Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, the moops said:

538 gives that pollster a C-.

It is the most recent poll we have, but we haven't seen Warren below ~15% in quite some time, so this just may be an outlier.

She;'s 14% in the Quinnipiac poll earlier on this page. I made the comment about that possibly being an outlier, but now there are two in a week.

Share this post


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

she has been falling pretty steadily since the October Debate when she got hit pretty hard on her Medicare For All, and how to pay for it.

I think it is more than how to pay for it. A lot of people didn't understand that private insurance would go away under M4All. Multiple polls have shown that people are less favorable on it when they know that. A  July Kaiser poll showed that 55% of Dems and Dem-leaning Is would prefer to build on Obamacare compared to 39% wanting M4All. As it is talked about more, and other candidates push back, this could hurt Warren and Sanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MaxKennerly

Is this an act? I do not believe Mr. Harvard Rhodes Scholar had to serve as mayor for several years before he realized residential segregation exists. South Bend has been under a desegregation consent decree since 1981. It's still in effect today. He's saying he didn't know that?

South Bend *closed integrated schools* after the consent decree to try to re-segregate. They're still out of compliance today. I'm sorry, but I just can't accept the claim that he didn't know about any of this. This is some sort of weird signaling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:shrug:  People may not know this - but neither the mayor nor city council are responsible for the school system, which has a School Board that governs the system, presumably with some oversight from the state and federal government.

Its easy to sit here and say the Mayor should at least be aware of what is happening in the schools - but he has no control, and would not inherently know that the district was under a 1981 consent decree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2019 at 4:17 PM, lod001 said:

Better start moving towards the center fast or you got absolutely no chance. We will not vote for a far left candidate and we decide who gets elected.

Signed 'independents'.

Then why aren't the GOP moving to the center?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, badmojo1006 said:

Then why aren't the GOP moving to the center?

Cuz there aint room for that. The difference between Republicans & Democrats and most Independents is the difference between those who want everything figured out up front and those who want to figure it out as they go along. That is what Gingrich & the Heritage Foundation realized 30 years ago and used to create majority control out of a minority viewpoint. Public polls show it all the time - America is 60-70% liberal on the issues themselves. But on whom they elect to represent them, the country likes certainty over options. With their pledges & party line & "control" of the Dow, the GOP has a natural edge on an undecided voter because they are the very answer to doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a catastrophic fall:

Edward-Isaac Dovere @IsaacDovere

NEWS - Kamala Harris is dropping out of the presidential election today, I'm told reliably. She's informing staff now.

11:59 AM · Dec 3, 2019

Share this post


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

What a catastrophic fall:

Edward-Isaac Dovere @IsaacDovere

NEWS - Kamala Harris is dropping out of the presidential election today, I'm told reliably. She's informing staff now.

11:59 AM · Dec 3, 2019

This is a campaign failure, more than a candidate failure, imo.

Though she was responsible for the campaign dysfunction, and poor strategy choices...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

This is a campaign failure, more than a candidate failure, imo.

Though she was responsible for the campaign dysfunction, and poor strategy choices...

I blame Tulsi for crushing her soul. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

This is a campaign failure, more than a candidate failure, imo.

Though she was responsible for the campaign dysfunction, and poor strategy choices...

This is 100% a candidate failure.  if she couldn't run something as manageable and small as a campaign, she stood no chance running something much much bigger.

She had zero chance to win when she announced anyway

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[mayarudolph] Well, this sucks[/mayarudolph]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not an actual quote...just what I think she is thinking since that gave her something to do on SNL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, supermike80 said:

This is 100% a candidate failure.  if she couldn't run something as manageable and small as a campaign, she stood no chance running something much much bigger.

She had zero chance to win when she announced anyway

 

She had some Senate moments, but attacking Biden on race issues from decades ago was not a good strategy. 

Share this post


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

She had some Senate moments, but attacking Biden on race issues from decades ago was not a good strategy. 

Not a good strategy and 100% predictable.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

This is 100% a candidate failure.  if she couldn't run something as manageable and small as a campaign, she stood no chance running something much much bigger.

