What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place (1 Viewer)

A lot of people, including a lot of Dem primary voters, just don't like Bernie. Here's a poll where he only has a +2 overall favorability and only 74% among Dems, with Biden at +20 and 84%.  Here's another that gives him a 28% unfavorable among Dems, higher than anyone else and almost twice as high as anyone other than Bloomberg.  Some people probably don't like him because his online supporters are off-putting, to say the least. Some probably don't like him because the party just had great success in 2018 setting aside its differences and uniting to defeat a common enemy and they see Sanders, who isn't a Democrat, as the antithesis of that. Some probably still think he did too much damage to Clinton during the primary race and not enough to support her afterwards. Some are genuine centrists who have legitimate disagreements with his policies.

You can obviously take issue with their reasoning if you want. I think most of it is silly (the Clinton stuff is particularly dumb), and even the stuff that's true is unimportant. But even if you're 100% correct and their perspective is 100% wrong, that doesn't mean their votes count for less.
That's among Dems.  You are discounting independents, nonvoters and Trump crossovers.  Trump marketed himself as a populist in 2016 (he wasn't of course) but Bernie will draw from that tent.  Bernie Sanders is the most popular political figure in the country.  The centerleft has been bred to blame/hate Sanders for Trump, but most normal people know that this is a red herring.  

Most Democrats are not going to vote for Trump over Bernie, or stay home because Bernie isn't a registered D.  Those are D votes no matter what, by your own logic, since they will be "uniting to defeat a common enemy".  What is the word 'democrat' supposed to stand for anyway, if not a democratic process?  If you want a safe and bloodless primary then let the party elites handpick someone in a backroom and skip the theater.  They already tried a triangulating centrist, got their way, boosted Trump in the primaries and then ####### lost to him. The orange cheeto dust is on their hands, not Bernie's.  Sanders, by contrast, may have actually won the 2016 election.  It is time for centrists to get out of the way and see how a real left opposition party does.  

For what it's worth, I don't like Bernie Sanders, but for different reasons than you don't.  I think he's a liberal imperialist, waffles on Israel and is a total coward on BDS, shouldn't have humored this Russia garbage (which will be weaponized against him just like Gabbard, Corbyn, Stein etc., watch), has the wrong diagnosis for the symptoms, super old, etc.  But there is no denying that he's an impactful figure in politics.  From his support for labor against Amazon, teachers' strikes, the new push for M4A, the Yemen resolution passed in the Senate, you really can't discount that he's been an important factor in national politics.  Look at this.  It's a searing image.  

What I find incredible is that people still blame Sanders for dividing the party, and not supporting Clinton hard enough.  It was the DNC that divided the party by favoring one candidate in what should have been an open primary process.  If we're talking about divisive, maybe we should talk about the DNC leadership that got ####canned for running a biased primary, or the guy that wanted to "put a fork" in Bernie's latino support, who now, naturally, runs the DNC.  

He could have ripped the DNC apart for what they did to him, and should have.  He displayed total cowardice letting it slide and endorsing Clinton.  They should have thanked their lucky stars that Sanders fell in line.  Enough with the Bernie/Russia blaming crap, and enough with the lame excuses for why the DNC/Hillary/CAP brand failed.  Nope.  It's not gonna happen.  Not this time.  

 
That's among Dems.  You are discounting independents, nonvoters and Trump crossovers.  Trump marketed himself as a populist in 2016 (he wasn't of course) but Bernie will draw from that tent.  Bernie Sanders is the most popular political figure in the country.  The centerleft has been bred to blame/hate Sanders for Trump, but most normal people know that this is a red herring.  

Most Democrats are not going to vote for Trump over Bernie, or stay home because Bernie isn't a registered D.  Those are D votes no matter what, by your own logic, since they will be "uniting to defeat a common enemy".  What is the word 'democrat' supposed to stand for anyway, if not a democratic process?  If you want a safe and bloodless primary then let the party elites handpick someone in a backroom and skip the theater.  They already tried a triangulating centrist, got their way, boosted Trump in the primaries and then ####### lost to him. The orange cheeto dust is on their hands, not Bernie's.  Sanders, by contrast, may have actually won the 2016 election.  It is time for centrists to get out of the way and see how a real left opposition party does.  

