Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

We really need to get away from the polar partisanship, and find common ground - and work towards solutions that both sides can appreciate. 

Obama can't run again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Obama can't run again.

Michelle can  :excited:

 

No, seriously though, whoever is the next President must do a better job of bridging the gap, and bringing us back together.  One of the great ironies with Trump's MAGA is that the US has always been at its best when unified towards a common goal.  Trump is the great divider, and that has really hurt America in just a very short period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Michelle can  :excited:

 

No, seriously though, whoever is the next President must do a better job of bridging the gap, and bringing us back together.  One of the great ironies with Trump's MAGA is that the US has always been at its best when unified towards a common goal.  Trump is the great divider, and that has really hurt America in just a very short period of time.

And in true Trumpian fashion, his supporters portray Obama, a champion of inclusion for all, as the Great Divider. I guess because he was concerned about black men getting shot unnecessarily by cops but you'd have to ask them that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm coming around on Beto. The lack of experience isn't ideal but three terms in congress is nothing to sneeze at, and at this point anyone who has much more than that is gonna have some sort of stink on them.  The DUI in his 20s is something he'll have to address but he can do so early on and it won't be an issue except with people who already oppose him. 

In addition to the obvious reasons to pick him (age, personality, appeal across the Dem spectrum), I think he puts Texas into play, and putting Texas into play changes the game considerably. It's hard to do any solid analysis on his chances in Texas but it's worth noting that Cruz destroyed Trump in the 2016 GOP primary.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I'm coming around on Beto. The lack of experience isn't ideal but three terms in congress is nothing to sneeze at, and at this point anyone who has much more than that is gonna have some sort of stink on them.  The DUI in his 20s is something he'll have to address but he can do so early on and it won't be an issue except with people who already oppose him. 

In addition to the obvious reasons to pick him (age, personality, appeal across the Dem spectrum), I think he puts Texas into play, and putting Texas into play changes the game considerably. It's hard to do any solid analysis on his chances in Texas but it's worth noting that Cruz destroyed Trump in the 2016 GOP primary.

Having the Dems biggest stars lose in the midterms isn't exact a shining endorsement for 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

Having the Dems biggest stars lose in the midterms isn't exact a shining endorsement for 2020.

I think that I speak for many in here when I say that we're all awaiting your indepth analysis of Democratic Party candidates in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Having the Dems biggest stars lose in the midterms isn't exact a shining endorsement for 2020.

Yeah you're probably right. Terrible showing by the Dems in the midterms. Trump and the GOP have nothing to worry about for 2020.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Having the Dems biggest stars lose in the midterms isn't exact a shining endorsement for 2020.

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I think that I speak for many in here when I say that we're all awaiting your indepth analysis of Democratic Party candidates in 2020.

I believe I already gave it about Amy Klobuchar.  If you want to have a chance in winning in 2020, that is the candidate you should put front and center.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TobiasFunke said:

I'm coming around on Beto. The lack of experience isn't ideal but three terms in congress is nothing to sneeze at, and at this point anyone who has much more than that is gonna have some sort of stink on them.  The DUI in his 20s is something he'll have to address but he can do so early on and it won't be an issue except with people who already oppose him. 

In addition to the obvious reasons to pick him (age, personality, appeal across the Dem spectrum), I think he puts Texas into play, and putting Texas into play changes the game considerably. It's hard to do any solid analysis on his chances in Texas but it's worth noting that Cruz destroyed Trump in the 2016 GOP primary.

He lost his senate race.  I'd ideally like to nominate someone who wins elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

He lost his senate race.  I'd ideally like to nominate someone who wins elections.

I had that same concern. But he's won three general elections for federal office (TX-16). That's one more than both of the major party candidates for President in 2016 combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I had that same concern. But he's won three general elections for federal office (TX-16). That's one more than both of the major party candidates for President in 2016 combined.

In a district that's been held by a Democrat in every election since 1965.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

In a district that's been held by a Democrat in every election since 1965.

Not sure what Democrat is winning a Senate race in Texas. The guy carried numerous down ticket Dems to wins there. 

Beto would have rolled in any state a Democrat won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

In a district that's been held by a Democrat in every election since 1965.

Seems to me you could make the same argument about partisan balance when looking at his loss in the Texas senate race.  If wins and losses are all that matters, he's got 3 wins for federal office. If you're gonna go deeper and look at the partisan makeup of the district/state, suddenly a 50-48 loss in a TX Senate race to a GOP incumbent who won the 2016 GOP presidential primary in Texas by 20 points looks a lot better.

Amy K is still #1 in my heart, but I feel pretty good about some of the other possibilities lately too.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

He lost his senate race.  I'd ideally like to nominate someone who wins elections.

