so, who is working on the obama versus mccain 2008 expansion and when will it be released?

We are - hopefully in a few months. Actually it is planned to be its own game - no need to own 1960.

Zev Shlasinger, President
Z-Man Games, Inc.
www.zmangames.com

Given the outcome, I'm having a hard time seeing a fun game.

On the other hand, I think it'll be a blast.

I've heard the question raised before, and everyone has said it would be too much work. Along with changing the states' electoral votes, you'd have to redesign the entire deck. Is this for real Zev or are you just kidding. I'd love to get any more information you can provide.

I am all for a 1960 spin-off. In fact, I'd place a pre-order with my local games store.

However, this may sound obvious, but wouldn't the 2000 election be more dynamic?

Seems like this election was done in August.

Yes, that's the real Zev. And a great guy too, in my brief experience meeting him.

I don't have much info but Jason and Christian are working on such a game. As for why not 2000 elections I think it is more the timing: this election is still hot and a game about it has a good chance at sales. Waiting another few months or year (or some relatively short time period) to do a 2000 election won't hurt its chances in the marketplace too much.

Zev Shlasinger, President
Z-Man Games, Inc.
www.zmangames.com

Here's my suggestion for a card in the game:

Sarah Palin. Democratic event, 4 OPs.

Effect: McCain player fails (worse than just losing).

Palin would just say your comment proves your not a real American. Of course, Palin thinks I'm not, either, being as I reside deep in the heart of Jersey...

Great news! Can we consider this an official press release?

I don't really see it that way, but even if that is true, we certainly had a LOT of election before August this cycle. We always seem to look back on elections as if the end result was an inevitability.

I'll never forget election night 2000. Early in the evening, when Gore's victory seemed inevitable (with FL in Gore's column) the talking heads on CNN et. al. were all talking about the quality of Gore's campaign and how George W. Bush just was too inarticulate to be elected. 24 hours later, the were talking about Gore being the worst Democratic nominee in a generation.

I think the McCain campaign had at least 3 significant decision points -- the Vice Presidential Nomination, the Debates, and the response to the melt down. McCain flubbed all three, though Palin was the least immediately obvious. That's why he isn't our president. I don't think those were inevitable (well, maybe his debate performance -- but even there he fell for kind of a verbal jujitsu). Anyway, the players will have the chance to prove that Obama was beatable.

Jason

The election really was set before November, but in the beginning there was really no way of knowing who would win. Jason is correct, this happened because of McCain's mistakes, that a crafty player should be able to avoid.

What still surprises me about American culture is that even after the (deservedly) least popular government in America's history the Opposition still had to put an effort into winning this.

Actually, The Palin card should give her her on-board figure (that ought to be an interesting meeple) that is more effective in states where it is placed than the McCain figure (and when placed with the McCain Figure, improves his capability).

And there ought to be a "Biden's Gaff-a-day actually gets press coverage" card that has a major impact on the race.

What really scares me is if something happens to Obama...

(edit to correct spelling, uhg)

hello mcfly, anything in there???

on the contrary, Palin energized the Republican base

and the leftist suporters of Obama will never ever understand that

the economy won the election for Obama

not the selection of Palin

the drive-by media savaged Palin and formed the image of Palin

the Republicans lost the image making process to the left media

she was the most refreshing politician out there this time around

the media is a joke

the washington post did a news article after the election , of course

where they admitted that they were biased in favor of Obama

the writer acted as if she were surprised to learned this !

as if she really believed that the main stream media is fair and unbalanced

all I can say about Obama:

WELCOME BACK CARTER!!

Had me going for a second, great satire!

Yeah, the "liberal media" again. Bastards.

tbh, while the Obama/McCain election may be fresh in people's minds I think it's the Bush/Gore one that would still be a more interesting play.

I'm for 2000
Bush/Gore would be a far far far faaaaaaaaaar better game than the recent election. I am a democrat, yet I would never buy a 2008 election game. What a bland election as election cycles go. 2000 was a nailbiter with many more equal issues and of course, it could have gone either way.

1912 would be interesting too with the 3 parties, Wilson, TRoosevelt and Taft.

Can we get the option to choose our Vice Presidential candidates? It would be interesting to see some different match ups.

Now, that would make the game VERY interesting and change the entire appeal of it. Good idea.

Also perhaps, having some aspect of the primary in the game too. I don't know how, though.

I've been thinking about this very carefully, and I am inclined to think the answer will be yes, as its kind of a pivotal question in the campaign and should be an element of strategy. Does McCain need to shore up his base? Or can he afford a choice with more appeal to swing voters like Lieberman?

Anyway -- and this is very important for everyone to understand -- the 2008 game will have almost nothing to do with 1960 , other than the fact that Christian and I will have designed both, and they are both about a Presidential election. The similarities end there.

However, the system that we are creating may more easily port to different elections, particularly those in the last 20 years. So, if this works, and people enjoy the system, I would not be surprised to see it ported to some of the other elections people have mentioned.

Jason

I guess the problem with having alternate VP choices might be that you're dealing much more heavily in speculation then. Which is just fine, but there is a difference, because we know how things turned out based on the actual VP choices and the other various factors... 1960 seems to be about taking the events that actually happened and playing around with them in different ways to see what the outcome may be. Of course, it's all somewhat abstracted anyway, but this might be using more factors based on speculation. But however you put that together, I'm sure it'll be a great game. And of course it's not supposed to be a historical re-creation, anyway.

I do think the VP choices could have been a factor... If Obama had gone with Hillary does that help or hurt him? If McCain had chosen Romney that might have lost him votes from his own party at first, with some of the Christian right against his Mormonism, but it might have seemed a brilliant choice once the economic meltdown happened. Palin obviously gave a boost to the GOP ticket at first, but if you choose her as VP can you find a way to use her more effectively?

Actually, in addition to being able to choose VPs, I'd also really like the option to try different candidates entirely. Obama vs. Giuliani, for example, would have been a tougher choice for America, methinks, and things like Clinton vs. Romney or Edwards vs. Huckabee could be amusing.

I miss grammar and punctuation.

It would be great if this thread could focus on the merits of 1960 spinoff as a 2000 or 2008 themed game (or another election) rather than a political discussion. Those discussions have a home in another forum.

Also, I think the 1860 election would make a great basis for a spinoff.