She had zero chance to win when she announced anyway

 

I agree.  She got 15 minutes of fame by  getting on Biden's case about busing, a dead-as-doornails issue if there ever was one.  And then it turned out that her position on busing is actually the same as Biden's.  I'm glad to see her gone.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

This is 100% a candidate failure.  if she couldn't run something as manageable and small as a campaign, she stood no chance running something much much bigger.

She had zero chance to win when she announced anyway

Yes and no.  Had she chosen a better team to run the campaign, Harris the candidate, would probably be a front-runner right now.  

The fact that she had a dysfunctional team led by her sister and a west-coast consultant who were at odds with one another, meant she ended up where she did - and that is an indictment on her leadership.

But, she could have been a good candidate with the right team.

I think Buttigieg is a great example here - he is where he is today because of the team he built, more so than it is a result of his experience and political positions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes and no.  Had she chosen a better team to run the campaign, Harris the candidate, would probably be a front-runner right now.  

The fact that she had a dysfunctional team led by her sister and a west-coast consultant who were at odds with one another, meant she ended up where she did - and that is an indictment on her leadership.

But, she could have been a good candidate with the right team.

I think Buttigieg is a great example here - he is where he is today because of the team he built, more so than it is a result of his experience and political positions.

My point is because she was unable to put together a good team, and let nepotism of all things get n the way of that, directly points to her being a failed candidate and unable to lead.

Share this post


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

Yes and no.  Had she chosen a better team to run the campaign, Harris the candidate, would probably be a front-runner right now.  

The fact that she had a dysfunctional team led by her sister and a west-coast consultant who were at odds with one another, meant she ended up where she did - and that is an indictment on her leadership.

But, she could have been a good candidate with the right team.

I think Buttigieg is a great example here - he is where he is today because of the team he built, more so than it is a result of his experience and political positions.

It's a good thing we don't ask presidents to assemble a team of people who they rely on for advice and assistance.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


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

Had she chosen a better team to run the campaign, Harris the candidate, would probably be a front-runner right now. 

 

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

But, she could have been a good candidate with the right team.

I think Buttigieg is a great example here - he is where he is today because of the team he built, more so than it is a result of his experience and political positions.

If we're taking a poll, put me down for strongly disagreeing with all of this. IMO, Harris was not a good candidate for reasons having nothing to do with her campaign. And while Buttigieg is running a great campaign, he's my preferred candidate completely independent of that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Yes and no.  Had she chosen a better team to run the campaign, Harris the candidate, would probably be a front-runner right now.  

The fact that she had a dysfunctional team led by her sister and a west-coast consultant who were at odds with one another, meant she ended up where she did - and that is an indictment on her leadership.

But, she could have been a good candidate with the right team.

I think Buttigieg is a great example here - he is where he is today because of the team he built, more so than it is a result of his experience and political positions.

I still don't think Buttigieg can get elected

Edited by supermike80

Share this post


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

It's a good thing we don't ask presidents to assemble a team of people who they rely on for advice and assistance.

I agree - it is a decidedly bad mark on her campaign.

My broader point was that I think if she had chosen more wisely - her politics, experience, and demographics would have put her near the front of the list.  

Certainly picking good people around you is a big factor - but its not typically a factor that people really consider.  Even now, I think most will simply say she was a flawed candidate, more than she ran a flawed campaign.  Her campaign was essentially over when she announced she was "re-setting" and was going to contest Iowa - where pretty much everything was stacked against her.  From a strategy perspective she was always better off aiming for South Carolina and Super Tuesday.

I think Biden may be falling into a similar trap with his shift towards Iowa - but he is starting at a much higher level of support in other states - so its a little less risky for him to target Iowa and lose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

I still don't think Buttigieg can get elected

Why is that?

Share this post


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

 

If we're taking a poll, put me down for strongly disagreeing with all of this. IMO, Harris was not a good candidate for reasons having nothing to do with her campaign. And while Buttigieg is running a great campaign, he's my preferred candidate completely independent of that.

