Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re testimony to the fact that the ad didn’t exactly work the way he wanted. 

If he wanted everyone to know his name and who he was, he'd have put his name all over the ads.  He didn't do that.  We had the ads all over here.  If his goal was to get his name out he went about it in the wrong way and his first move for his political career is to hire a different marketing group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add another long-shot to the field:

 

Shane Goldmacher‏Verified account @ShaneGoldmacher

NEW: At an off-the-record with journalists and political types in Manhattan last night at @MollyJongFast's house, South Bend Mayor @PeteButtigieg left the distinct impression he's not only running for president in 2020 but could announce very soon, per attendees.

 

I think this has been bandied about for a bit - but I have to think he will need to make one hell of an early impression to get donors/staff, name recognition...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

South Bend Mayor @PeteButtigieg 

Maybe the DNC could do a wee bit of rigging... no mayors need apply. Get real, this is serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ANY chance these guys have gotten together and discussed who would really run among themselves and are just putting so many people out there specifically so Trump and his mindless followers can't focus on just a few?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I continue to hear Democratic strategists on CNN and MSNBC argue that we need a progressive candidate to energize the base and that this is more important than attempting to sway middle of the road voters who turned to Trump last time around. While it’s easy to see the attraction of this argument (I’m sure many here agree with it) I don’t think it’s correct. 

First off, IMO the base in both parties is energized much more than charisma and personality than they are by ideas. I would point out that Barack Obama was a centrist and moderate ( despite conservative attempts to paint him otherwise) and he energized the base just fine. Hillary did not, but again it was her personality and lack of charisma, not her ideas, that killed her. 

I’m looking for the candidate that can energize the base AND attract the center. That might be Beto, I’m not sure. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I would point out that Barack Obama was a centrist and moderate ( despite conservative attempts to paint him otherwise) and he energized the base just fine

You can only make this argument with the benefit of hindsight.  He was all in on the most progressive topic in this country's history as the pillar of his platform during the election.  It wasn't until after he was elected that he showed his true colors.  He brought droves of people to the polls simply because of his skin color.  That's not a ding on him.  That was one of his major strengths and it worked well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is truth in both messages.  I think you need a progressive movement to influence the platform - and to set the goals.

But, the reality is  - you have to govern 40% of the population that thinks those progressive goals are terrible.  And, I think you have to respect those views, even if you disagree with them.

 

So, the end result is that you shoot for Medicare for All, but you have to work your way to that target, and not try to get there in one step.  You will have to convince the 40% that it makes sense, and that will take time, and require that we move in stages.

 

I don't like a centrist starting point, only because the right will negotiate from the center, leaving us on the right, rather than negotiate from the left, leaving us in the center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, timschochet said:

I continue to hear Democratic strategists on CNN and MSNBC argue that we need a progressive candidate to energize the base and that this is more important than attempting to sway middle of the road voters who turned to Trump last time around. While it’s easy to see the attraction of this argument (I’m sure many here agree with it) I don’t think it’s correct. 

First off, IMO the base in both parties is energized much more than charisma and personality than they are by ideas. I would point out that Barack Obama was a centrist and moderate ( despite conservative attempts to paint him otherwise) and he energized the base just fine. Hillary did not, but again it was her personality and lack of charisma, not her ideas, that killed her. 

I’m looking for the candidate that can energize the base AND attract the center. That might be Beto, I’m not sure. 

I feel like a person without any party affiliate.  Every time I want to go full Dem I see Shumer with his glasses on his nose and Pelosi shaking and it reminds me of same ole, same ole Groundhog Day. How those 2 can energize anyone is beyond me.  

Hopefully O`Rourke can.

Edited by Da Guru

Share this post


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

I feel like a person without any party affiliate.  Every time I want to go full Dem I see Shumer with his glasses on his nose and Pelosi shaking and it reminds me of same ole, same ole Groundhog Day. How those 2 can energize anyone is beyond me.  

Hopefully O`Rourke can.

