Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

Underestimate Trump....again.

His supporters are really holding out this as their only hope.  Polls are totally fake, despite what we saw in the midterms, and a majority of the country loves Trump despite all recent election and polling saying otherwise.  And here's where Johnny will talk about picking up 2 seats in the Senate...

Also there's a great likilhood that the economy will be worse in 18 months and the deficit will have reached Obama levels of increase.  His only real rallying cry is to strike fear about the brown people down South but that only rings true to his 35% base.

It's like Trump supporters forget he ran against Hillary, who was almost as disliked as he was/is and that many dems either stayed home or voted 3rd party.  I think it's fairly obvious that the dems are now motivated against Trump and won't stay home again.  The party of Trump is already motivated and that just barely won for them in '16 against wholly unmotivated dems.

I give Trump a very low chance of winning against anyone in '20.

Share this post


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

His supporters are really holding out this as their only hope.  Polls are totally fake, despite what we saw in the midterms, and a majority of the country loves Trump despite all recent election and polling saying otherwise.  And here's where Johnny will talk about picking up 2 seats in the Senate...

Also there's a great likilhood that the economy will be worse in 18 months and the deficit will have reached Obama levels of increase.  His only real rallying cry is to strike fear about the brown people down South but that only rings true to his 35% base.

It's like Trump supporters forget he ran against Hillary, who was almost as disliked as he was/is and that many dems either stayed home or voted 3rd party.  I think it's fairly obvious that the dems are now motivated against Trump and won't stay home again.  The party of Trump is already motivated and that just barely won for them in '16 against wholly unmotivated dems.

I give Trump a very low chance of winning against anyone in '20.

Yep.  And one additional point: In 2016, a lot of Republican-leaning voters wrongly thought that Trump would drop the craziness if he won and would actually govern as kind of a moderate.  Needless to say, nobody will think that way in 2020.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are underestimating the percentage of voters who simply WILL NOT vote for a woman for president. I think Trump loses handily to Biden or Bloomberg, but eeks out a win against Kamala Harris.

Share this post


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

I think people are underestimating the percentage of voters who simply WILL NOT vote for a woman for president. I think Trump loses handily to Biden or Bloomberg, but eeks out a win against Kamala Harris.

We will see.  But I think you are wrong here.

I think the sheer number of qualified women who are running for the nomination will "normalize" if you will, the idea of a female president. 

In 2008, many people said - "you are underestimating the percentage of voters who simply WILL NOT vote for a black man for president."

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope that. at some point, Democratic leaders call their congressmen and senators together and reiterate the importance of obtaining the main goal- getting this horrible, divisive, racist dirtbag out of office. I don't care if there's 10 candidates or 30 candidates. They can't go into it with the cut throat attitude that Bernie and Hillary did last year where, when the smoke settled, Bernie supporters ended up hating Hillary so much that many decided not to vote at all in the general.  The candidates can't lose sight of the main objective and Democratic voters have to remember that all these candidates fighting it out in the primaries are on the same team and they MUST get to the polls and support them in the general. Even if they beat out the candidate they were hoping would win.  Bernie and his team played a huge role in getting Trump elected in 2016. They were all very hesitant to fully support Hillary after she gained the nomination. That lesson can't go unlearned or we(Democrats) deserve another 4 years of this dictator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I feel is probably more important now than I ever thought it would be and that's the candidate's choice for VP running mate.  If they want to do real work, they need to hold the Presidency for 16+ years.  That's what it's going to take to see the change they claim they want.  So it seems to me that not only is the Presidential candidate important, their choice needs to be somebody who could then be elected after their term is up.

Share this post


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

Something I feel is probably more important now than I ever thought it would be and that's the candidate's choice for VP running mate.  If they want to do real work, they need to hold the Presidency for 16+ years.  That's what it's going to take to see the change they claim they want.  So it seems to me that not only is the Presidential candidate important, their choice needs to be somebody who could then be elected after their term is up.

If my memory is correct, (I haven’t looked this up) George H W Bush was the only VP who through election directly followed a President into the White House in over 100 years. So based on that I’m not sure this is that important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Kamala Harris is as likable as Hillary Clinton" some foxnews drone said. It begins. :football:

Share this post


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

If my memory is correct, (I haven’t looked this up) George H W Bush was the only VP who through election directly followed a President into the White House in over 100 years. So based on that I’m not sure this is that important. 

