Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Willie Brown - of all people - I guess he is not a fan of Kamala:

 

It’s time for Hillary Clinton to come out of retirement, lace up the gloves and get back in the ring with President Trump for what would be the biggest political rematch ever.

Call me crazy, but from what I’ve seen so far, Clinton is the only candidate short of Barack Obama who has the brains, the battle-tested brawn and the national presence to take out Trump. And Obama can’t run.

Bernie Sanders was fading even before his heart started acting up. Joe Biden has become Trump’s main talking point in the whole Ukraine-China impeachment mess, which hardly helps him. And he wasn’t exactly running away with it before that.

Elizabeth Warren has a following, but it’s not that much broader than Sanders’. If he drops out, she might pick up some of his votes. But there’s the big question of whether she appeals to anyone besides the furthest left element of the Democratic Party.

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Who-should-run-against-Trump-How-about-Hillary-14494201.php

How much is a Trump PAC paying him to suggesting Hillary comes back?

She's about the only person who could come back and actually help Trump win in 2020 assuming he's still politically viable.

Edited by adonis
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

New Fox South Carolina poll  this morning: 

Biden 41

Warren 12

Sanders 10

If this were the results Biden would take all 54 pledged delegates from the state.  (15% minimum cut off.)

Share this post


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

If this were the results Biden would take all 54 pledged delegates from the state.  (15% minimum cut off.)

Of course the argument is that IF Warren takes Iowa, New Hampshire, or both, South Carolina will quickly change its preference, as it did in 2008. So we’ll have to see what happens. 

Share this post


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

Of course the argument is that IF Warren takes Iowa, New Hampshire, or both, South Carolina will quickly change its preference, as it did in 2008. So we’ll have to see what happens. 

My argument, or more like question is that a few days after South Carolina comes California and Texas this time around which we have to wait to see if moving those primaries forward a couple of months completely change the rules.  Or maybe not.   

Share this post


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

Willie Brown - of all people - I guess he is not a fan of Kamala:

 

It’s time for Hillary Clinton to come out of retirement, lace up the gloves and get back in the ring with President Trump for what would be the biggest political rematch ever.

Call me crazy, but from what I’ve seen so far, Clinton is the only candidate short of Barack Obama who has the brains, the battle-tested brawn and the national presence to take out Trump. And Obama can’t run.

Bernie Sanders was fading even before his heart started acting up. Joe Biden has become Trump’s main talking point in the whole Ukraine-China impeachment mess, which hardly helps him. And he wasn’t exactly running away with it before that.

Elizabeth Warren has a following, but it’s not that much broader than Sanders’. If he drops out, she might pick up some of his votes. But there’s the big question of whether she appeals to anyone besides the furthest left element of the Democratic Party.

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Who-should-run-against-Trump-How-about-Hillary-14494201.php

O.k., you're crazy Willie. Please stay as far away from any influential position in the upcoming election as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we even need debates if a progressive wins the Dem nomination?

 

At that point everybody I know (from both sides) will have already made up their mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden + 9 in Wisconsin over Trump

Warren ahead in Wisconsin over Trump- within the margin of error. 

(Fox News Poll) 

The dynamics haven’t changed. 

Share this post


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

Biden + 9 in Wisconsin over Trump

Warren ahead in Wisconsin over Trump- within the margin of error. 

(Fox News Poll) 

The dynamics haven’t changed. 

Sanders beats Trump by 5 (more than Warren's 4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Some have speculated that if Joe Biden falters in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton will jump in. In a repeat matchup of the 2016 election, Clinton runs dead even with President Trump, but even most Democrats don’t want her to get into the race.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that Clinton and Trump earn 45% support each among Likely U.S. Voters. The deciding 11% remains undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

But just 18% think Clinton should enter the race for next year’s Democratic presidential nomination. Seventy-one percent (71%) don’t think she should run. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters say Clinton is unlikely to win the nomination if she enters the race, with 35% who say she’s Not At All Likely to be nominated. Thirty-six percent (36%) see a Clinton nomination as likely, but that includes only 12% who say it’s Very Likely.

Among her fellow Democrats, 48% see a Clinton nomination as likely, 46% as unlikely. This includes 17% who say it’s Very Likely and 20% who consider it Not At All Likely.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Max Power said:

 

Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters say Clinton is unlikely to win the nomination if she enters the race, with 35% who say she’s Not At All Likely

Seventy-one percent (71%) don’t think she should run

These findings show that, while Rasmussen and others on the right make this a talking point, actual voters aren't and there is no path for her
I've seen comments that she's testing the waters because of all her recent appearances. She's on a book tour. That's what you do.
 