Fair enough - though I might quibble with "completely independent" - given that it was his well run early stage that propelled him and his message into the mainstream.  And, while you probably would have looked into his candidacy anyway, I think the buzz surrounding the early campaign did bring a lot of people in to have a look - thus the campaign itself played a big role in getting people to take notice of the policies behind the candidate.

Edited by Sinn Fein

Share this post


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

What a catastrophic fall:

Edward-Isaac Dovere @IsaacDovere

NEWS - Kamala Harris is dropping out of the presidential election today, I'm told reliably. She's informing staff now.

11:59 AM · Dec 3, 2019

 

36 minutes ago, caustic said:

What a catastrophic fall:

Edward-Isaac Dovere @IsaacDovere

NEWS - Kamala Harris is dropping out of the presidential election today, I'm told reliably. She's informing staff now.

11:59 AM · Dec 3, 2019

Horrid candidate.

No matter what your political leanings are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Because he is openly homosexual

See, to me, this is the lazy way of looking at it.

As an example, if you look back towards the beginning of this thread, when I was just listing the potential candidates, this is what I wrote last November:

Pete Buttigieg - South Bend - young, openly gay - no chance

At that point - I did not know much else about Buttigieg.  I knew he had run for DNC Chair, and I knew that Obama had spoken highly of him.  But that was it.  I had never really heard him speak.  I had no idea of his politics.  Nothing.  And, so I dismissed his candidacy without a second thought.

 

But, as time went on, and I discovered more about Buttigieg, I found a lot to like about him personally and as a candidate.  Today, I no longer think of him as a "young, openly gay, mayor of a small mid-western city".

I think people who dismiss his candidacy because he is gay - are making the same reaction I did a year ago, and when they come to understand who Pete is, and what he stands for - those things become front and center when you define Buttigieg, not his age, not his sexual orientation, and not his current job.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

See, to me, this is the lazy way of looking at it.

As an example, if you look back towards the beginning of this thread, when I was just listing the potential candidates, this is what I wrote last November:

Pete Buttigieg - South Bend - young, openly gay - no chance

At that point - I did not know much else about Buttigieg.  I knew he had run for DNC Chair, and I knew that Obama had spoken highly of him.  But that was it.  I had never really heard him speak.  I had no idea of his politics.  Nothing.  And, so I dismissed his candidacy without a second thought.

 

But, as time went on, and I discovered more about Buttigieg, I found a lot to like about him personally and as a candidate.  Today, I no longer think of him as a "young, openly gay, mayor of a small mid-western city".

I think people who dismiss his candidacy because he is gay - are making the same reaction I did a year ago, and when they come to understand who Pete is, and what he stands for - those things become front and center when you define Buttigieg, not his age, not his sexual orientation, and not his current job.

 

I think his current job is pretty important.

The experience factor (or lack thereof).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Suderman

@petersuderman

Still a little bit surprising that a campaign that started out the way it did ended so abruptly, long before Iowa. Serious people argued there was a real chance of winning it all, but here we are in December, and Steve Bullock is out.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

 

I think people who dismiss his candidacy because he is gay - are making the same reaction I did a year ago, and when they come to understand who Pete is

 

My fear is that, much like some us were blind-sided by the large number of people in this country who would vote for a candidate because he catered to their, uh, "economic anxiety" despite his obvious failings as a human being, there may be more people than we think who won't vote for a gay man despite everything else.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I think his current job is pretty important.

The experience factor (or lack thereof).

I disagree.

Who you want as president, and how you decide - is obviously a personal matter - so I don't want to suggest those things are not important to you.

But, for me - it really is about looking for a set of skills that demonstrate leadership, intelligence, thoughtfulness, team-building, etc. Certainly, one way is to look at past experiences, but its not the only way.  There is no single experience that can adequately prepare someone for the position of President of the United States.  So, I am less concerned with a resume, as I am with the interview process.

Share this post


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

See, to me, this is the lazy way of looking at it.

As an example, if you look back towards the beginning of this thread, when I was just listing the potential candidates, this is what I wrote last November:

Pete Buttigieg - South Bend - young, openly gay - no chance

At that point - I did not know much else about Buttigieg.  I knew he had run for DNC Chair, and I knew that Obama had spoken highly of him.  But that was it.  I had never really heard him speak.  I had no idea of his politics.  Nothing.  And, so I dismissed his candidacy without a second thought.