For what it's worth, I don't like Bernie Sanders, but for different reasons than you don't.  I think he's a liberal imperialist, waffles on Israel and is a total coward on BDS, shouldn't have humored this Russia garbage (which will be weaponized against him just like Gabbard, Corbyn, Stein etc., watch), has the wrong diagnosis for the symptoms, super old, etc.  But there is no denying that he's an impactful figure in politics.  From his support for labor against Amazon, teachers' strikes, the new push for M4A, the Yemen resolution passed in the Senate, you really can't discount that he's been an important factor in national politics.  Look at this.  It's a searing image.  

What I find incredible is that people still blame Sanders for dividing the party, and not supporting Clinton hard enough.  It was the DNC that divided the party by favoring one candidate in what should have been an open primary process.  If we're talking about divisive, maybe we should talk about the DNC leadership that got ####canned for running a biased primary, or the guy that wanted to "put a fork" in Bernie's latino support, who now, naturally, runs the DNC.  

He could have ripped the DNC apart for what they did to him, and should have.  He displayed total cowardice letting it slide and endorsing Clinton.  They should have thanked their lucky stars that Sanders fell in line.  Enough with the Bernie/Russia blaming crap, and enough with the lame excuses for why the DNC/Hillary/CAP brand failed.  Nope.  It's not gonna happen.  Not this time.  
Cool rant, but the question was about the Dem primary, not the general election.  That’s why I focused on polls of Dems. Also, I like Sanders. Not sure why you said I don’t.

I also appreciate the passionate rant about the horrific injustices perpetrated by the DNC in the 2016 primary race ... from a guy who has Trump in his avatar and who to my knowledge hasn’t said a single word about the RNC openly stifling challenges to Trump in 2020 or about some states actually looking to cancel their primaries altogether.

Shine on you crazy diamond.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Who are more clueless:

  • Millennials
  • People who think millennials are clueless


I think its a mistake to assume millennials are clueless simply because they look at the world differently than you think they should.
Clueless isn't necessarily a derogation. I don't find any diminished capacity or care in those 37 and under. They simply don't know how to be anything but a customer, which is unfortunate for us all. But they are nowhere near as pathetic as those who know the difference between citizen and customer and choose customer, as most of the two gens preceding millennials have done.

 
Gr00vus said:
IvanKaramazov said:
I honestly thought that Sanders would be a non-factor this time around because of the plethora of options available.  Looks like I was wrong about that.
He's committed to addressing the problems he sees and he's genuine about it. Those two things have pull when contrasted with most other career politicians. In his populist messaging he's a lot like Trump. In his unapologetic honesty he's the opposite of Trump. It's an appealing mixture, even when some of his policy ideas are obviously half baked.

Harris is from the CA Dem school of slick politicians (like Newsome whose protege she sort of was) - I'm not sure she truly believes everything she says even when I agree with many of the things she says. She very much has a feel of calculation, telling people what they want to hear to her. Big contrast between her and Sanders style wise.
I've talked to several around me about this...I am sort of new to these people only knowing them for a couple years, but there are several who like Bernie as a person and are of the opinion that we need genuine, honest people in government again even if we don't agree politically.  It's a "back to the basics" type of argument.  There's absolutely NO QUESTION regarding his authenticity, dedication and message.  He's saying today the same things he said 2 decades ago.  That's rare.

 
I've talked to several around me about this...I am sort of new to these people only knowing them for a couple years, but there are several who like Bernie as a person and are of the opinion that we need genuine, honest people in government again even if we don't agree politically.  It's a "back to the basics" type of argument.  There's absolutely NO QUESTION regarding his authenticity, dedication and message.  He's saying today the same things he said 2 decades ago.  That's rare.
You just encapsulated my view of him. I vote for the person not the Party.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Cool rant, but the question was about the Dem primary, not the general election.  That’s why I focused on polls of Dems. Also, I like Sanders. Not sure why you said I don’t.

I also appreciate the passionate rant about the horrific injustice of the DNC in the 2016 primary race from a guy who has Trump in his avatar and who to my knowledge hasn’t said a single word about the RNC openly looking to stifle challenges to Trump in 2020 or about some states actually looking to cancel their primaries altogether.

