Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
I was thinking the same about Liz and Bernie together to see how they'd draw distinctions.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I realize Moulton and Bullock are where they are but it seems ridiculous to exclude just two people who are currently governor / in Congress.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Seems like instead of two debates of ten they could have just done three debates of eight to allow all the semi-legitimate candidates in.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Bullock agrees; got a late start due to when his state's legislative session ended
Bullock says he's being 'penalized' out of debate for doing his job
Some would like him to run for senate instead, so maybe no incentive to bend a rule
Last edited by a moderator:
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
NBC announced the moderators for the debates:
1st Hour - Lester Holt with Savannah Guthrie and Jose Diaz Balart
2nd Hour- Holt with Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd
1st Hour - Lester Holt with Savannah Guthrie and Jose Diaz Balart
2nd Hour- Holt with Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd
To be fair, its a little ridiculous that 20+ people still think they can win the Dem nomination.SaintsInDome2006 said:
They are all going to feel slighted when the 3rd debate rolls around, and there are only 8 candidates who meet the criteria....
But I do think the message from the DNC is - these rules have been in place a while - get out and campaign and fundraise to show you are a viable candidate.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I don’t pay as close attention as you but we have what, 6 that could win and that’s basically it?
Joe, Bernie, Warren, Harris, Pete and I’ll be generous and say Beto has a shot - anybody I’m missing? Maybe Booker? The sooner we get the number down the better, IMO.
timschochet
Footballguy
I object to Rachel Maddow.
Very smart lady and I used to enjoy her, until the Trump era. That was the point where she essentially attempted to imitate the Sean Hannity model for high ratings by clinging to every conspiracy theory she could find. She has transformed herself IMO from respectable opinion maker to hack. She doesn’t belong asking questions.
I think there was another thread where somebody made a similar claim but then couldn’t identify anything in particular that she got wrong.
(Politifact doesn’t list any false statements more recent than 2015. Politifact obviously doesn’t investigate every statement, though. Even Hannity’s page is finite.)
Do you have any specifics in mind?
I'd add Klobuchar to the Booker/Beto tier.
Its still possible that someone else makes a move - but its hard to see how that might happen. All the candidates will have the next two debates - but in reality, the lesser known candidates are likely to have 10 or so minutes in each debate to stand out. And, given that they have not stood out yet - its difficult to see it then - but its possible.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
One of the most insidious aspects of conspiracy theories is that usually the facts are accurate. It’s their linkage and interpretation that’s the problem.
So for instance, Maddow spent months focusing on various dealings Trump has had with Deutchebanke, then discussed how that bank had laundered Russian money, in order to strongly imply that Trump had been under the control of Putin for at least a decade. But that’s all it was, an implication without direct evidence. Yet she caused millions of people to believe it.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
No. But that’s a question that has been asked at one time of every conspiracy theory I can think of.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Its a fair point about Maddow's participation. Hers is one of the shows NYT told its reporters not to appear on because they've gotten too opinionated. Probably okay for primaries, but bigger issue for general. I don't think Fox or CNN has used an opinion show moderator. Seems like a good policy.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t think that’s a good example. ProPublica has been on this issue, and the New York Times, and it seems like a pretty important issue with some apparent real meat to it. Listen to the Trump Inc. podcast on this subject when you have a chance.
Deutsche Bank’s anti-money-laundering specialists have flagged suspicious activity involving Trump and Kushner (and Kushner’s transactions with Russians) and recommended filing Suspicious Activity Reports, but were strangely overruled by the bank’s executives.
There’s more weird stuff with this story as well. I don’t know how Maddow has covered it, but here’s The New York Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/trump-deutsche-bank.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/deutsche-bank-donald-trump.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/business/deutsche-bank-trump-finances-congress.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/business/deutsche-bank-trump-subpoena.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html
timschochet
Footballguy
All right. Well maybe I should reconsider. My impression is that she’s moved away from her previous status into Hannity territory, but perhaps that’s unfair.
formerfourdigit
Footballguy
Do you have anything to support this? Empirically I see a lot of people that supported Bernie in 2016 moving to Warren for 2020 or on the fence between them still. I don't know anyone really that is doing anything different or fringe. Also we have a strong trend of Warren picking up steam since polling started and it hasn't all been at Bernie's expense.
formerfourdigit
Footballguy
Gentle reminder that a lot of the "left-wing conspiracy theories" that came out of the Bush administrations turned out to be true.