Ok, Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

I'm coming around on Beto. The lack of experience isn't ideal but three terms in congress is nothing to sneeze at, and at this point anyone who has much more than that is gonna have some sort of stink on them.  The DUI in his 20s is something he'll have to address but he can do so early on and it won't be an issue except with people who already oppose him. 

In addition to the obvious reasons to pick him (age, personality, appeal across the Dem spectrum), I think he puts Texas into play, and putting Texas into play changes the game considerably. It's hard to do any solid analysis on his chances in Texas but it's worth noting that Cruz destroyed Trump in the 2016 GOP primary.

DUI?  Good one.  There is a felon in the Oval Office. 

His biggest hurdle will be his uber-liberal policies.  

I still think he crushes Trump.  If he is around, that is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

He lost his senate race.  I'd ideally like to nominate someone who wins elections.

Surprised this is your take.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

I'm coming around on Beto. The lack of experience isn't ideal but three terms in congress is nothing to sneeze at, and at this point anyone who has much more than that is gonna have some sort of stink on them.  The DUI in his 20s is something he'll have to address but he can do so early on and it won't be an issue except with people who already oppose him. 

In addition to the obvious reasons to pick him (age, personality, appeal across the Dem spectrum), I think he puts Texas into play, and putting Texas into play changes the game considerably. It's hard to do any solid analysis on his chances in Texas but it's worth noting that Cruz destroyed Trump in the 2016 GOP primary.

He addressed it during the Senate campaign. And in an honest, open, non-Trumpian way. Wasn't an issue after that.

Edited by whoknew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, zoonation said:

DUI?  Good one.  There is a felon in the Oval Office. 

His biggest hurdle will be his uber-liberal policies.  

I still think he crushes Trump.  If he is around, that is. 

A lot of progressives think he's not liberal enough, so I'll take this as a good sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I like this thread. But the only conversation is from Dems. How bout you Pubbies -- who you like for '20?

I don't know that it really matters. The GOP nominee is gonna be either Donald Trump or whoever Donald Trump tells them to nominate. If he resigned and threw his support behind Jimmy Carter as the 2020 GOP nominee, Carter would win the nomination going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I don't know that it really matters. The GOP nominee is gonna be either Donald Trump or whoever Donald Trump tells them to nominate. If he resigned and threw his support behind Jimmy Carter as the 2020 GOP nominee, Carter would win the nomination going away.

That's interesting to think about.  Who would Trump endorse?  Would that person beat Pence (assuming he's clean in the Russia stuff), Haley, etc.?

Edited by Juxtatarot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Juxtatarot said:

That's interesting to think about.  Would Trump back Jared or Ivanka?  Would that person beat Pence (assuming he's clean in the Russia stuff), Haley, etc.?

I can't imagine any circumstances that would lead to anything other than Trump or a Trump-approved nominee getting the 2020 nomination.  Even if he's somehow impeached or convicted of a crime before then, enough Republicans would heed the cries of "witch hunt" and stand by him. They've already abandoned most of their previous positions on the issues in favor of him. It's gonna be a long time before the party is anything other than a cult of personality.  Maybe 2024 if we're lucky, or maybe not until he passes away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 8:00 AM, Sinn Fein said:

I agree - in theory.

But, it has to be the right "new blood".  And, even as a "Progressive", I recognize that whoever wins, has to be able to govern from the center.  We really need to get away from the polar partisanship, and find common ground - and work towards solutions that both sides can appreciate. 

 

If Trump is the GOP nominee, I am certain a Dem will win the general election - no matter who the nominee ends up being.  But, if Trump is not the GOP nominee, then the choice of Dem will matter a lot.

McCaskil is right, a progressive can win over Trump " as long as they don't fall off the left side of the earth"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lazyike said:

McCaskil is right, a progressive can win over Trump " as long as they don't fall off the left side of the earth"

The only kind of democrat that can beat Trump is a moderate democrat.  Do they still exist?  Yes, and it's Amy Klobuchar.  Someone like Harris, Beto, Sanders, Warren, or Booker don't stand a chance.  Klobuchar is a very likable candidate and is very smart.  IMO she could hold her own in any debate with any candidate (right or left).  She's soft spoken and her demeanor could make her the perfect candidate to take on Trump.  I don't think he could rattle her like he did Hillary. 

Edited by JohnnyU
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, lazyike said:

I would vote for her

Hell, I'm a Republican and I might vote for her.  Living here in MN I see a lot of her on TV and she sure is likable.   I can't say I agree with her politically, but let's say I like her politically more than those that lean too far left.

ETA:  Klobuchar is the one candidate that could win the appeal of blue collar workers and farmers in the Midwest and south, thus stealing part of Trump's base.  That won't happen with someone that is too left leaning.  These types of voters despise the type of candidate that consider this voter demographic deplorable and let's face it, far left progressives haven't had a clue what these people are thinking, nor how to appeal to them.  If the Democrats don't figure that out they can't beat Trump.

