Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Bill Weld just picked up an endorsement from Gary Johnson. Could be a game-changer.

What an end to the exciting battle between Gabbard and Weld for that coveted endorsement!  Can’t wait for the HBO adaptation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That gives Bloomberg another qualifying poll toward Nevada.
I think one reason he may be doing so well nationally is due to the heavy ad spend in states where other candidates are not yet focusing.Have to see if it sticks when they start vs just being top-of-mind,

Edited by Mystery Achiever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polls are useless.   What the DNC needs to figure out is how to win states and electoral votes.   Wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic candidate wins by millions of votes to lose the Presidency to the outdated electoral college.   WooHoo Democracy.

Share this post


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

Polls are useless.   What the DNC needs to figure out is how to win states and electoral votes.   Wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic candidate wins by millions of votes to lose the Presidency to the outdated electoral college.   WooHoo Democracy.

This isn't true. How do you think the DNC is going to figure out how to win states and electoral votes without polls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats have a tough sell to the American public.  Their message is to stop Trump at all costs.  Stop what exactly?  Wages are going up, unemployment is going down, taxes are going down, national security is stronger.  

Americans are in a better position than they were 3 years ago so Trump has this in the bag IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bloomberg tops Trump 51 - 42 percent;
Sanders defeats Trump 51 - 43 %;
Biden beats Trump 50 - 43 %; 
Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 - 43 %;
Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 - 44 %;
Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 - 43 %.

This is an example of why I think Sanders is the best bet for the Democrats.  He does fine in polling head-to-head (moderate Democrats mostly want Trump gone and will stick by Sanders) plus he'll get his base to come out and vote when they might be a little fickle otherwise.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New California poll, not great news for Biden:

Sanders 29% (+5 since last month)
Warren 16% (-5)
Buttigieg 14% (+3)
Bloomberg 13% (+7)
Biden 11% (-9)
Klobuchar 5% (-)

 

Share this post


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

Hmmm. Bloomberg kicking Trump’s ###.

Everyone is! Oh NOES

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse my naivete and, worse, my reluctance to support a single candidate thus far, but shouldn't Dems be pounding the cuts to Medicare in this new Trump budget? We get killed by the retirees every cycle, let's make a few inroads now that Donald has gone a bridge too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Excuse my naivete and, worse, my reluctance to support a single candidate thus far, but shouldn't Dems be pounding the cuts to Medicare in this new Trump budget? We get killed by the retirees every cycle, let's make a few inroads now that Donald has gone a bridge too far.

What is this bridge too far you speak of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two new national polls out this morning - Sanders is the national leader now, mostly due to Biden's collapse. Buttigieg and Bloomberg have been picking up a lot of Biden defectors. Klobuchar hasn't made much progress nationally despite picking up steam in New Hampshire.

Morning Consult (change since 2/2)

Sanders 25% (+1)
Biden 22% (-6)
Bloomberg 17% (+3)
Warren 11% (-3)
Buttigieg 11% (+5)
Klobuchar 3% (-)

Monmouth (change since 1/20)

Sanders 26% (+3)
Biden 16% (-14)
Warren 13% (-1)
Buttigieg 13% (+7)
Bloomberg 11% (+2)
Klobuchar 6% (+1)


 

Share this post


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

Two new national polls out this morning - Sanders is the national leader now, mostly due to Biden's collapse. Buttigieg and Bloomberg have been picking up a lot of Biden defectors. Klobuchar hasn't made much progress nationally despite picking up steam in New Hampshire.


Morning Consult (change since 2/2)

Sanders 25% (+1)
Biden 22% (-6)
Bloomberg 17% (+3)
Warren 11% (-3)
Buttigieg 11% (+5)
Klobuchar 3% (-)

Monmouth (change since 1/20)

Sanders 26% (+3)
Biden 16% (-14)
Warren 13% (-1)
Buttigieg 13% (+7)
Bloomberg 11% (+2)
Klobuchar 6% (+1)


 

One thing that's interesting about these polls is how fractured the moderate vote is. I hope one of the four (including Bloomberg) can consolidate that vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sneegor said:

Democrats have a tough sell to the American public.  Their message is to stop Trump at all costs.  Stop what exactly?  Wages are going up, unemployment is going down, taxes are going down, national security is stronger.  