What's the longest period of consecutive years either party held the Presidency during that time?

Share this post


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

What's the longest period of consecutive years either party held the Presidency during that time?

Probably roosevelt Truman years

Share this post


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

Probably roosevelt Truman years

that would be my guess to, and I'm too lazy to look it up.  I'm just saying if they want to maintain that consistency it would behove them to do a good job with their VP choices.  It's the easiest way to continue on the same path with minimal delay.

Share this post


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

His supporters are really holding out this as their only hope.  Polls are totally fake, despite what we saw in the midterms, and a majority of the country loves Trump despite all recent election and polling saying otherwise.  And here's where Johnny will talk about picking up 2 seats in the Senate...

Also there's a great likilhood that the economy will be worse in 18 months and the deficit will have reached Obama levels of increase.  His only real rallying cry is to strike fear about the brown people down South but that only rings true to his 35% base.

It's like Trump supporters forget he ran against Hillary, who was almost as disliked as he was/is and that many dems either stayed home or voted 3rd party.  I think it's fairly obvious that the dems are now motivated against Trump and won't stay home again.  The party of Trump is already motivated and that just barely won for them in '16 against wholly unmotivated dems.

I give Trump a very low chance of winning against anyone in '20.

The only caveat here is that a sociopathic president like Trump can do all sorts of things in the runup to an election to sway public opinion. He can start wars, he can manufacture crises, he can push nonsensical lies about his opponent that the complicit media will be forced to cover as if they're real in a misguided effort to appear "balanced," he can cut deals and push other policy changes that are clearly terrible for the country in the long term but provide short term benefits to targeted voter groups. It's going to be very ugly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Probably roosevelt Truman years

Right. 20 years. 1933-52. Which is pretty amazing. 

Share this post


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

I just hope that. at some point, Democratic leaders call their congressmen and senators together and reiterate the importance of obtaining the main goal- getting this horrible, divisive, racist dirtbag out of office. I don't care if there's 10 candidates or 30 candidates. They can't go into it with the cut throat attitude that Bernie and Hillary did last year where, when the smoke settled, Bernie supporters ended up hating Hillary so much that many decided not to vote at all in the general.  The candidates can't lose sight of the main objective and Democratic voters have to remember that all these candidates fighting it out in the primaries are on the same team and they MUST get to the polls and support them in the general. Even if they beat out the candidate they were hoping would win.  Bernie and his team played a huge role in getting Trump elected in 2016. They were all very hesitant to fully support Hillary after she gained the nomination. That lesson can't go unlearned or we(Democrats) deserve another 4 years of this dictator.

This is a good point  - and why I hope a "leader" emerges even before the primaries.

I think there is a strong group of candidates running, but the danger might be that they each hold sway with a different faction within the party - and the longer those factions stay divided, the harder it will be to converge back with a singular purpose.

 

 

Share this post


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

"Kamala Harris is as likable as Hillary Clinton" some foxnews drone said. It begins. :football:

Not surprising. They've already begun their AOC smear campaign and she can't even run for 12 more years.

Share this post


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

I still believe that the Democratic nomination is decided by African-Americans.

I go back and forth on this.

Ultimately, you may be correct - but I don't think that is a good thing for the Dems.  For example, winning primaries in South Carolina or Alabama - will get you closer to the nomination, but won't get you closer to the general election win.  

I think one of the mistakes Clinton made was to openly target women and minorities - key word "openly".  I think that had an unintended knockoff effect of sending a message to many middle class white voters, that they were not important.

I also wonder if we are too quick to homogenize voting groups - like African Americans.  I don't know the answer to this - but do African-Americans in Georgia have the same concerns/issues aa African-Americans in Cleveland or Detroit?  

Certainly there would be some overlap - but I wonder how much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the schedule - I think Super Tuesday comes way too early in the process.

 

First 4 contests should give us some meaningful data:

 

Iowa - how will the candidates likely fare in the midwest

New Hampshire - less important overall since the northeast is solidly blue - but a good indication of the Northeast.

Nevada - starting to see some of the hispanic influence

South Carolina - first chance for African-American voters to have a large say in the process

 

 

But then Super Tuesday is just 3 days after South Carolina, and no real chance to let the initial data settle in.  Big states like California and Texas are more likely to vote name recognition than anything - candidate simply won't have the time/resources to canvas those states like they can the smaller states.