 

I feel the same way. The only two slam dunks to beat Trump for me are Biden and Beto. Maybe Klobuchar, but I don't know much about her. Biden/Beto overlap quite a bit. My concern is they split the centrist vote, paving the way for someone like Bernie or Warren to slip through and ultimately lose to Trump. It's a worst case scenario, but the Democratic party is pretty good at figuring out what the worst possible move is, and executing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is far too early to know what is a "slam dunk" in this election cycle.

 

I think, sometimes, we rush into things too quickly - when the better course of action is to let things percolate a little.  I really dislike some of the media narratives that are forming - because I think they are premature at best, and most likely the result of a subtle attack campaign.

I think the right candidate will present him or herself over time - if we let the process play out.  There will certainly be an ebb and flow to the campaign season - but the last thing we want to do is have a pre-ordained candidate before we really get going.

 

My personal view is that Biden is not the right candidate for this election cycle.  But, my view might change over the next 6-9 months.  I want to see the candidates over time - how do they lead?  Do they inspire?  Do they feel "real"  or "canned"?  Do they have the gravitas for the job?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think it is far too early to know what is a "slam dunk" in this election cycle.

 

I think, sometimes, we rush into things too quickly - when the better course of action is to let things percolate a little.  I really dislike some of the media narratives that are forming - because I think they are premature at best, and most likely the result of a subtle attack campaign.

I think the right candidate will present him or herself over time - if we let the process play out.  There will certainly be an ebb and flow to the campaign season - but the last thing we want to do is have a pre-ordained candidate before we really get going.

 

My personal view is that Biden is not the right candidate for this election cycle.  But, my view might change over the next 6-9 months.  I want to see the candidates over time - how do they lead?  Do they inspire?  Do they feel "real"  or "canned"?  Do they have the gravitas for the job?  

I think you make really good points here and completely agree that you need to let things breathe a little bit and let it play out. But I mean, this is a message board and what else are we going to do but speculate, throw opinions out, etc., even if they are subject to change over the next 18 months. I'm certainly open to any candidate that can beat Trump, as "ability to beat Trump" is a very close 2nd place to "isn't a complete POS" in terms of my priorities in 2020. 

What I want to see is who is going to appeal most to the Rust Belt, because, sadly, that's all that really matters.As of today, to me, the answer to that appears to be Biden, Beto, and Klobuchar. They're inoffensive, charismatic in their own ways, and there's no easy catchphrase to attach to them. At least not one that will play to the Rust Belt swing voters. That could change, but I don't see it. Pocahontas plays, Socialist Bernie plays, any coastal liberal type stigma plays. 

So to your point, what I'm looking at is:

Biden: how is his age, and some of his weird interaction with females going to play? 

Beto: Can he clean up his non-stump oratory? He was not great at all here in his debates with Cruz. His stumps and town halls were unbelievable, but he struggled in a more unscripted, challenging environment.

Klobuchar: I just need to learn more about her in general. I like that she's from a state in middle America and has that sort of midwestern "oh shucks" charm, but comes across as sharp too. 

 

And I don't think it's unfair or putting the cart before the horse to say that Bernie or Warren are very risky candidates. We already know how the GOP will attack them, and we already know that type of attack plays in the Rust Belt. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Media and the voters face the same challenge - ignore the horse race aspects when evaluating candidates. Where are they on the policies and what are their respective experience, skills and successes?

That is, focusing on who can beat who can be self-defeating.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Media and the voters face the same challenge - ignore the horse race aspects when evaluating candidates. Where are they on the policies and what are their respective experience, skills and successes?

That is, focusing on who can beat who can be self-defeating.

Hillary had really well-defined policies. Lots and lots of detailed info on her website. She had tons of valid experience and skills.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LC512 said:

Hillary had really well-defined policies. Lots and lots of detailed info on her website.

That changed almost daily.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, LC512 said:

Hillary had really well-defined policies. Lots and lots of detailed info on her website. She had tons of valid experience and skills.