Edited by Mystery Achiever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know why politicians lie about stuff like this. I just don’t see the point. That goes doubly so when you’re running against a President that everyone knows constantly lies about everything. Hard to set yourself up as being something better than that when lying about stupid irrelevant things from decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We've been discussing that in her thread. The best defense I could give her is that maybe she was embarrassed to tell the 1st interviewer about the pregnancy dismissal. But I have never found her to be particularly genuine, so if this is true at face value, it doesn't particularly surprise me.As I said in other thread regarding the rationale,  "I was a victim of sexism, but I persevered" plays better on the campaign trail than "I had a lot going on and couldn't fit in the required courses."

eta- I see your link doesn't have them, but there are videos of her telling both stories. It's not an issue of her words being misrepresented or taken out of context.

Edited by Mystery Achiever

Share this post


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

I don’t know why politicians lie about stuff like this. I just don’t see the point. That goes doubly so when you’re running against a President that everyone knows constantly lies about everything. Hard to set yourself up as being something better than that when lying about stupid irrelevant things from decades ago.

A lot of people in the business, not singling E Warren out because I'm still not sold on the validity of the complaint, but many of these people don't always hew closely to the truth.  Words and stories are more important based on what they convey, rather than the truth of some of their parts.  Definitely true for pastors and for politicians.

Some folks in both fields still stay as truthful as they can, but others don't see any problem taking artistic liberty and don't feel especially embarrassed when called on the  untruths because that wasn't central, in their minds, in their stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, adonis said:

A lot of people in the business, not singling E Warren out because I'm still not sold on the validity of the complaint, but many of these people don't always hew closely to the truth.  Words and stories are more important based on what they convey, rather than the truth of some of their parts.  

Her words conveyed an accusation of discrimination. As said above, there are videos of her telling both stories in great detail.

Share this post


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

Her words conveyed an accusation of discrimination. As said above, there are videos of her telling both stories in great detail.

OK.  What conclusion should we draw, if what you say is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion I draw, taken at face value,  is that she embellished for political gain at the expense of the principal.. But I continue to say  that there may be explanations that we don't know, i.e. she was embarrassed to admit the dismissal to the 1st interviewer or that she was given reason to believe they would not keep her on even if she took the courses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I don't see where there's any evidence that Warren is lying here :confused:

This timeline seems entirely plausible to me:

1.  She gets extended for another year of teaching in April of 1971.

2.  Her pregnancy becomes visible and obvious soon thereafter, as pregnancies tend to do over time.

3. She is encouraged to reconsider the extension in light of the pregnancy. Ultimately she resigns after being encouraged to do so by the powers that be.

What evidence exists that this is untrue?  What comments has she made in the past that would contradict this timeline, or would constitute a lie if this is how it went down? 

TIA

PS- I don't know much about Mediaite but I think it's pretty funny that the same site that ran that story on October 5 also ran this story today. I assume it's just some sort of aggregator?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impact and wven importance of this is laughable.  Sure its dumb and Id much rather she and the others be much smarter than that...especially to contrast against the dishonesty of Trump.

Share this post


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

I3She is encouraged to reconsider the extension in light of the pregnancy. Ultimately she resigns after being encouraged to do so by the powers that be.

What evidence exists that this is untrue?  What comments has she made in the past that would contradict this timeline, or would constitute a lie if this is how it went down? 

TIA

PS- I don't know much about Mediaite but I think it's pretty funny that the same site that ran that story on October 5 also ran this story today. I assume it's just some sort of aggregator?

Medialite  didn't interpret but provided a video of her saying this about why she left:
I was married at nineteen and graduated from college after I’d married, and my first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, “What am I going to do?” My husband’s view of it was, “Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.”...."

Share this post


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

The impact and wven importance of this is laughable.  Sure its dumb and Id much rather she and the others be much smarter than that...especially to contrast against the dishonesty of Trump.

Laughable is an odd characterization of misrepresenting facts and  potentially falsely accusing someone of discrimination. And what Trump does is irrelevant to whether or not this is okay.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Laughable is an odd characterization of misrepresenting facts and  potentially falsely accusing someone of discrimination. And what Trump does is irrelevant to whether or not this is okay.