Americans are in a better position than they were 3 years ago so Trump has this in the bag IMO.

Trump evokes an emotional response from women and other demographics so although the stats may back Trump, there are many that don’t care about the stats or the economy is not a priority. 

Share this post


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

One thing that's interesting about these polls is how fractured the moderate vote is. I hope one of the four (including Bloomberg) can consolidate that vote.

Hopefully. It's like Rubio/Cruz/Bush/Kasich in '16.

I think Monmouth represents #3 of 4 needed for Bloomberg to make the next debate.

Edited by Mystery Achiever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard what I thought was an interesting discussion regarding the democratic presidential nomination process.  The theory was that no one candidate will carry enough delegates to win out right during the primary season especially when Blumberg jumps in.  Therefore, nomination falls largely in the hands of 800 super delegates at the convention that are primarily traditional democrats which means bad news to Warren and Sanders and potential good news to Biden, Blumberg etc.  Wonder what others think??  

Share this post


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

Heard what I thought was an interesting discussion regarding the democratic presidential nomination process.  The theory was that no one candidate will carry enough delegates to win out right during the primary season especially when Blumberg jumps in.  Therefore, nomination falls largely in the hands of 800 super delegates at the convention that are primarily traditional democrats which means bad news to Warren and Sanders and potential good news to Biden, Blumberg etc.  Wonder what others think??  

It could happen.

Share this post


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

Good read and good early call/posting.  Now 6 months later its looking more like a contested convention with the big potential loser Sanders who could fracture the party if he feels cheated again.   

Share this post


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

Good read and good early call/posting.  Now 6 months later its looking more like a contested convention with the big potential loser Sanders who could fracture the party if he feels cheated again.   

If Sanders starts the convention with the most delegates but isn't the nominee it's going to be ugly.  And it seems very likely to me that Sanders will start the convention with the most delegates (but only a plurality, not a majority).

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

If Sanders starts the convention with the most delegates but isn't the nominee it's going to be ugly.  And it seems very likely to me that Sanders will start the convention with the most delegates (but only a plurality, not a majority).

I agree which can make for a very interesting and exciting process..  Saw some polls that Sanders leading Calif...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offshoot from a discussion about this Blomberg ad. Here are some things I believe.

1. People mostly don't know exactly why they support the candidates they support. They may think they do, but their conscious beliefs are largely after-the-fact rationalizations rather than true causes. (See descriptions of various split-brain experiments for humorous confirmation that that's how humans work.)

2. An awful lot of what truly undergirds most people's thinking about politics is tribalistic affiliation driven by (subconscious) concern about status. Specifically, people want to affiliate with candidates who they believe will be respected by people on their own team, so that some of that respect rubs off on them. (Recognition from people in one's in-group matters a lot more than recognition from people in one's out-group.)

3. In 2016, a lot of Republicans believed that other Republicans thought highly of Trump. This is for a bunch of reasons:

  • Trump was obviously high-status and cool because he was very rich, he slept with a lot of beautiful women, his name was on a lot of tall buildings, and he had a successful TV show. Just the kind of person we should want to affiliate with!
  • Trump was obviously on their side in the culture wars: he frequently said politically incorrect things, he shunned elitist rules about spelling and grammar, he eats McDonald's and cheats at golf, all of which make liberals' heads explode.
  • His campaign rallies were fun because they explicitly embraced tribalism. People pay hundreds of dollars to attend sporting events in order to cheer for their team and boo the other team. At Trump rallies, people cheered for Trump and booed journalists, "the establishment," snowflakes, elitists, Hollywood, and Benghazi emails. Who doesn't want to be a part of that?

4. Policy matters a lot to policy nerds, but that's about 2% of the population. For most people, to the extent that policy matters at all, it matters only indirectly. It matters as a signal about what kind of person you are. You may not be able to make a strong economic case for why current deficit levels are too high or too low, but "the deficit is too high" signals that you're fiscally responsible and disciplined, while "the deficit should not be our top concern" signals that you are cooperative and caring and desire to help those aided by pubic programs. The biggest example of a policy issue that matters -- but that matters indirectly -- is abortion. Presidents can't really do all that much to increase or decrease abortion counts, but it's a huge issue because your stance on abortion signals what kind of person you are. Do we want to be affiliated with someone who respects the sanctity of human life, or with someone who condones killing the defenseless unborn? Do we want to be affiliated with someone who respects female reproductive autonomy, or with someone who'd align with the villains in The Handmaid's Tale?