 

But, as time went on, and I discovered more about Buttigieg, I found a lot to like about him personally and as a candidate.  Today, I no longer think of him as a "young, openly gay, mayor of a small mid-western city".

I think people who dismiss his candidacy because he is gay - are making the same reaction I did a year ago, and when they come to understand who Pete is, and what he stands for - those things become front and center when you define Buttigieg, not his age, not his sexual orientation, and not his current job.

 

Awesome..I applaud your forward thinking....and to me, his homosexuality has no bearing on his ability to effectively be president.

And--he wont win, because he is openly homosexual.

This country is not ready for an openly gay President. Not yet anyway.   Religion needs to continue to continue to die it's inevitable death, then he would have a better chance

Edited by supermike80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Awesome..I applaud your forward thinking....and to me, his homosexuality has no bearing on his ability to effectively be president.

And--he wont win, because he is openly homosexual.

If he loses.  It won't be because he is openly homosexual.

I have faith in humanity, and certainly among those who would vote for a Democratic candidate, that his success or failure rests on his policies and perceived abilities to be POTUS - and not on his sexual orientation.

Share this post


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

If he loses.  It won't be because he is openly homosexual.

I have faith in humanity, and certainly among those who would vote for a Democratic candidate, that his success or failure rests on his policies and perceived abilities to be POTUS - and not on his sexual orientation.

Well no, he could lose because of better candidates out there.

He wont win because he's gay.   

I have zero faith in humanity by the way, which is probably why we are on opposite ends of this one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a cartoon on FB I really want to post, but it isn't public and I can't find it elsewhere

There's a long line of people and a very short line of people. Long says:People who want to vote for Pete but don't think other people will vote for him because he's gay. Short says:People refusing to vote for Pete because he's gay.

Chris Hayes (or may have been Kornacki) described stuff like this as voters modeling other voters; behavior. Still costs votes

Share this post


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

There's a cartoon on FB I really want to post, but it isn't public and I can't find it elsewhere

There's a long line of people and a very short line of people. Long says:People who want to vote for Pete but don't think other people will vote for him because he's gay. Short says:People refusing to vote for Pete because he's gay.

Chris Hayes (or may have been Kornacki) described stuff like this as voters modeling other voters; behavior. Still costs votes

That's why Buttigieg winning Iowa would be a huge deal, in the same way that Obama winning Iowa convinced a lot of people that a black guy could actually win.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, identikit said:

I think his current job is pretty important.

The experience factor (or lack thereof).

Well he is no community organizer nor a real estate developer, just a simple experienced executive department administrator in a government office with prior military experience and private sector employment who has traveled outside of our borders.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

That's why Buttigieg winning Iowa would be a huge deal, in the same way that Obama winning Iowa convinced a lot of people that a black guy could actually win.

I think Iowa and South Carolina are key to Buttigieg winning the nomination.

Iowa, which as you noted, gives people who want to vote for him the security that he can win an election.

South Carolina, in really a mirror image of Obama needing Iowa in 2008, Pete needs to show he can win over minority voters - and if he does that, that will lend more credence to his ability to win overall.  (Obama had to show he could win white voters in Iowa).

 

I am extremely happy to see how Buttigieg is campaigning in South Carolina now - where they are going back to the basics and holding very small events with minority voters.  This, in my view, is the only way he will connect enough to be competitive - he has to start small - and he has to be committed to showing that he is listening to minority concerns.  Past trips to South Carolina have resulted in good sized crowds, but predominately white crowds.  Now, he is doing small round-table conversations with minorities, and doing much more listening than talking - I think that will pay off by the end of February.  Maybe not enough to win South Carolina, but I think its enough that he can be a competitive 2nd - and that will be a factor in Super Tuesday a few days later - when voters will be influenced by who they think can win, as much as they are by who they want to win.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I disagree.

Who you want as president, and how you decide - is obviously a personal matter - so I don't want to suggest those things are not important to you.