Shine on you crazy diamond.
Ok, you were bringing up critiques that usually come from the Neera Tanden sorts, who are typically a little neurotic about Bernie.  My apologies.  

I see how the particular arrangement of pixels in my avatar (which isn't trump at all) discredits the words to the right of it.  Well met Tobias, I am defeated, arghhh!  

 
538 analysis on ranked choice  that I thought was interesting. My take away is it is too early for polling to be meaningful as too few know all the candidates well enough to even have a coherent 2nd choice.

 
I have been saying since the moment Trump was sworn in that, contrary to the optimistic predictions of many liberals I know, he was probably 50/50 to win another term. Still, even given my level of concern, I found this article to be shocking and terrifying.

One month later, however, and Trump is making an aggressive play for Hispanic-American votes in Florida and beyond. Meanwhile, polls suggest Marist might have been onto something—and that Democrats should be worried that Hispanic voters could help reelect Trump and keep the Senate in Republican control. If so, it would be a cosmic twist of fate: A party that has staked its future on a belief that America’s demographic picture is changing decidedly in its favor could find itself losing to a man whose politics of fear should be driving precisely those voters into the Democrats’ waiting arms.
Republicans have long contended that Democrats take the black vote for granted. That may have been true at one point, but I don't think it is anymore. However, I do think that may be a fair cop in terms of Latinos. Especially given their size and rate of increase, it's pretty awful how poorly represented Latinos are in the party. I live in Miami, which is a) the largest population center in the state, b) heavily Latino and c) heavily Democratic, yet Democrats have never managed to elect a Latino from here to any statewide office.

I don't know what the solution to that is, although I feel pretty confident that nominating Julian Castro is not the answer. But Dems better figure it out soon.

 
I have been saying since the moment Trump was sworn in that, contrary to the optimistic predictions of many liberals I know, he was probably 50/50 to win another term. Still, even given my level of concern, I found this article to be shocking and terrifying.

Republicans have long contended that Democrats take the black vote for granted. That may have been true at one point, but I don't think it is anymore. However, I do think that may be a fair cop in terms of Latinos. Especially given their size and rate of increase, it's pretty awful how poorly represented Latinos are in the party. I live in Miami, which is a) the largest population center in the state, b) heavily Latino and c) heavily Democratic, yet Democrats have never managed to elect a Latino from here to any statewide office.

I don't know what the solution to that is, although I feel pretty confident that nominating Julian Castro is not the answer. But Dems better figure it out soon.
Most Cuban politicians in Miami are Republican. The Democratic politicians in South Florida tend to be African American or Jewish. Some non-Cuban Hispanic Democrats have emerged such as Debbie Murcacel-Powell from Ecuador and Annette Tadeo from Colombia. But none of them are ready to run for Govenor or Senator 6 and 4 years from now.

Rick Scott and DiSantis have been strategic in courting the Hispanic vote. They outperformed Trump among Hispanics. If Maduro falls in the next few months, many Venezuelans will become Republicans for life. Your concerns about Trump in 2020 are well founded.

 
Ok, you were bringing up critiques that usually come from the Neera Tanden sorts, who are typically a little neurotic about Bernie.  My apologies.  

I see how the particular arrangement of pixels in my avatar (which isn't trump at all) discredits the words to the right of it.  Well met Tobias, I am defeated, arghhh!  
Sorry, missed the new avatar. Mazel Tov!

Anyway the point was more about the hypocrisy of your continuous silence about the RNC putting the fix in for Trump in 2020 far beyond anything that has ever happened on the other side, all the while continuing to rail against the DNC for "fixing" the 2016 primaries. The (old) avatar was just the cherry on the top, as it was already fairly clear that you're a standard issue Trump apologist. Hope that clears it up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most Cuban politicians in Miami are Republican. The Democratic politicians in South Florida tend to be African American or Jewish. Some non-Cuban Hispanic Democrats have emerged such as Debbie Murcacel-Powell from Ecuador and Annette Tadeo from Colombia. But none of them are ready to run for Govenor or Senator 6 and 4 years from now.