5. Biden was popular in Democratic polls for so long not because people thought he was the best candidate, but because people thought that other people thought he was the best candidate -- i.e., because of his perceived electability. (This was more subconscious than conscious.)

6. The trick to beating Trump is not convincing people that he's a misogynistic, duplicitous, profane rube with a bad makeup job. People already know that. The trick to beating Trump is convincing people that everybody else knows it too. That's where ads like Bloomberg's come in. They change the subconscious vibe associated with Trump away from the points in #3 above.

7. Trump is well aware of point #6 and uses it effectively against his political opponents. He wasn't as good at convincing people that Hillary was actually criminally corrupt as he was at convincing people that everyone thought Hillary was criminally corrupt. (Same, more recently, with the Bidens.) He wasn't as good at convincing people that Jeb was actually low-energy, or that Marco was actually little, or that Lyin' Ted Cruz was actually the direct offspring of JFK's killer as he was at planting those associations in the mind of the public via subconscious branding. It became stuff that "everybody knew" regardless of whether they thought it was true.

8. I am generally very much against urging Democrats to borrow treacherous tactics from Republicans. Let's not retweet bots promulgating fake news. Let's not invite foreign interference in our elections. Let's not threaten to criminally investigate our opponents without a legitimate predicate. Let's not produce our own version of QAnon. But with regard to an effective branding campaign, I do think Democrats should learn from Trump. They should run ads suggesting that everybody knows he's a laughingstock and a failure. On a subconscious level, in front of your friends, neighbors, and business associates, do you want to be affiliated with a laughingstock and a failure?

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

They should run ads suggesting that everybody knows he's a laughingstock and a failure. On a subconscious level, in front of your friends, neighbors, and business associates, is that who you want to be affiliated with?

And that is the reason he won and has a good chance to win again in 2020. Keep insulting us....it won't work.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping one of the centrists starts consolidating that segment of the D vote relatively soon. If they go to the convention with Sanders holding a plurality, but 60% of the remaining vote is split among 3 centrist candidates, the general could be an acrimonious :tfp: for the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, knowledge dropper said:

Getting curb stomped in NE has to be the end of the campaign trail for Warren?

Like someone else said last night, I'm sure the DNC is begging her to stay in it through Super Tuesday to keep the progressive vote split. Obviously not all of her vote will go back to Bernie at this point, but a decent portion of it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the convention in Milwaukee will be must see TV because I don't think this gets settled until then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Jake Tapper @jaketapper

CNN estimates that when all votes are counted in NH, turnout in the Dem primary will exceed the record number of votes cast in 2008. At minimum, there will be 295,000 votes cast in Tuesday’s Democratic primary. In 2008, 288,672 votes were cast. ...

10:02 AM · Feb 12, 2020

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON — House Democrats, recovering from their failed push to remove President Donald Trump from office, are making a sharp pivot to talking about health care and economic issues, turning away from their investigations of the president as they focus on preserving their majority.

Only took them 3.5 years of failure after failure to figure it out. :lol:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lod001 said:

WASHINGTON — House Democrats, recovering from their failed push to remove President Donald Trump from office, are making a sharp pivot to talking about health care and economic issues, turning away from their investigations of the president as they focus on preserving their majority.

Only took them 3.5 years of failure after failure to figure it out. :lol:

 

Check the bills on Mitch's desk...they have been talking and pushing those things for years.  Odd you take a small quote, with no link, no full context and post this as if it means something while ignoring all other things.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Check the bills on Mitch's desk...they have been talking and pushing those things for years.  Odd you take a small quote, with no link, no full context and post this as if it means something while ignoring all other things.

:lmao:  He's not talking about legislation.  He's talking about the election.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

:lmao:  He's not talking about legislation.  He's talking about the election.

He is talking about democrats talking...and they (and those vying for the election) have been talking about those things from the beginning and sending legislation.

 

Its a bogus narrative...i am betting that is why no full quote and no link was provided.
 

Edited by sho nuff
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

He is talking about democrats talking...and they (and those vying for the election) have been talking about those things from the beginning.  
 