I think it’s relevant in the context of what o said...that id hope they are smarter rather than give ammo to him to cone after their honesty.

Its not laughable from everyone...and maybe i should rephrase.  Its laughable of anyone still supporting Trump makes an issue of this.

Warren isn't my top choice...not at all.  But would prefer her over Biden and Bernie (and then obviously Trump)

Share this post


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

Medialite  didn't interpret but provided a video of her saying this about why she left:
I was married at nineteen and graduated from college after I’d married, and my first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn’t have the education courses, so I was on an “emergency certificate,” it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, “I don’t think this is going to work out for me.” I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, “What am I going to do?” My husband’s view of it was, “Stay home. We have children, we’ll have more children, you’ll love this.”...."

Yes, I read that transcription. I still can't find the lie. What's to say that her conclusion that it "wasn't going to work out for her" wasn't fueled at least in part by people making it clear that her pregnancy was an issue and would be frowned upon? That seems not just plausible but IMO likely, and makes her story consistent.

Obviously in an ideal world she would have mentioned the bosses pushing her out in 2007 too,  just for the sake of consistency. But she wasn't obliged to do so, and her leaving that part out 12 years ago doesn't make it a lie.

Maybe she's lying, but I don't see any strong indication here that she is.

Share this post


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

I think it’s relevant in the context of what o said...that id hope they are smarter rather than give ammo to him to cone after their honesty.

Its not laughable from everyone...and maybe i should rephrase.  Its laughable of anyone still supporting Trump makes an issue of this.

Warren isn't my top choice...not at all.  But would prefer her over Biden and Bernie (and then obviously Trump)

Sorry,I don't know who you are referring to who is supporting Trump and has a problem with this.
And he's not her competition at this stage anyway.

Share this post


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

Sorry,I don't know who you are referring to who is supporting Trump and has a problem with this.
And he's not her competition at this stage anyway.

Im talking general when it happens...and its clear it will.  You won’t see it much in this thread as it has typically been pretty free of Trump supporters

Share this post


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

Yes, I read that transcription. I still can't find the lie. What's to say that her conclusion that it "wasn't going to work out for her" wasn't fueled at least in part by people making it clear that her pregnancy was an issue and would be frowned upon? That seems not just plausible but IMO likely, and makes her story consistent.

I've acknowledged that possibility in all of my posts about this, But she presented a story that she left only because she didn't have the requisite qualifications and her husband encouraged her to stay. home. IF she falsely accused someone of discrimination, I think that's a big deal. Perhaps what we each see as more likely to have happened is influenced by our views of her. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

I've acknowledged that possibility in all of my posts about this, But she presented a story that she left only because she didn't have the requisite qualifications and her husband encouraged her to stay. home. IF she falsely accused someone of discrimination, I think that's a big deal. Perhaps what we each see as more likely to have happened is influenced by our views of her. :shrug:

Fair enough. However I think it's worth noting that when she "presented a story that she left only because she didn't have the requisite qualifications and her husband encouraged her to stay home," she was doing so as part of a casual hour-long academic interview well before her first campaign for public office in 2012, and even before her post-financial crisis advocacy made her mildly well-known. She really didn't have any obligation to be hyper-accurate about every factor behind the decisions she'd made in her life; there are any number of reasons she might have decided to leave out a part where they pushed her to depart after noticing her pregnancy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2019 at 11:09 PM, TripItUp said:

Do we even need debates if a progressive wins the Dem nomination?

 

At that point everybody I know (from both sides) will have already made up their mind.

Does anyone really think that anyone doesn’t have their mind made up already on Trump vs whoever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Does anyone really think that anyone doesn’t have their mind made up already on Trump vs whoever?

Yeah - I think there are still about 20% who could go either way.

I think the economy matters - if it is going great in 2020, I think that will sway some people to stick with Trump.  If it is stagnating or regressing, I think that would move some people away from Trump.

I think the Dem candidate matters - to your point of minds made up - that only matters if turnout is equal.  If its close, then turnout will be more important - so having a candidate who can inspire the voters will play a big role.  This is one of my gripes with Biden - I don't see him inspiring people to a big turnout.

Impeachment - if the impeachment turns up more dirt on Trump, that will erode both support, and enthusiasm (turn out), conversely, if the narrative looks like Trump is being treated unfairly that could boost enthusiasm, and over-all support.

