I will second several motions I've read:
1. we need to know more about the internal workings of the game to make what we are doing meaningful. For instance, does the appearance of an issue on the list of issues most concerning voters mean our candidates are well served by continuously campaigning on these issues, or might it be more beneficial to campaign on issues mentioned by a smaller percentage of voters, or on a broad variety of issues?
2. the way we earn endorsements is sound, but it is so unrealistic that certain endorsements might go to certain parties that it destroys any feeling of reality; endorsements should be tied first to candidate stances (which apparently is only reflected in the game by what they campaign on, which may be good enough if we could see more indepth statistics on which voters are moving and where), and then to party affiliation.
3. Election night is such a poor payoff for spending hours working toward it, I can hardly believe it is given such short shrift by the creator. It is, after all, the climax of the whole campaign. In the Doonsbury game, every state was shown with its flag and the popular vote and % difference; and by the way, it had realistic voter numbers, whereas I just played a game of Pol Machine that had at least 150% of realistic turnout (nowadays 110 million).
4. since this game starts in january there should be some nod at conventions, but much more important, where are the DEBATES?
5. As others have asked, is there any downside for campaigning on issuesor gaining endorsements opposed by one's party? The documentation hints there are, but I have no way of seeing this effect or lack of it.