Share this post


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

"Kamala Harris is as likable as Hillary Clinton" some foxnews drone said. It begins. :football:

So weird how every woman who runs for president suddenly becomes unlikable.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

I go back and forth on this.

Ultimately, you may be correct - but I don't think that is a good thing for the Dems.  For example, winning primaries in South Carolina or Alabama - will get you closer to the nomination, but won't get you closer to the general election win.  

I think one of the mistakes Clinton made was to openly target women and minorities - key word "openly".  I think that had an unintended knockoff effect of sending a message to many middle class white voters, that they were not important.

I also wonder if we are too quick to homogenize voting groups - like African Americans.  I don't know the answer to this - but do African-Americans in Georgia have the same concerns/issues aa African-Americans in Cleveland or Detroit?  

Certainly there would be some overlap - but I wonder how much.

This is a clear advantage Obama had. He rarely mentioned racial issues on the campaign trail, because he didn't have to. He was the message on race. Apparently that's a pretty common campaign tactic for minority candidates. Hillary, on the other hand, in an effort to turn out the same voters Obama did, had to be far more explicit on racial issues - and it still didn't work. She never achieved the level of support Obama did among minorities.

There's some thought that Harris or Booker could use a similar strategy to Obama's - talk of unity, with a clear (but implicit) racial message. Maybe it would work, and maybe it wouldn't. I'm convinced that turning out the Obama coalition is the Dem's best road to success in 2020 and beyond, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:
3 hours ago, Dedfin said:

"Kamala Harris is as likable as Hillary Clinton" some foxnews drone said. It begins. :football:

So weird how every woman who runs for president suddenly becomes unlikable.

I DON’T HATE WOMEN CANDIDATES — I JUST HATED HILLARY AND COINCIDENTALLY I’M STARTING TO HATE ELIZABETH WARREN

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

There's some thought that Harris or Booker could use a similar strategy to Obama's - talk of unity, with a clear (but implicit) racial message.

They probably will, but they are faced with a couple of problems Obama didn’t have: each other, plus Joe Biden. It’s reasonable to assume that, at least starting out, nobody is going to be able to dominate the black vote the way Obama did. That could change later in the process. 

But the other question we don’t know yet and won’t really know until there is another black candidate: how much of Obama’s success among black voters was not because he was black, but because he was the first black to ever have a legitimate shot at the Presidency? If this is at all true then logically no other black candidate will ever match Obama’s level of success among black voters. 

Share this post


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

I think there is some truth there.  

 

I did not like Clinton, but I don't have a similar issue with Warren or Harris. I'd like to learn more about Klobuchar.  So, I hope I don't fall into that trap...

Share this post


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

They probably will, but they are faced with a couple of problems Obama didn’t have: each other, plus Joe Biden. It’s reasonable to assume that, at least starting out, nobody is going to be able to dominate the black vote the way Obama did. That could change later in the process. 

But the other question we don’t know yet and won’t really know until there is another black candidate: how much of Obama’s success among black voters was not because he was black, but because he was the first black to ever have a legitimate shot at the Presidency? If this is at all true then logically no other black candidate will ever match Obama’s level of success among black voters. 

Obama was, eventually, on another level - his charisma, and leadership carried him as much as his skin color. 

As I have been saying, I hope we get a clear front runner early - someone who earns his/her spot based on the ability to lead and unite. Then most of this demographics stuff goes to the side. 

Share this post


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

Obama was, eventually, on another level - his charisma, and leadership carried him as much as his skin color. 

As I have been saying, I hope we get a clear front runner early - someone who earns his/her spot based on the ability to lead and unite. Then most of this demographics stuff goes to the side. 

So far as I can see, the only possible clear front runner early would be Biden, because nobody else has name recognition (outside of Bernie and he’s not going to unite people.) 

I really like Biden and he’s not only the safe choice, I’m convinced he would defeat Trump pretty easily. But he’s not new and shiny and I do get that’s what many people would like. 

Share this post


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

So far as I can see, the only possible clear front runner early would be Biden, because nobody else has name recognition (outside of Bernie and he’s not going to unite people.) 

I really like Biden and he’s not only the safe choice, I’m convinced he would defeat Trump pretty easily. But he’s not new and shiny and I do get that’s what many people would like. 

