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.
I'm hopeful that a heavy presence in swing states leading up to November will prevent a second catastrophe, and I think Warren is more than capable of delivering an economic message that will appeal to (actual) swing voters in battleground midwestern states.
As I’ve stated before, if Warren is the candidate I will be behind her 100% without any reservation-
Reagan had some coat tails that brought some GOP senators with him to DC, but he at best had a Boll Weevil House and slight majority in the Senate but he was able to use the bully pulpit to alter the course of the nation for the next forty years. Four years of Warren promoting a better vision for the nation is what we needed. It is what Bernie could have done these past three years. Sure Reagan took his Senate and slightly over 50% popular vote too scream he had a mandate to get a few things done early, but most of the conservative revolution has happened as a result of the constant drum beat of the vision being sold first by Reagan and then those that followed a decade plus later. Warren won't likely transform things overnight (again absent some crisis), she'll just set up on the course to correct the wrong turn that we took that has been the Reagan era.
I don't want to get carried away with breaking down the 2016 results as I think for most Trump voters he represented the "heir to Reagan" and the best hope to continue the conservative revolution. But if we take the three states that Trump narrowly won that made all of the difference I have to wonder how many of those voters were really looking for Trump to be the transformative president. To be the president that finally represented the "ordinary man" rather than the corporate robber barons.
Hurling binders at your aides and eating salad with a comb are not boring.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I don't buy the argument that people want "boring" at all. I could be convinced they want "safe". That's not the same thing.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Neither one of these candidates has significant black support- yet. Warren has something like 11%- higher than it’s been but still low- while Buttigieg has zero. Which means neither one is going to win any of the southern states. Right now those states are going to Biden. If Biden fades then they will go to somebody else, but I don’t think that’s going to be Warren or Buttigieg. Therefore I can’t get behind your two person theory at least for now.
It makes sense, if you think the only way to save your job is to win the public debate on impeachment.
We must fight corruption, uphold the law, and stop electing politicians who are beholden to Wall Street and our dedication to forever war!
Our next Attorney General will need great skill in throwing the book at people.
Not sure if it could happen, but Yang suggested that they raised enough to pay for two Super Bowl commercials. Hmm
Henry-
It’s just a little weird that the only person you don’t post these kinds of things about is Donald Trump.
95% of the posting population here has that more than covered. When you say things like this, it gives off the impression you'd like this place to be even more of a bubble than it already is.
I do post these kinds of things about Donald Trump. I have called him a war criminal and said he should be tried for war crimes in Yemen. I've discussed his troubling ties to Sheldon Adelson and the Israeli far-right more than anyone else on this board.
I realize that having peoples votes not matter is not a good thing, but I always felt one weakness the Democratic Party had was concern about stuff like this. Honestly, who cares which candidates Deep Red (or Blue) states like best, when it does not effect the election that counts. Mississippi likes Biden? Who cares. A popular vote among swing states or potential swing states would be better than having to settle for subpar candidates because they appeal to voters in states that they will lose in the election.timschochet said:
Doesn't change the fact if you can't get black support in the south you won't win the democratic nomination.
Exactly. It is what it is.
It's insane that candidates have to cater to primary voters in states that their party has not even come remotely close to winning in this century.
The insane part is only a few states matter to winning in this century.
That doesn't change the fact that Biden would lose every single state in the south, while also putting forward a weak candidate to do so (Biden).
Obviously we don’t see eye to eye on Israel and likely never will.
But another might be better in the midwest or Ohio or Rust Belt that are toss ups. If all those places like Biden, fine. But if they like Warren or whoever I think that should be given more weight than what the south thinks.
You’re right. It is insane. So is the entire system of choosing the President. This is just one insane aspect.
This explains the significant uptick in campaign emails recently to the point that I'm about ready to hit Unsubscribe. Today's was looking for $5 for a new Rapid Response Fund to counteract the "false ads" Trump is dropping in early voting states.
That’s good stuff IMO.Sinn Fein said:
It seems like she's keeping a toe in the water with the press circuit she's been doing. I could see her jumping in if things get hairy for Biden and he drops
People don’t like to admit they were wrong. People who voted for Trump last time because Hillary was even worse are unlikely to change their minds. They could vote for Warren or whomever, though.
Gore - 71