Posts on this board. Some of most prominent Bernie supporters are the least likely to say stuff like “Even if my preferred candidate doesn’t get the nomination, I’ll still vote for the Democratic nominee over Trump for sure. I’m totally prepared to vote for Biden.” Meanwhile, the most prominent Warren supporters are among the most likely to say exactly that. That’s my read.
Yeah, that’s my point. There isn’t a fixed slice of the pie marked “Warren-Sanders” such that Warren’s gain is specifically Bernie’s loss (or Warren’s loss would be specifically Bernie’s gain, etc.).
ren hoek
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/andEps/status/1138903510802735106
These were the headlines in June 2015. It's *very* early.
https://twitter.com/andEps/status/1138903900206129152
These were the numbers heading into the first Republican primary debate of the 2016 presidential campaign.
These were the headlines in June 2015. It's *very* early.
https://twitter.com/andEps/status/1138903900206129152
These were the numbers heading into the first Republican primary debate of the 2016 presidential campaign.
whoknew
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Bernie gave a speech today devoted to explaining Democratic Socialism.
There are two frames of mind about this:
A. This is good because he explains the difference so that people don’t confuse it with Communism, etc. Plus these ideas energize the base, and that’s how the Democrats will win 2020.
B. This is bad because every time you mention the word “socialism” that’s all people hear and it allows Republicans to paint the Democratic Party as too far outside of the mainstream. Plus you’re alienating the center, who, in places like Pennsylvania or Michigan, will either stick with Trump or stay home.
Which of these is more accurate?
There are two frames of mind about this:
A. This is good because he explains the difference so that people don’t confuse it with Communism, etc. Plus these ideas energize the base, and that’s how the Democrats will win 2020.
B. This is bad because every time you mention the word “socialism” that’s all people hear and it allows Republicans to paint the Democratic Party as too far outside of the mainstream. Plus you’re alienating the center, who, in places like Pennsylvania or Michigan, will either stick with Trump or stay home.
Which of these is more accurate?
Last edited by a moderator:
I strongly disagree with this. In general elections, as opposed to primaries, candidates don't win so much by energizing their own base as they do by minimizing how much they energize their opponent's base. (Link.) Bernie's discussion of socialism will energize Trump's base.
(That's probably why Biden has the biggest lead over Trump in head-to-head polls.)
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
Tonight's the last night to qualify for the debates. Hope you did your part- if not for #gravelgang, at least for the man who threw a shoe at George Bush.
timschochet
Footballguy
I tend to agree with you but a lot of people don’t. And I sense that many progressives are starting to get annoyed, alarmed and angered by Biden’s consistent lead in the polls.Maurile Tremblay said:
How Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren Cracked the Code of the 2020 Race - NYT article on how Buttigieg and Warren have risen in the polls.
Now that the "Early" primary season is about over, and the debates, and mid-primary season are upon us it fascinating, to me, to look at how we got here.
Biden - entered the race with the highest poll numbers - still there - I don't think he will hold on.
Sanders - Had been leading in a non-Biden world - but now seems to have settled into his level - 13-15% core support, with a few others tacked on. The core supporters are incredibly loyal, but its hard to see where Sanders picks up support from here. He was close to 50% 4 years ago, and yet those voters are all kicking the tires on newer models. He is a known commodity, and hasn't changed his tune.
Warren - maybe the biggest surprise - quite frankly, she has outworked everyone on the trail, and has overcome a very dubious start. The number of people who outright disliked her was very vocal on this forum at the start of the campaign. Those people might still dislike her, but they are less vocal about it now. Instead of her past, she has moved on and is now known for "I've got a plan!"