I think we will see a picture develop over the summer, before we get into debate season.  I think we will start to hear more from Harris and Booker on the national stage.  O'Rourke will make waves at some point.  Name recognition today will be less important by August.  Someone will have connected with voters by then (I hope).

 

I also agree with you on Biden sort of - safe, but not shiny. He could be the guy that sits back, and let's the other factions of the party fight amongst each other before coming out as the one to unite the party, and then the country. Obama could play a factor there, but I am not sure he takes a position during the primary. I also think AOC still has a role to play here, with her new found celebrity status among millennial voters - not as a candidate, but on who she endorses, if anyone...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems inevitable for Beto to swoop in and put all these fools in the background

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

and someone with the power please merge these two damn threads

@FBG Moderator

But make is Sinn Fien's thread please

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So weird how every woman who runs for president suddenly becomes unlikable.

I know next to nothing about Kamala Harris, but Hillary Clinton really was unlikable.  And it isn't sexist to say so.  Mitt Romney got tons of this in 2012.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

, but Hillary Clinton really was unlikable.  And it isn't sexist to say so. 

I come to the same conclusion as you - but I do find myself second-guessing my rationale - and hoping that I would have disliked a similarly situated male.

 

 

Share this post


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

I know you weren't necessarily excluding them but I think the playing field is way broader than that. I would add North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Arizona to the list of very possible Dem pickups (Minnesota, Maine and Nevada as possible GOP pickups, although I think they're all less likely unless something changes considerably).

I do feel the need to continually defend my home state here. Clinto definitely performed poorly here, and the state does have a huge rural/urban divide - and a portion did proudly elect Michele Bachman 3 times. But....

Besides DC, MN has been bluer than any other state in presidential elections. Has not voted republican since 1972. And it just saw huge democrat gains in the state legislature and has had a democrat governor since 2011. It has two democratic senators that won re-elections easily. 5 of the 8 representatives are democrats.

Trump vs Hillary is about as close as I can see any presidential election in the near future. It is a safe DEM state in 2020

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I know next to nothing about Kamala Harris, but Hillary Clinton really was unlikable.  And it isn't sexist to say so.  Mitt Romney got tons of this in 2012.  

I don't and didn't like her very much.  But people at the time said "Now, Elizabeth Warren, she is likable.  I'm not a sexist, I just don't like Clinton."

Now Warren is unlikable.  And Harris.  And Gillibrand.  

Share this post


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

I do feel the need to continually defend my home state here. Clinto definitely performed poorly here, and the state does have a huge rural/urban divide - and a portion did proudly elect Michele Bachman 3 times. But....

Besides DC, MN has been bluer than any other state in presidential elections. Has not voted republican since 1972. And it just saw huge democrat gains in the state legislature and has had a democrat governor since 2011. It has two democratic senators that won re-elections easily. 5 of the 8 representatives are democrats.

Trump vs Hillary is about as close as I can see any presidential election in the near future. It is a safe DEM state in 2020

All of this is fair, I assume it's true and obviously I hope it is. And FWIW I don't think Trump will actually pick up any new electoral votes in 2020, I think he pretty much maxed out in 2016 and the election will be entirely about how much of it he can retain. But it was a 1.5 point race, and if something changed the current dynamic and gave Trump >50% approval it's fair to wonder if the states he lost in close races (MN and also NV and ME at large) would swing the other way. 

Share this post


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

I don't and didn't like her very much.  But people at the time said "Now, Elizabeth Warren, she is likable.  I'm not a sexist, I just don't like Clinton."

Now Warren is unlikable.  And Harris.  And Gillibrand.  

I like Warren. 

I think I like Harris.

I think I do not like Gillibrand.

 

:shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - I like Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't think I would vote for her.

I think I would like Amy Klobuchar - but don't really know her or her positions well enough.

Share this post


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

All of this is fair, I assume it's true and obviously I hope it is. And FWIW I don't think Trump will actually pick up any new electoral votes in 2020, I think he pretty much maxed out in 2016 and the election will be entirely about how much of it he can retain. But it was a 1.5 point race, and if something changed the current dynamic and gave Trump >50% approval it's fair to wonder if the states he lost in close races (MN and also NV and ME at large) would swing the other way. 

It was a 1.5 point race because people did not come out to vote for Clinton. Trump had roughly same # of votes as Romney, McCain, and W

Share this post


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

Also - I like Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't think I would vote for her.