Rick Scott and DiSantis have been strategic in courting the Hispanic vote. They outperformed Trump among Hispanics. If Maduro falls in the next few months, many Venezuelans will become Republicans for life. Your concerns about Trump in 2020 are well founded.
Yes, there are a lot of Cubans, and they traditionally vote Republican. But younger Cubans act more like other Latino demos, plus the Latino community is rapidly diversifying with immigrants from other countries. Point is, the Latino vote here in Miami-Dade is not only gettable for Dems, they should be racking up huge margins. And they're not because, as you say, local Republicans have been very smart about courting the Latino vote and at least holding their margins down in Miami (both DeSantis and Scott chose Latino running mates) and Democrats have simply not made the effort. And I worry we could see the same dynamic play out nationwide next year.

 
Yes, there are a lot of Cubans, and they traditionally vote Republican. But younger Cubans act more like other Latino demos, plus the Latino community is rapidly diversifying with immigrants from other countries. Point is, the Latino vote here in Miami-Dade is not only gettable for Dems, they should be racking up huge margins. And they're not because, as you say, local Republicans have been very smart about courting the Latino vote and at least holding their margins down in Miami (both DeSantis and Scott chose Latino running mates) and Democrats have simply not made the effort. And I worry we could see the same dynamic play out nationwide next year.
Dems can win without winning Florida, though it's admittedly harder since Ohio has turned ever redder. I'm on record as saying that the EC gives Donald an even chance of winning again and he will unless the Dems can roll out the vote the way that only they can.

 
Dems can win without winning Florida, though it's admittedly harder since Ohio has turned ever redder. I'm on record as saying that the EC gives Donald an even chance of winning again and he will unless the Dems can roll out the vote the way that only they can.
Of course, the Latino vote will be important not just in Florida but also Texas, Arizona and increasingly in non-border states like Georgia (the latter three states also hosting potentially competitive Senate races next year). But ultimately, this isn't even an argument about 2020. The more important long-term point is that there can only be an "emerging Democratic majority" if Dems make a concerted effort to reach the groups that are emerging, as opposed to just assuming they'll be with them because the Republicans are so racist.

 
Of course, the Latino vote will be important not just in Florida but also Texas, Arizona and increasingly in non-border states like Georgia (the latter three states also hosting potentially competitive Senate races next year). But ultimately, this isn't even an argument about 2020. The more important long-term point is that there can only be an "emerging Democratic majority" if Dems make a concerted effort to reach the groups that are emerging, as opposed to just assuming they'll be with them because the Republicans are so racist.
Indeed, there are no guarantees that minority voters will continue to vote for moderately progressive candidates -- heck, you can make the case that many vote Dem now only because the alternative is so awful -- and it will continue to be an uphill climb for progressives until the two youngest generations in the electorate make up an overwhelming majority of voters. Gotta keep hammering science and better democracy to hang on to all the moderates, no matter their ethnicity.

 
Looks like Beto is going to announce that he is running.

He has turned down the chance to run for Senate again.

He is certainly one to watch - and he can generate enthusiasm, I just wonder if he will come across as not "mature" enough - i.e. lacking the gravitas for the position.

 
Looks like Beto is going to announce that he is running.

He has turned down the chance to run for Senate again.

He is certainly one to watch - and he can generate enthusiasm, I just wonder if he will come across as not "mature" enough - i.e. lacking the gravitas for the position.
I am hoping you mean in comparison to his peers and not trump. :lol:

 
Looks like Beto is going to announce that he is running.

He has turned down the chance to run for Senate again.

He is certainly one to watch - and he can generate enthusiasm, I just wonder if he will come across as not "mature" enough - i.e. lacking the gravitas for the position.
Interesting to see if Beto pulls money (and support) from Bernie.   They use very similar fundraising techniques and the same consultants.  They could just cancel each other out and inadvertently help Harris or Klobuchar.

 
-fish- said:
Interesting to see if Beto pulls money (and support) from Bernie.   They use very similar fundraising techniques and the same consultants.  They could just cancel each other out and inadvertently help Harris or Klobuchar.
On policies the are decently separated.  He votes with Trump 40% of the time.

 
As I was posting in the AOC thread - something dawned (or is it donned?)  on me - one of the Dem candidates should adopt "Make America Great Again" as their campaign slogan.