You’re right about that, she was very flawed as a candidate. But were the media and voters discussing her policies or her polls? They were obsessed with polls. I’ll plead guilty, I was in there too, I certainly thought Hillary would win going away, but I think that kind of thinking kept Dem competitors out and kept Trump in the game as a kind of sideshow who as it turned out ended up eating the whole carnival.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 5:10 PM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

You’re right about that, she was very flawed as a candidate. But were the media and voters discussing her policies or her polls? They were obsessed with polls. I’ll plead guilty, I was in there too, I certainly thought Hillary would win going away, but I think that kind of thinking kept Dem competitors out and kept Trump in the game as a kind of sideshow who as it turned out ended up eating the whole carnival.

I never pay attention to polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Harris is in:

 

Sen. Kamala Harris has decided to seek the 2020 Democratic nomination for president, sources close to her told KCBS Radio. She'll announce her candidacy on or around Martin Luther King Day, probably at a campaign rally in Oakland, the sources said.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-set-to-toss-hat-into-presidential-ring-sources-kcbs-radio/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Angell🌳 📰‏ @tomangell Jan 8

As a reminder, Kamala Harris simply laughed in the face of a reporter who asked about her position on marijuana legalization in 2014.

This was in the context of her Republican attorney general opponent supporting legal cannabis. Who’s laughing now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 12:40 PM, Sinn Fein said:

I think there is truth in both messages.  I think you need a progressive movement to influence the platform - and to set the goals.

But, the reality is  - you have to govern 40% of the population that thinks those progressive goals are terrible.  And, I think you have to respect those views, even if you disagree with them.

 

So, the end result is that you shoot for Medicare for All, but you have to work your way to that target, and not try to get there in one step.  You will have to convince the 40% that it makes sense, and that will take time, and require that we move in stages.

 

I don't like a centrist starting point, only because the right will negotiate from the center, leaving us on the right, rather than negotiate from the left, leaving us in the center.

I think you have to respect all people.  I don’t think you have to respect all opinions or views. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I think you have to respect all people.  I don’t think you have to respect all opinions or views. 

Of course.  What % of people were represented in the 1.8 trillion tax cut?  Only during social programs does everyones input matter.

BTW, medicare for all will lower healthcare costs.  By 2 trillion at least of 10 years.  The 2 trillion is a hit to drug and insurance companies of course.   Hence the push back.  Plus capitalism.  Why can't we import drugs from Canada again?

Edited by IC FBGCav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi is officially in.....that's another I'd consider voting for.  Seems relatively moderate and in line with the wants of the country.

Share this post


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

Tulsi is officially in.....that's another I'd consider voting for.  Seems relatively moderate and in line with the wants of the country.

Is she moderate? My impression is that she’s a Bernie Sanders type. But I haven’t read her platform. 

Share this post


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

Tulsi is officially in.....that's another I'd consider voting for.  Seems relatively moderate and in line with the wants of the country.

Don`t know why Cortez is getting all the love.  Read her bio...Tusli has the goods!

Share this post


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

Is she moderate? My impression is that she’s a Bernie Sanders type. But I haven’t read her platform. 

She's anti-war. You'd hate her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

Don`t know why Cortez is getting all the love.  Read her bio...Tusli has the goods!

Tulsi was one of my favorites from the DNC during the 2016 campaign.  Not sure she really has what it takes to make a run for the office - but I am happy that she is taking that chance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously we are starting to get a crowded field - which was expected.

I do hope that even by this summer we start to see a narrowing of the field.

 

One of the things that I think is important - with Warren, Harris, Gabbard running - there is no "shock" value, if you will, at a woman running for President.  I think that is a step forward.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoping the large field isn’t just a bunch of sniping at each other over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Da Guru said:

Don`t know why Cortez is getting all the love.  Read her bio...Tusli has the goods!

Oddly enough, the first real exposure I had to her was an interview on Joe Roagen (however you spell his name).  She was on over an hour.  Very sensible and logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In A Private Meeting, Kirsten Gillibrand Signaled She Will Run For President

 

I still think her campaign is DOA - but I am willing to see how it unfolds over the next several months.  I think she will end up being too polarizing on the #MeToo issues, and not enough substance on other issues.  There are already reports that she is not well liked among the Dem establishment, and I don't think she has true "outsider" appeal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 8:48 PM, Sinn Fein said:

:oldunsure:

You know I was one of Bernies biggest/most vocal supporters on this board, right?