I think I would like Amy Klobuchar - but don't really know her or her positions well enough.

Also, it should go without saying that "likability" is a political asset, not a qualification for office.  It's like physical attractiveness.  Ugly people have a disadvantage winning elections against good-looking people, but an ugly person might make a great president.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 2:12 PM, TobiasFunke said:

I know you weren't necessarily excluding them but I think the playing field is way broader than that. I would add North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Arizona to the list of very possible Dem pickups (Minnesota, Maine and Nevada as possible GOP pickups, although I think they're all less likely unless something changes considerably).  So Trump needs to win most of those Great Lakes states, but even if he does he can still be defeated.  One of many possible paths for the Dems would be to win Florida and either Arizona or North Carolina (or Michigan, the Great Lakes state that seems to be reverting to the status quo the most). On the other hand Trump almost certainly can't win without them.

Are we not going to mention the T-word? Obviously it would have been a much better sign if Beto had won his Senate race, but nonetheless I think the state is inching ever bluer, and every two years it should be more in play than it was two years prior.

Share this post


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

If Biden enters the race I think he has to be the favorite especially if Obama endorses him.

Do you think he would? I kind of think he'd stay out of it. Just a gut feeling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are we not going to mention the T-word? Obviously it would have been a much better sign if Beto had won his Senate race, but nonetheless I think the state is inching ever bluer, and every two years it should be more in play than it was two years prior.

Super tempting, if only because Texas turning blue would be the nail in the coffin of the craziest wing of the GOP. But I'm a little worried that blue Tejas is a dream similar to controllable fusion.

Georgia, otoh, just had a gubernatorial election where a black woman finished within about a point of a white man. And professional minorities continue to flock to Atlanta.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't and didn't like her very much.  But people at the time said "Now, Elizabeth Warren, she is likable.  I'm not a sexist, I just don't like Clinton."

Now Warren is unlikable.  And Harris.  And Gillibrand.  

Maybe the right setting for a "bland" Klobuchar

Share this post


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

Do you think he would? I kind of think he'd stay out of it. Just a gut feeling.

That would be my expectation - absent the Dem primaries going off the rail somehow.  But I am not even sure how I would define "going off the rail" at this stage.

 

ETA - my expectation is that Obama stays on the sidelines

Edited by Sinn Fein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why the 2020 Democratic primary could turn into 'Lord of the Flies'

 

This is a quick look at the impacts of a crowded field - and the importance of fundraising, and setting up operations beyond just Iowa are important.

It also raises the interesting proposition that SuperDelegates may be the key to victory here... Even with the new rule changes designed to minimize the influence of superdelegates, the rule effectively only applies to the initial vote at the convention - and if a candidate does not get a majority, then the SuperDelegates come back into play.  With so many candidates, its likely several will go deep into the campaign, and nobody has a majority going into the convention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

And professional minorities continue to flock to Atlanta.

I know what you meant by this, but "professional minorities" might rank right up there with "grievance studies" in terms of anti-PC deliciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I know what you meant by this, but "professional minorities" might rank right up there with "grievance studies" in terms of anti-PC deliciousness.

I was on a tablet and in a hurry but I thought about my dumb wording later on. It obviously should have been "minority professionals." I don't think you can make a living being a professional minority. Yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Why the 2020 Democratic primary could turn into 'Lord of the Flies'

 

This is a quick look at the impacts of a crowded field - and the importance of fundraising, and setting up operations beyond just Iowa are important.

It also raises the interesting proposition that SuperDelegates may be the key to victory here... Even with the new rule changes designed to minimize the influence of superdelegates, the rule effectively only applies to the initial vote at the convention - and if a candidate does not get a majority, then the SuperDelegates come back into play.  With so many candidates, its likely several will go deep into the campaign, and nobody has a majority going into the convention.

When is the convention? 'Cuz I think it would be best if the Dems wait until the last possible minute to make their pick. Having no clear front runner diffuses Donald's targets for insults and name-calling, which, amazingly, motivates his base to support him even more. The two sides continue to play different games by different rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald's disapproval rating among independents now approaching 60%. And that's before the nation gets to see what Mueller's got. Of course, it could be that voters continue to lie in polls, which we don't really believe in anyway. Underestimate Trump at your peril!

:endhippling:

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.