Instead of mocking MAGA - they should co-opt MAGA and re-define its terms.

MAGA - providing healthcare as a matter of right

MAGA - welcoming people of all backgrounds into the country

MAGA - leading the world in clean and renewable energy

MAGA - reclaiming the mantle of world leaders

MAGA - pursuing peace through global prosperity

MAGA - we stand united with our allies

etc.

 
Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball

First look at 2020 - without attaching candidates, Sabato rates it as a "Toss-up"

248 - Lean GOP

244 - Lean Dem

46 - Toss-up

Toss-up States:

Pennsylvania - 20
Arizona - 11
Wisconsin - 10
New Hampshire - 4
Nebraska - 1 
I've been thinking for months now that it is indeed just that close. I think Republican turnout will be higher than predicted because it is the base's last gasp to hang on while maintaining a reality-deficient platform (anti-science, anti-immigration, anti-single payer). After this election, the GOP will have to slide towards the center to have a fighting chance because of changing demographics.

What I can't predict with comfort is how well Dems will motivate their new base of young voters. If that bunch comes in at 45% turnout or better, it's all over. If they don't, the Know Nothings could hit another inside straight.

 
As I was posting in the AOC thread - something dawned (or is it donned?)  on me - one of the Dem candidates should adopt "Make America Great Again" as their campaign slogan.

Instead of mocking MAGA - they should co-opt MAGA and re-define its terms.

MAGA - providing healthcare as a matter of right

MAGA - welcoming people of all backgrounds into the country

MAGA - leading the world in clean and renewable energy

MAGA - reclaiming the mantle of world leaders

MAGA - pursuing peace through global prosperity

MAGA - we stand united with our allies

etc.
Make America Fair Again. Much more fun to say, mafa

 
Sinn Fein said:
He strikes me as a little Peter Pan-ish, but I'll confess I have not watched him too closely, even during his Senate campaign.
I think that's a fair comment and I say that as someone that has seen a lot of him. 

That said, several recent Presidents have had that same vibe. Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama all seemed to be candidates that lacked gravitas early on. 

Beto does seem a bit carefree and immature. But he is an exceptional campaigner and he makes those qualities work for him. If he has the right guy - a David Axelrod type - and he grows into the campaign as most serious candidates do, I think he's got a very good shot. He's the kind of candidate that can crush the retail politics of Iowa/NH. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Looks like Beto is going to announce that he is running.

He has turned down the chance to run for Senate again.

He is certainly one to watch - and he can generate enthusiasm, I just wonder if he will come across as not "mature" enough - i.e. lacking the gravitas for the position.
Don't like this - senate composition is going to be a huge problem for the next Dem president unless they pull off some upsets next year. Flipping Cornyn's seat would be way more valuable to the progressive cause than having another candidate in the presidential primary. 

 
Don't like this - senate composition is going to be a huge problem for the next Dem president unless they pull off some upsets next year. Flipping Cornyn's seat would be way more valuable to the progressive cause than having another candidate in the presidential primary. 
Couldn’t Beto still run for Senate if his presidential campaign fizzles out?

 
Don't like this - senate composition is going to be a huge problem for the next Dem president unless they pull off some upsets next year. Flipping Cornyn's seat would be way more valuable to the progressive cause than having another candidate in the presidential primary. 
I get that - but I also understand this puts Beto in a bind now - run for the Senate and lose - and where does he go from there?

He might have the same dilemma running for President :shrug:

 
Jay Inslee
Inslee is the head of the Democratic Governor's Association.   His primary focus in on climate change, but he'll get killed on his record of raising taxes as Governor of Washington.    He put all of his backing on a carbon tax initiative last year that didn't pass.   He probably couldn't get re-elected here.   He has no shot.

He is a vocal anti-Trump guy and Washington has sued the Trump administration multiple times over the travel ban, family separation, the emergency declaration, etc.   He'll be good for some sound bites, but he'll be one of the first ones to drop out when he runs out of money.

 
2020 Endorsement Primary

538 are tracking endorsements for the Dem candidates - and it is still early, and the support is more widespread than 2016 - still some interesting developments.