Buttigieg - the only candidate who started among the masses, but was able to rise above them. I think the bulk of the credit for Pete's rise goes to Lis Smith, who tirelessly put Pete in front of every media outlet she could find in her extensive contact list. Pete, in trun, deserves credit for staying above the masses. His demeanor, in every situation, made all of the media hits pay off. Sure, he had an interesting background story to tell - but the thing that I think sells Mayor Pete is simply his ability to take on tough questions, provide tough answers - and provide a level of authenticity that people want to see.
Harris - I think she is the tortoise in the race. She has the leadership chops, and presence to take control of this race. But, I think she needs a moment or two to stand out. That moment could be in the debates, or even in a Senate hearing. I think if she had worked as had at campaigning as Warren, or had Smith as her Coms Director, she would be leading the race right now.
O'Rourke - Peter Pan - he simply got out-flanked by Buttigieg for the media darling. Started his campaign with the Vogue cover, but its been downhill ever since. He has never struck me as one for substance, so his campaign was always going to be about energy and passion. At this stage, I can not envision him moving past Warren/Buttigieg/Harris - I just don't see what he brings to the table to vault ahead of those candidates.
Booker - Klobuchar - These are the last two "viable" candidates imo. Right now, I think both are counting on identity politics to help swing votes their way. Both have very solid resumes, and would make fine Presidents if elected, but so far neither has matched Warren in terms of effort. But, unlike O'rourke, I do think both Klobucar and Booker have a path forward if they can stand out in the debates. They need to step up and show America what they bring to the table, and what a Booker or Klobuchar presidency would look like.
None of the other candidates have been able to rise above the fray. They may be counting on the debates to ignite their campaigns, but that is a risky strategy, given that they are probably looking at 10 minutes in a debate to make their case to the public. I imagine more than a few will be winding down their campaigns by the end of the summer.
Now that the "Early" primary season is about over, and the debates, and mid-primary season are upon us it fascinating, to me, to look at how we got here.
Biden - entered the race with the highest poll numbers - still there - I don't think he will hold on.
Sanders - Had been leading in a non-Biden world - but now seems to have settled into his level - 13-15% core support, with a few others tacked on. The core supporters are incredibly loyal, but its hard to see where Sanders picks up support from here. He was close to 50% 4 years ago, and yet those voters are all kicking the tires on newer models. He is a known commodity, and hasn't changed his tune.
Warren - maybe the biggest surprise - quite frankly, she has outworked everyone on the trail, and has overcome a very dubious start. The number of people who outright disliked her was very vocal on this forum at the start of the campaign. Those people might still dislike her, but they are less vocal about it now. Instead of her past, she has moved on and is now known for "I've got a plan!"
Buttigieg - the only candidate who started among the masses, but was able to rise above them. I think the bulk of the credit for Pete's rise goes to Lis Smith, who tirelessly put Pete in front of every media outlet she could find in her extensive contact list. Pete, in trun, deserves credit for staying above the masses. His demeanor, in every situation, made all of the media hits pay off. Sure, he had an interesting background story to tell - but the thing that I think sells Mayor Pete is simply his ability to take on tough questions, provide tough answers - and provide a level of authenticity that people want to see.
Harris - I think she is the tortoise in the race. She has the leadership chops, and presence to take control of this race. But, I think she needs a moment or two to stand out. That moment could be in the debates, or even in a Senate hearing. I think if she had worked as had at campaigning as Warren, or had Smith as her Coms Director, she would be leading the race right now.
O'Rourke - Peter Pan - he simply got out-flanked by Buttigieg for the media darling. Started his campaign with the Vogue cover, but its been downhill ever since. He has never struck me as one for substance, so his campaign was always going to be about energy and passion. At this stage, I can not envision him moving past Warren/Buttigieg/Harris - I just don't see what he brings to the table to vault ahead of those candidates.