 

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

The only kind of democrat that can beat Trump is a moderate democrat.  Do they still exist?  Yes, and it's Amy Klobuchar.  Someone like Harris, Beto, Sanders, Warren, or Booker don't stand a chance.  Klobuchar is a very likable candidate and is very smart.  IMO she could hold her own in any debate with any candidate (right or left).  She's soft spoken and her demeanor could make her the perfect candidate to take on Trump.  I don't think he could rattle her like he did Hillary. 

I think that was the other way around.

"No, you're the puppet!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu0Bn3ulcOk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, squistion said:

I think that was the other way around.

"No, you're the puppet!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu0Bn3ulcOk

Man, you just blew by the whole premise of that post and jumped on the Hillary train.  She was about as likable as salt on a paper cut.  You better hope the dems get a moderate candidate to run in 2020, or it will be a repeat of 2016.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a buttplug could beat Trump in 2020.  won’t matter though because he won’t be the GOP nominee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, joffer said:

a buttplug could beat Trump in 2020.  

If memory serves they thought the same thing in 2016.  Are you dems going to make the same mistake twice?  Go ahead and run Harris, Booker, Warren, Sanders, Beto, or God forbid (for you) Hillary again.  I'm telling you man, Klobuchar (or some other moderate Democrat, perhaps Biden?) is the only hope the Democrats have in beating Trump.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

Man, you just blew by the whole premise of that post and jumped on the Hillary train.  

You have talked about what a great candidate you think Klobuchar would be probably a dozen times in varying threads and I have pointed out she is rather colorless and lacking in charisma - that I doubt there would be a great deal of enthusiasm about her candidacy to make Democrats flock to the polls to vote for her or to GOTV.

Since you talked about something different in your pitch for her for a change, I thought I would address that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, squistion said:

You have talked about what a great candidate you think Klobuchar would be probably a dozen times in varying threads and I have pointed out she is rather colorless and lacking in charisma - that I doubt there would be a great deal of enthusiasm about her candidacy to make Democrats flock to the polls to vote for her or to GOTV.

Since you talked about something different in your pitch for her for a change, I thought I would address that.

Charisma doesn't mean a damn thing if it's too left leaning.  You won't win the segment of the population you need with that type of candidate.  If not Klobuchar, then some other moderate Democrat.  You must know this, or you're too far left yourself and doesn't understand a huge chunk of the US population.   These voters are more than just fly over states, which the Dems can't seem to figure out.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Charisma doesn't mean a damn thing if it's too left leaning.  You won't win the segment of the population you need with that type of candidate.  If not Klobuchar, then some other moderate Democrat.  You must know this, or you're too far left yourself and doesn't understand a huge chunk of the US population.   These voters are more than just fly over states, which the Dems can't seem to figure out.

Republicans are a very poor judge of who is appealing to Democrats and independents.

Recall that Republicans didn't give Obama much of a chance in 2008, being supposedly too liberal to beat any Republican. Before that, they also thought that Joe Liebermann was a great centrist candidate and would appeal to moderates.

Democrats need a candidate that excites the base and while Klobuchar is a very nice person, she is probably too bland for the rank and file to get excited about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, squistion said:

You have talked about what a great candidate you think Klobuchar would be probably a dozen times in varying threads and I have pointed out she is rather colorless and lacking in charisma - that I doubt there would be a great deal of enthusiasm about her candidacy to make Democrats flock to the polls to vote for her or to GOTV.

Of course Democrats would flock to the polls to vote for Klobuchar, just like they’d flock to the polls to vote for pretty much anyone running against Trump.

In general, turnout for one party’s candidate isn’t driven by enthusiasm for that candidate. It’s driven by dislike for the other party’s candidate.

Klobuchar’s relative blandness (if that’s the general perception of her) is a point in her favor. It will drive many fewer Republicans to the polls than Clinton did, thus helping Democrats win the turnout race.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, squistion said:

Democrats need a candidate that excites the base and while Klobuchar is a very nice person, she is probably too bland for the rank and file to get excited about.

Democrats need more than to excite their base, they need to win over some of those blue collar voters, as well as the farmers and those that didn't go to college.  Ignoring the fly over states is what got them beat in 2016.  If the Democrats can't steal a chunk of those that voted for Trump they can't beat Trump.  And to do that is run a candidate that appeals to that voter demographic.  I can tell you that Klobuchar is loved by everyone in Minnesota and I think that what appeals to Minnesotans, would also appeal to the rest of the nation, especially the Midwest and South.  Calling her bland isn't a correct description of her.  What I see is someone that is very smart, hold her own against anyone, has unbelievable composure, and is likable to boot.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Of course Democrats would flock to the polls to vote for Klobuchar, just like they’d flock to the polls to vote for pretty much anyone running against Trump.