FiveThirtyEight’s point scale

  • 10 points - Former presidents and vice presidents, Current national party leaders
  • 8 points  - Governors
  • 6 points -U.S. senators
  • 5 points - Former presidential and vice-presidential nominees, Former national party leaders, 2020 presidential candidates who have dropped out
  • 3 points - U.S. representatives, Mayors of large cities
  • 2 points - Officials in statewide elected offices, State legislative leaders
  • 1 point - Other Democratic National Committee members


Booker leads with 55 points, followed by Harris 44 points, and Klobuchar 39 points - these are your front runners for support among the Dem establishment

Sanders at 20 is ahead of Warren 17 - Warren may not realize it yet, but she is unlikely to ever get past Bernie in this election to even compete with the establishment.  She missed her shot last cycle.

Gillibrand has nothing - which follows on reports of the DNC being less than pleased with her for the #MeToo pile-on on Al Franken.  She is going to struggle to stay relevant into the debates, let alone Iowa.

 
Sanders at 20 is ahead of Warren 17 - Warren may not realize it yet, but she is unlikely to ever get past Bernie in this election to even compete with the establishment.  She missed her shot last cycle.
I think they’ll both be out relatively early.

People have called Hillary the worst candidate ever because she lost to Trump. I’m not sure what that makes Sanders. In any event, Sanders had a much better shot in 2016 than he does in 2020, IMO, and Warren has less of a shot than Sanders does.

 
I think they’ll both be out relatively early.

People have called Hillary the worst candidate ever because she lost to Trump. I’m not sure what that makes Sanders. In any event, Sanders had a much better shot in 2016 than he does in 2020, IMO, and Warren has less of a shot than Sanders does.
I had the same initial impression of Bernie - he would be out early.  Now - I am not as sure.

He has two advantages over all the other candidates right now - fund raising and authenticity. 

I had assumed that with other candidates co-opting Bernie's positions, that he would have to fight harder for those supporters - but it seems as though the contenders are struggling to pull those supporters away from Bernie.

Certainly one of the dangers for Bernie, and the Dems, is how bitterly they fight for a competitive nomination.  In my view it is shaping up to be a contested convention where nobody gets a majority of the delegates - at least not on the first vote.  And, with the new rules, the Super Delegates come into play on the 2nd vote - and that will likely push the establishment choice to the nomination - but it could set up another bitter pill to swallow for the Bernie supporters.  I think Trump will be enough to encourage all non-Trumpians to vote - but it could get messy.

 
I think they’ll both be out relatively early.

People have called Hillary the worst candidate ever because she lost to Trump. I’m not sure what that makes Sanders. In any event, Sanders had a much better shot in 2016 than he does in 2020, IMO, and Warren has less of a shot than Sanders does.
Yeah I disagree with this pretty strongly.  Sanders has a fervent base of support.  That’s a huge advantage in a crowded field.  I think he’s probably the favorite or at least one of the favorites to win the nomination.

 
Yeah I disagree with this pretty strongly.  Sanders has a fervent base of support.  That’s a huge advantage in a crowded field.  I think he’s probably the favorite or at least one of the favorites to win the nomination.
Election Betting Odds.

I think he’s way overrated there. I think Biden is also overrated, but Biden should be comfortably ahead of Sanders, IMO. So should O’Rourke. Booker and Klobuchar seem underrated to me. They’re way behind Sanders at that site, but I’d bet on either of them over Sanders at even odds. (I think Sanders is a favorite to perform better in the primaries than Klobuchar, but less likely to win the whole thing than she is.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think they’ll both be out relatively early.

People have called Hillary the worst candidate ever because she lost to Trump. I’m not sure what that makes Sanders. In any event, Sanders had a much better shot in 2016 than he does in 2020, IMO, and Warren has less of a shot than Sanders does.
Yeah I disagree with this pretty strongly.  Sanders has a fervent base of support.  That’s a huge advantage in a crowded field.  I think he’s probably the favorite or at least one of the favorites to win the nomination.
Sanders WILL win the Democratic nomination, using the exact same strategy that Trump lucked into in 2016. He'll only get 35% of the Democratic vote, but it will be more than enough.

Then the liberals will find out that the rest of the country is not quite ready to buy what Bernie is selling, and the rest of the country will reluctantly re-elect Trump.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top