Booker - Klobuchar - These are the last two "viable" candidates imo. Right now, I think both are counting on identity politics to help swing votes their way. Both have very solid resumes, and would make fine Presidents if elected, but so far neither has matched Warren in terms of effort. But, unlike O'rourke, I do think both Klobucar and Booker have a path forward if they can stand out in the debates. They need to step up and show America what they bring to the table, and what a Booker or Klobuchar presidency would look like.
None of the other candidates have been able to rise above the fray. They may be counting on the debates to ignite their campaigns, but that is a risky strategy, given that they are probably looking at 10 minutes in a debate to make their case to the public. I imagine more than a few will be winding down their campaigns by the end of the summer.
New California Poll: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-2020-california-democratic-primary-poll-20190613-story.html
Biden - 22%
Warren - 18%
Sanders - 17%
Harris - 13%
Buttigieg - 10%
Nobody else topped 3%
Biden - 22%
Warren - 18%
Sanders - 17%
Harris - 13%
Buttigieg - 10%
Nobody else topped 3%
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The Warren surge appears to be real, which makes me happy.
It'll never happen, but imagine if Sanders dropped out and threw his support behind her in a grand gesture of self-sacrifice in the name of the progressive movement and gender equity.
timschochet
Footballguy
This may be wishful thinking on your part. It reminds me of how a lot of people (including myself) kept dismissing Trump even as he led every other Republican. We kept figuring that something would happen that would diminish Trump’s dominance, and that some more serious candidate, like Marco Rubio, would emerge. It never happened.
The one similarity between Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 is that Biden will be immune to gaffes and former policy positions. If Biden says something dumb, the voters aren’t going to care. And if he contradicts. a position he held in 1994, they won’t care about that either. Given those Teflon qualities, what exactly is going to bring Joe down? I have trouble seeing it.
Biden’s support among Black voters is 77%. That’s an amazing number, close to Obama.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Pretty low. I know your point- it was strongly for Hillary.
But this time there’s no Obama in the wings that’s going to take that away. Very different.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
I'm a big Beto fan so I have to fight back on this a little. I think its unfair to say that he's not one of substance. He's put out a number of substantive proposals. Yet for whatever reason, he gets tagged as a lightweight. Its probably because he's good looking. The same reason people used to think Brad Pitt and Leo weren't good actors.
timschochet
Footballguy
Obviously I don’t know anything. But I think it’s a reasonable assumption. 2008 represented a unique situation for black voters, never to be repeated: the chance to elect a black man as President for the first time. In order to see that happen, they did something that they never do: defect from the most “establishment” candidate en masse. The chances of them doing that again, and particularly to a guy that they like and respect as much as Biden, are very slim.
And make no mistake about this: per both polling and interviews, blacks not only support Joe Biden, they really really like him. They associate him with Obama.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
There are like a dozen assumptions built into your argument here, most of which seem entirely speculative.
A, 100%. There is 0 evidence than anyone who will vote for Trump in 2020 can be reached by moving to the center. Google says that 58% of eligible voters voted in 2016, chasing after that 42% is significantly more meaningful than trying to peel off some tiny % of the imaginary centrist (who are essentially embarrassed republicans at this point) unicorn who is simultaneously able to make policy based decisions, but is also potentially going to vote for Trump if you use the word socialist. Centrist policies (aka 1990 Republicans) have already severely hindered younger voters abilities to become adults with a house and 2.4 kids by burdening them with massive student loans, lower paying jobs factoring in inflation, solely to cater to their rich parents who already had more opportunities growing up. This is a significant population that can be lost, while as far as I can tell you might be the last centrist on earth.timschochet said:
Last edited by a moderator:
I, obviously, disagree with a few of these points.
I don't think Biden and Trump are similar at all (even coming from opposites sides). Biden stepped into a 30% "base", while Trump had to work to build his base. For better, or worse, as Trump campaigned, his numbers got better. And he campaigned often and loudly to build those numbers. Biden, on the other hand, seems to be taking the approach that less is more. And he may be right - where the less he campaigns, the better his numbers are - but I don't think that is sustainable. Trump was promising something new and different, while Biden is promising to go back to the Obama era. So, I think they are vastly different creatures, and I don't think Biden can follow Trump's game plan.