Please link where the pivot to preserving the majority has anything to do with Mitch's desk.

Share this post


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

Please link where the pivot to preserving the majority has anything to do with Mitch's desk.

I think the point is that there wasn’t a pivot. The House Democrats have always been in favor of maintaining their majority.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the point is that there wasn’t a pivot. The House Democrats have always been in favor of maintaining their majority.

Well, yeah, the claim is in the how:

1 hour ago, lod001 said:

WASHINGTON — House Democrats, recovering from their failed push to remove President Donald Trump from office, are making a sharp pivot to talking about health care and economic issues, turning away from their investigations of the president as they focus on preserving their majority.

Only took them 3.5 years of failure after failure to figure it out. :lol:

 

 

Share this post


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

Please link where the pivot to preserving the majority has anything to do with Mitch's desk.

Yeah MT hots on it...what pivot is the point.  Democrats have been talking about those things and sending legislation the whole time.  Its a bogus narrative like do nothing democrats.  

Share this post


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

Well, yeah, the claim is in the how:

 

Which is why there is no link or context to that...its a narrative being thrown out there and it doesn’t seem to be based in anything factual.

Share this post


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

Yeah MT hots on it...what pivot is the point.  Democrats have been talking about those things and sending legislation the whole time.  Its a bogus narrative like do nothing democrats.  

What does hots on it mean and what does any of it have to do with Mitch's desk?

Share this post


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

What does hots on it mean and what does any of it have to do with Mitch's desk?

Hits on it...Mitch’s desk contains bills passed in the house...some addressing the issues claimed that things are now pivoting to...thus showing there was no pivot and those things have been being worked on all along.
The narrative that Democrats have just been talking about and dealing with investigations is a false narrative.

Share this post


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

Hits on it...Mitch’s desk contains bills passed in the house...some addressing the issues claimed that things are now pivoting to...thus showing there was no pivot and those things have been being worked on all along.
The narrative that Democrats have just been talking about and dealing with investigations is a false narrative.

:lmao: Again.  He's not talking about legislation.  He's talking about the election.

Hint:  Nothing on Mitch's desk has much to do about "maintaining the majority".

Did you see the last debate?  The entire first 55 minutes was spent on Trump.  Steyer tried to stop them and talk about the economy and that went nowhere.  2 full hours before they even mentioned climate change. 

Share this post


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

:lmao: Again.  He's not talking about legislation.  He's talking about the election.

Hint:  Nothing on Mitch's desk has much to do about "maintaining the majority".

Did you see the last debate?  The entire first 55 minutes was spent on Trump.  Steyer tried to stop them and talk about the economy and that went nowhere.  2 full hours before they even mentioned climate change. 

And I mentioned both...so keep laughing rather than trying to understand what someone is saying.  And why do you think its only about the election?  Hard to tell from a partial article with zero context or link provided.

The candidates and those other dems uo for re-election have all talked about and done more than just investigate.  How about try addressing that.

Also...no it wasnt the full 55 minute ls at all. Not was that the point (it said investigations not just Trump). Of course a debate will contrast their plans with Trump...he is the opponent .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 1:38 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

People mostly don't know exactly why they support the candidates they support. They may think they do, but their conscious beliefs are largely after-the-fact rationalizations rather than true causes. (See descriptions of various split-brain experiments for humorous confirmation that that's how humans work.)

Back when I originally posted this, I changed the URL in the link a few times as I looked for a good explanation of confabulation, but didn't really find a great one.

Now I have: Our Storytelling Minds: Do We Ever Really Know What's Going on Inside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 7:52 PM, Widbil83 said:

Exactly, and he’s not gonna use that unlimited war chest just to go after Trump. He’s going to use it to absolutely destroy Bernie, Biden, Pete and Liz. I’m a little surprised some of the anti Trump/pro Bloomberg (only when running ads against Trump) cheerleaders haven’t thought this far in advance.

Not even 2 weeks ago I made this prediction and here is Bloomberg’s campaign manage threatening Bernie.

@ksheekey

The opposition research on @BernieSanders could fill @realDonaldTrump’s empty Foxconn facility in Wisconsin.

It is very damaging, perhaps even disqualifying.

https://twitter.com/ksheekey/status/1229778713010679808?s=21

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.