem with this since they are the established candidates, but I'm not sure if it was completely intentional for all the new candidates to have a range of -30 to +30 on like 10 issues each. On that note, I kind of prefer the old method of accentuating their big talking points better (as with pre-2016 candidates) just for clarity and helping the candidates take shape. Sure Sanders talks about the issues a lot, but to put "Gun Rights" so close to "Regulating Wall Street" seems odd to me. That would seem more like a +5 to a +50 to me. I get the logic if it's about giving them a wider, rather than taller, issue profile.

Candidate Traits:

I don't have much on this besides possibly needing some clarity. One big shining example is Intelligence. Ben Carson is clearly an intelligent man. He got a fantastic education, was a star surgeon, and has done amazing for himself. But I was under the impression Intelligence was used mainly to determine interview answers. In debates and in interviews, he's had some answers that have come off as odd or lacking an apparent knowledge of the particular subject - something low-Intelligence characters display in this game. Likewise, Trump doesn't display the greatest grasp or specificity of issues in interviews and debates. These are men that should rightfully have high Charisma but falter a bit when pressed. On the opposite end, Jeb Bush has a lower-than-average Intelligence but usually has pretty specific policy answers. I hope this isn't some kind of bias showing - I think it makes sense as a game mechanic and gives awesome flavor to the game (by the way, a debate mechanic would be amazing).

I'm sure this will be edited and altered as the candidates reveal more in further debates and media interactions.



Balance:

I haven't played many games yet, but I notice some +8 and +10 spikes that I've never seen before. I don't know how he did it, but my opponent had been wandering the country around and with little warning (and much money, political capitol, and energy spent) he had an insurmountable lead in Florida, Ohio, and California (where I was scant weeks previously winning by double digits). I thought I was doing just as good a job, but like I said, sudden giant spikes occurred and I was suddenly at 22% in a state I had 55% a few weeks earlier with advertisements, political operatives, and headquarters in place. It's possible I just don't fully understand the way this new edition plays yet, but if you'd like me to keep more specific actions and numbers, or collect logs, just let me know.



- As always, thanks for your hard work. You folks do a great job and I'm always interested in helping out however I can.