 

I would be shocked if Trump can win - given where we are today.  But there are still twists and turns to this story - there always are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing re: Warren - it does not impact my vote for her, I still really like her as a candidate - BUT - I have a particular disdain for pregnant teachers.  My older daughter had a pregnant teacher in 2nd grade, she left on Maternity Leave in October.  Long-term Substitute came in, and left on maternity leave in January, 2nd Sub came in January, and original teacher was back in early March.

 

It was a disaster for that class.  No continuity, no discipline, not much learning.  It set my daughter, and her classmates, back almost a full year.  And, it changed my daughter's personality - the lack of discipline in the class really scarred her - she went from outgoing, bubbly, to very introverted and shy.  

 

I get that maternity leave is important.  And, I get that women should not be penalized for getting pregnant.  But - someone should be considering the impact on others - not just the pregnant teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, for @TobiasFunke and others, here is Warren's response on the two accounts. She generally presented as you laid out, though there are still some inconsistencies and different accounts, i.e. from a local paper at the time. Not that I would expect her to say, Yes, I lied for the better story. (Sorry, couldn't help myself)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-stands-by-account-of-being-pushed-out-of-her-first-teaching-job-because-of-pregnancy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

New national Quinnipaic poll:

Warren 29%
Biden 26%
Sanders 16%
Buttigieg 4%
Harris 3%
Yang 3%
Booker 2%
Klobuchar 2%
All other candidates 1% or less

With that, Warren has overtaken Biden in the RCP national average. 

Edited by caustic
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What do the dems have against Pete?

Not enough know him.  Many people want more experience.

Many people are not politically engaged enough to know better.

Share this post


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

What do the dems have against Pete?

He hasn’t made any inroads with black voters so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete's path to the nomination does not depend on national polls.

Pete's path is to prove he can win - and that starts in Iowa.  If he wins Iowa, and carries that momentum into New Hampshire - that changes the national picture completely before Super Tuesday.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Fair enough. ...

Where you been? Multiple threads could have used your input over the last month or whatever. Caught up in the Nats late season surge?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He hasn’t made any inroads with black voters so far. 

His percentage isn't about black people.  Lots of white people aren't backing him either.  Why?  I mean look at the alternatives here.

Share this post


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

His percentage isn't about black people.  Lots of white people aren't backing him either.  Why?  I mean look at the alternatives here.

Maybe it's because he has Butt in his last name, and we already have an ### in the White House?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

His percentage isn't about black people.  Lots of white people aren't backing him either.  Why?  I mean look at the alternatives here.

He’s my favorite so this doesn’t include me but...

1. Not well known. 

2. Only a mayor. 

3. Gay. 

The fear is that he can’t beat Trump. 

Share this post


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

He’s my favorite so this doesn’t include me but...

1. Not well known. 

2. Only a mayor. 

3. Gay. 

The fear is that he can’t beat Trump. 

#1 I might buy but he's more well known after the debates.  Democrats don't like mayors or gays?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

Does anyone really think that anyone doesn’t have their mind made up already on Trump vs whoever?

I think there's a small percentage that would vote for Trump if a progressive(bernie/warren) won the nomination.  If Biden or a  more centrist candidate wins the percentage of swing voters is much greater.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

 

I would be shocked if Trump can win - given where we are today.  

:blackdot:

 

Sounds like our good friend Timmy and his "I'm with her" prophecy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/joshjame

I asked Warren if Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma was appropriate. "I know that everyone wants to try to drag in other people. But what happened with Ukraine is about Donald Trump," she said in an interview. Updated story w/ @KThomasDC @SabrinaSiddiqui

Matt Stoller @matthewstoller

It’s a bad answer and Warren knows it, but Democratic voters will not tolerate anyone who points out their own side has corruption problems.

it is also an answer consistent with how every single Democrat and left winger from 2009 onward, including Bernie, treated nearly all aspects of the Obama franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

https://twitter.com/joshjame

I asked Warren if Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma was appropriate. "I know that everyone wants to try to drag in other people. But what happened with Ukraine is about Donald Trump," she said in an interview. Updated story w/ @KThomasDC @SabrinaSiddiqui

Matt Stoller @matthewstoller

It’s a bad answer and Warren knows it, but Democratic voters will not tolerate anyone who points out their own side has corruption problems.

it is also an answer consistent with how every single Democrat and left winger from 2009 onward, including Bernie, treated nearly all aspects of the Obama franchise.

Totally true but it's so short sighted... wouldn't they rather have the problems flushed out now before Trump hammers these same problems 24/7? 

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.