This.  If democrats need a reason to get fired up other than the one already provided, they are doing it WAY wrong.  It's like suggesting Duke needing bulletin board material to get fired up to play UNC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Democrats need more than to excite their base, they need to win over some of those blue collar voters, as well as the farmers and those that didn't go to college.  Ignoring the fly over states is what got them beat in 2016.  If the Democrats can't steal a chunk of those that voted for Trump they can't beat Trump.  And to do that is run a candidate that appeals to that voter demographic.  I can tell you that Klobuchar is loved by everyone in Minnesota and I think that what appeals to Minnesotans, would also appeal to the rest of the nation, especially the Midwest and South.  Calling her bland isn't a correct description of her.  What I see is someone that is very smart, hold her own against anyone, has unbelievable composure, and is likable to boot.

Walter Mondale was loved by everyone in Minnesota too - but like Klobuchar he was a bland and unexciting candidate.

Against the charismatic Reagan, his appeal didn't carry much beyond the Minnesota borders, as he only carried his home state and Washington DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Of course Democrats would flock to the polls to vote for Klobuchar, just like they’d flock to the polls to vote for pretty much anyone running against Trump.

In general, turnout for one party’s candidate isn’t driven by enthusiasm for that candidate. It’s driven by dislike for the other party’s candidate.

Klobuchar’s relative blandness (if that’s the general perception of her) is a point in her favor. It will drive many fewer Republicans to the polls than Clinton did, thus helping Democrats win the turnout race.

If that would have been the case Democrats would flocked to the polls for Hillary, but just running against Trump was not enough in itself for her to win the electoral college - nor would just being the standard bearer be enough for any candidate, contrary to your belief that any dull, colorless candidate would do well running against Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 3:42 PM, Henry Ford said:

He lost his senate race.  I'd ideally like to nominate someone who wins elections.

I think that I speak for many in here when I say that we're all awaiting your indepth analysis of Democratic Party candidates in 2020. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

You have talked about what a great candidate you think Klobuchar would be probably a dozen times in varying threads and I have pointed out she is rather colorless and lacking in charisma - that I doubt there would be a great deal of enthusiasm about her candidacy to make Democrats flock to the polls to vote for her or to GOTV.

Since you talked about something different in your pitch for her for a change, I thought I would address that.

Don't need them to flock to the polls, just need them not to run away from the polls.  4 million more Americans voted for Obama 1 even though the population was 20 million smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

Don't need them to flock to the polls, just need them not to run away from the polls.  4 million more Americans voted for Obama 1 even though the population was 20 million smaller.

Not true. Obama in 2012 only got about 60,000 more votes than Hillary in 2016.

Obama in 2012:

65,915,795 votes

Hillary in 2016:

65,853,514 votes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

I think that I speak for many in here when I say that we're all awaiting your indepth analysis of Democratic Party candidates in 2020. :D

I’m sure they will primarily back up my continuing decision not to join the party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Of course Democrats would flock to the polls to vote for Klobuchar, just like they’d flock to the polls to vote for pretty much anyone running against Trump.

In general, turnout for one party’s candidate isn’t driven by enthusiasm for that candidate. It’s driven by dislike for the other party’s candidate.

Klobuchar’s relative blandness (if that’s the general perception of her) is a point in her favor. It will drive many fewer Republicans to the polls than Clinton did, thus helping Democrats win the turnout race.

If that would have been the case Democrats would flocked to the polls for Hillary, but just running against Trump was not enough in itself for her to win the electoral college - nor would just being the standard bearer be enough for any candidate, contrary to your belief that any dull, colorless candidate would do well running against Trump.

There was a significant question about whether Trump meant the stupid #### he was saying prior to the election.  There was an element of risk involved and that doesn't get to be overlooked just because those who were guessing he actually meant it were correct.  We have a completely different set of documented circumstances in front of us.  A lot less guessing this time :shrug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, squistion said:

Not true. Obama in 2012 only got about 60,000 more votes than Hillary in 2016.

Obama in 2012:

65,915,795 votes

Hillary in 2016:

65,853,514 votes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

 

 

 

He said right in his post he was talking about Obama 1....which would have been 2008 which would have been 69,498,516 votes.  Read what he's saying...it might help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Commish said:

He said right in his post he was talking about Obama 1....which would have been 2008 which would have been 69,498,516 votes.  Read what he's saying...it might help

The conversation before that involved Hillary. Read what the previous discussion was about...it might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, squistion said:

Not true. Obama in 2012 only got about 60,000 more votes than Hillary in 2016.

Obama in 2012:

65,915,795 votes

Hillary in 2016:

65,853,514 votes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

 

 

 

I said Obama 1 which was about 69.5 million.  So very true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.