 

I am just trying to take a neutral look at the field, and I think a lot of factors that led to his success in 2016 are missing now.  :shrug:

 

You can still shove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Dubner (Freakonomics God) interviews and highlights Andrew Yang. I enjoyed the interview, worth listening to. He's not going to win, but his perspective and ideas are fantastic.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/andrew-yang/

Share this post


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

Add Gillibrand to the list.

I think she has a very uphill battle - but she'll have chance to make her case.

 

I think the keys for her will be: Fundraising, and can she connect with voters in Iowa.  Being from New York will help, being on the ####list for many Dem donors will hurt.  Lets see how ti balances out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillibrand doesn't have a chance. She's local for me, so I'll def be keeping an eye out, but the first place she went to for fundraising was Wall Street. And my local news just showed an early clip from Colbert with one of the things she's running on is getting money out of politics. So it's just more two faced crap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was Obama’s moment of truth, and it happened months before he was elected. Would presidential candidate Barack Obama side with the radicals? Much of his campaign rhetoric suggested he would. Or would he side with the establishment? Again, much of his campaign rhetoric suggested he would. We all know how he chose, and people will long debate whether it was right or wrong. Siding with the establishment certainly earned him plenty of defenders, and it was the safer choice. But it also came at great cost. Only one Wall Street executive ever went to prison for his part in the financial crisis. For millions of Americans, any residual trust in the competence and integrity of the ruling class was lost, and Obama had become part of the problem.

From that point on, it was predictable that Obama, when forced to choose, would side with the establishment. Those who knew best told him to send a surge of troops to Afghanistan, so he did it. They told him to keep the records of detainee abuse under Bush concealed, so he hid them. They said that nationalizing the banks or prosecuting the executives would be too risky, so he avoided it. They said that our trade agreements enriched the nation, so he promoted them. They called him callous when he originally refused to intervene in Libya, so he toppled its leader.

HOPE VS. CHANGE: WHY SOME DEMOCRATS ARE TURNING ON OBAMA’S LEGACY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 11:12 PM, ShamrockPride said:

Gillibrand doesn't have a chance. She's local for me, so I'll def be keeping an eye out, but the first place she went to for fundraising was Wall Street. And my local news just showed an early clip from Colbert with one of the things she's running on is getting money out of politics. So it's just more two faced crap.

I understand why this is political poison, although your phrasing isn't really fair- I don't know that she solicited any donations from them yet and she certainly already has from small donors like me. 

But also, she's from New York. Talking to local business leaders ahead of your campaign is a pretty normal thing to do, and there's nothing about "Wall Street" that is inherently more evil than any other heartless for-profit industry. If Kamala Harris talks to some Silicon Valley people before she announces nobody would really bat an eye, and those dooshbags have done far more harm to the republic over the last five years than Wall Street.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:goodposting:

@FBG Moderator can you help us out here?

Leave it as it is. The threads are not identical as evidenced by the fact that much of the discussion has been by different posters in each thread for the most part and the threads have a different flavor. Many threads have overlap of subject matter, (Trump years, Trump Tweets plus various Trump investigations).

 

 

Edited by squistion

Share this post


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

Leave it as it is. The threads are not identical as evidenced by the fact that much of the discussion has been by different posters in each thread for the most part and the threads have a different flavor. Many threads have overlap of subject matter, (Trump years, Trump Tweets plus various Trump investigations).

 

 

What's the difference between the two threads, though?  I get that there's different discussions because of different posts but they have the same theme. Let's say I want to discuss Candidate A doing or saying something ... where do I do that?

Share this post


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

Leave it as it is. The threads are not identical as evidenced by the fact that much of the discussion has been by different posters in each thread for the most part and the threads have a different flavor. Many threads have overlap of subject matter, (Trump years, Trump Tweets plus various Trump investigations).

This is the point, Squis...

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.