But, for me - it really is about looking for a set of skills that demonstrate leadership, intelligence, thoughtfulness, team-building, etc. Certainly, one way is to look at past experiences, but its not the only way.  There is no single experience that can adequately prepare someone for the position of President of the United States.  So, I am less concerned with a resume, as I am with the interview process.

Just said it was pretty important.

Not the only factor.

Edited by identikit
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala Harris will make a better Senate Majority Leader than Attorney General. Just corrupt enough

  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

I like her. Wouldn’t mind her as my governor someday. Or my President. Wishing her best luck ahead. 

What exactly do you like about her?

Share this post


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

I like her. Wouldn’t mind her as my governor someday. Or my President. Wishing her best luck ahead. 

No need to kick someone when they are down. 

  • Laughing 3

Share this post


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

Will most of her 2-3% go to Biden? Ironic, if so.

 

3 hours ago, Mystery Achiever said:

 

This is  five months old, but shows Warren 1st, Biden 2nd
https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/rakich-secondchoice-2.png?w=575

Warren kind of makes sense if your plan was to vote for a female candidate but outside that I'm not sure how much alike those two were.  What Pete needs is more of the centrists to drop out (Booker, Klobuchar...) while he continues building his ground game.

Share this post


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

I disagree.

Who you want as president, and how you decide - is obviously a personal matter - so I don't want to suggest those things are not important to you.

But, for me - it really is about looking for a set of skills that demonstrate leadership, intelligence, thoughtfulness, team-building, etc. Certainly, one way is to look at past experiences, but its not the only way.  There is no single experience that can adequately prepare someone for the position of President of the United States.  So, I am less concerned with a resume, as I am with the interview process.

As a general principle, I agree with you.  I've argued over and over again that wisdom and temperament are more important than formal government experience when it comes to the presidency.  One reason why I like Buttigieg is because he seems to have the personal qualities I'd like to see in a leader.  (Also, I'd prefer for Trump to lose, but I'd far prefer that he lose to a centrist than to somebody like Warren, and Buttigieg is claiming the centrist lane pretty aggressively).  So I'm predisposed to not worry too much about his resume.

That said, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern either.  Being mayor of a mid-sized down is more like being a senior manager in a small business than it is like serving as governor or representative or senator or vice president.  Sure, it's technically politics in the sense that you're navigating conflict among competing interests, but all leaders in all organizations do that.  Dealing with your local school board or police union isn't even in the same universe as dealing with congressional opposition leaders.  And then there's the whole foreign policy thing.  

None of this is a deal breaker, but it's fair to say that Buttigieg's professional preparation for the presidency is at best no better than Trump's and is miles lighter than Obama's, and Obama was considered a lightweight by historical standards.  At this point, I support Buttigieg over the other folks in the Democratic field, but I have to concede that he's completely untested relative to the other legitimate candidates and it wouldn't be shocking to see him perform poorly in office.  But hey, his floor is way higher than Trump's.  Jimmy Carter 2.0 would be a welcome relief right now.     

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Jimmy Carter 2.0 would be a welcome relief right now.     

Ugh. I had enormous respect for how Gov Carter conducted his campaign and am regularly overwhelmed by the grace & tenacity of former-President Carter, but President Carter was an unmitigated disaster. His primary quality as Commander-in-Chief was probably the least enviable a prominent leader can have - rigidity. I know from personal experience that he would not take counsel in areas in which he had strong views (especially when those views had basis in his very conservative notions of faith & morality) and was very slow to be corrected by result. I would rank his administration on a par with the current one, between Nixon's scandalous and GWBush's ruinous administrations as the worst of my time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yes and no.  Had she chosen a better team to run the campaign, Harris the candidate, would probably be a front-runner right now.  

The fact that she had a dysfunctional team led by her sister and a west-coast consultant who were at odds with one another, meant she ended up where she did - and that is an indictment on her leadership.

But, she could have been a good candidate with the right team.

I think Buttigieg is a great example here - he is where he is today because of the team he built, more so than it is a result of his experience and political positions.

How do you parse this with Trump and his team?

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.