Second, I don't think the voters will give Biden a pass, the way GOP voters give Trump a pass. If Biden makes mistakes on the trail - it will hurt his campaign. (I think that is one reason he has kept a low profile thus far - less direct media contact = less chance of a mistake. He is in the lead, so he does not need the exposure, but ultimately, I think this catches up to him).
Yeah, we'll go with that...
O'rourke's best chance was to be the younger media darling - so far he has lost that spot to Buttigieg. If Beto cannot reclaim that mantle, I don't see a path for him to the nomination.
whoknew
Footballguy
I agree with you on that. Mayor Pete outflanked him.Yeah, we'll go with that...
O'rourke's best chance was to be the younger media darling - so far he has lost that spot to Buttigieg. If Beto cannot reclaim that mantle, I don't see a path for him to the nomination.
By the way, did you know Mayor Pete learned Norwegian just to read a book? Not sure if that story got out or not.
I joke. I like Buttigieg too and will be thrilled if he is the Dem nominee.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
What makes this so easy is to just pick any candidate and match them up with Trump. I agree that Biden wouldn’t be my 1st, 2nd or maybe even 10th choice on the D side but I’ll happily vote for Joe.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Joe is old and out of touch, by far not my first choice. But job number one is to beat the crazy guy in the White House now and bring some sanity to the head of government. Joe can do something along those lines for four years, then we turn it over to the next generation of Dems. If that's what it comes down to.
Did I mention Job One? Whoever it is, we need 70 million plus voting against the guy working with the Russians to get re-elected and wreck the country. Not Howard Schulz, not Jill freaking Stein, not Gary Johnson -- the Dem nominee.
I'm gonna go think about Job One some more.
Did I mention Job One? Whoever it is, we need 70 million plus voting against the guy working with the Russians to get re-elected and wreck the country. Not Howard Schulz, not Jill freaking Stein, not Gary Johnson -- the Dem nominee.
I'm gonna go think about Job One some more.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Warren will be the first knocked off by the debates. She "has a plan" partly because that's the only thing she's comfortable discussing. Extemporaneity is not among her skills - she debated Scott Brown (the forensic equivalent of a hitching post) to less than a draw running for Senate - and it will knock her out again in a national contest.
prefontaine
Footballguy
I don't think there's any "may" to this. Biden has run for President twice and been an unmitigated disaster twice. He's already all over the place this time and he's not even really campaigning.
For all the best vs Trump he has going, it's only because he's likable and other candidates are less known. He's a terrible campaigner. I like Biden from this field. I don't want the Dems to nominate a progressive candidate because I want to be sure it's someone I can stomach. But Biden may be a worse candidate than Kerry was. I really want Harris to make a charge.
timschochet
Footballguy
You may be right. I don’t agree with you, but the reason I posted this as a question and not a statement is because I’m honestly not sure how this is going to play out. All the old rules tell me that centrists in the Midwest will decide who will be our next President, but the old rules may be worthless.
timschochet
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
The Atlantic's Ronald Brownstein had a piece today about a predicted record turnout in '20. Maybe as high as 156 million total votes, as opposed to 139m in '16. And to reach that number, it means that the newly added votes will largely come from young and/or minority voters.
Bad news for Donald but my nightmare scenario remains very much alive: the Dem candidate will win the popular vote by 10 million and lose the EC because the one Dem voter in some county in Michigan's UP was snowed in and couldn't be bothered to make it down to the "far hall" to vote.
Bad news for Donald but my nightmare scenario remains very much alive: the Dem candidate will win the popular vote by 10 million and lose the EC because the one Dem voter in some county in Michigan's UP was snowed in and couldn't be bothered to make it down to the "far hall" to vote.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
and wait til another 6 mos of generating no scenario above 42% has the President considering wag-the-dog options
timschochet
Footballguy
Are you following what's going on with Iran today? We might not have to wait that long.
Similar threads
