Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
fantasycurse42

Your playbook to removing Trump from the WH in 2020

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, stlrams said:

Really?  Outside of green deal what have dems been pushing? 

And another

Also...not likely to see the Senate floor if Trump doesn't like it...McConnell will again keep it from seeing the light of day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Widbil83 said:

Wait, What?  Hillary's campaign spent $100 million more than Trump in 2016 and she had probably 95% of the media in her back pantsuit pocket.  

The second part obviously is pure nonsense. No politician has ever benefited from disparate media coverage as much as Trump has. For example, compare media coverage of the Clinton email scandal to the coverage of the various far more serious electronic security lapses of the Trump administration, to cite just one of countless examples of disparate treatment by the so-called "liberal media." Trump has five scandals a month that would take down any other administration that get buried under the noise. Or read the New Yorker piece about Trump and Fox News and find similar examples of "liberal" news having that kind of relationship with a politician. And honestly even if it was true it wouldn't contradict anything I said. So not really sure what you're confused about :shrug:

As for the money- Clinton had more, but Trump had plenty. He also had his own money and private jet and venues, which he could use and then just funnel as much money as he chose back to himself as reimbursement. The point wasn't that he had more than Clinton, the point was that the narrative that he was some sort of upstart who overcame adversity is nonsense. He had plenty of money and resources, and he will have far more in 2020.

 

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


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

Why do people keep saying this? The guy trounced the GOP field by a mile. He's a billionaire white male whose image was totally remade and distributed to the masses by reality TV. He's clearly more popular than any other Republican in America, as we saw in 2018 when his name wasn't on the ballot. He had at his disposal absurd amounts of GOP dark money and the assistance of a foreign adversary which literally committed crimes against his opponent in an effort to help him win. He had and has an entire media empire working as a propaganda machine for him and attacking (often unfairly) his opponent, something they'd been doing for decades.  His amorality allowed him to tap into racial resentment and tell blatant falsehoods to a degree that no decent human being would ever dare. He had and continues to have almost every possible advantage a candidate can have other than intelligence and government experience, two things that I think we can say at this point aren't big priorities for voters. Why is he still some amazing underdog story? Because pundits dismissed him for a couple months in the fall of 2015?

I think people keep saying it because it's what most people thought.

It's why Politico's* headline was "Trump pulls off biggest upset in U.S. history"

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/election-results-2016-clinton-trump-231070

I think it was pretty far from "some pundits dismissed him for a few months in fall of 2015" 

Opposing Trump is entirely reasonable. I didn't vote for him nor did almost anyone here. But to act like he wasn't a huge underdog just seems odd. 

 

 

*Political as a source rated high quality slightly left

Edited by Joe Bryant

Share this post


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

I think people keep saying it because it's what most people thought.

It's why Politico's* headline was "Trump pulls off biggest upset in U.S. history"

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/election-results-2016-clinton-trump-231070

I think it was pretty far from "some pundits dismissed him for a few months in fall of 2015" 

Opposing Trump is entirely reasonable. I didn't vote for him nor did almost anyone here. But to act like he wasn't a huge underdog just seems odd. 

 

 

*Political as a source rated high quality slightly left

Just because someone characterizes a win as an "upset" at the time doesn't mean that the favorite had an easy task against a weak opponent and just botched it. Sometimes an unexpected outcome actually reveals something about the underdog that we didn't fully grasp at the time. Allow me to demonstrate.

 

 

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


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

Just because someone characterizes a win as an "upset" at the time doesn't mean that the favorite had an easy task against a weak opponent and just botched it. Sometimes an unexpected outcome actually reveals something about the underdog that we didn't fully grasp at the time. Allow me to demonstrate.

 

 

Of course. Winning the Presidency of the United States is one of the most difficult things I could imagine. 

Even as an average candidate, Hillary Clinton was a big favorite. I don't know enough about US History to debate Politico whether it was the "biggest upset in US History" or not. But I think it's safe to say it was a big upset.

Again, I just find refusing to acknowledge that interesting. :shrug: Not important in the bigger scheme of things. But interesting. 

 

Share this post


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

Just because someone characterizes a win as an "upset" at the time doesn't mean that the favorite had an easy task against a weak opponent and just botched it. Sometimes an unexpected outcome actually reveals something about the underdog that we didn't fully grasp at the time. Allow me to demonstrate.

 

 

Hillary had an easy task and botched it.  

Share this post


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

Of course. Winning the Presidency of the United States is one of the most difficult things I could imagine. 

Even as an average candidate, Hillary Clinton was a big favorite. I don't know enough about US History to debate Politico whether it was the "biggest upset in US History" or not. But I think it's safe to say it was a big upset.

Again, I just find refusing to acknowledge that interesting. :shrug: Not important in the bigger scheme of things. But interesting. 

 

It's not that I'm refusing to acknowledge it. It's that saying something was an "upset" and saying the favorite just had to hit "a layup" and that they blew it are two very different things. Most upsets happen more because of some combination of an underestimated opponent and a quirky, unpredictable set of events, not just because the favorite "blew it." Think about famous upsets in sports- it's virtually always a combo of those two things more so than a favorite screwing up.

Knowing what we know now, especially after looking back at the primary, seeing what happened to the GOP in 2018 without him on the ballot, and getting a fuller reckoning of his relationship with the Murdoch media empire, it's obvious that Trump was a more formidable opponent than was thought at the time and will be again in two years.

Share this post


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

Just because someone characterizes a win as an "upset" at the time doesn't mean that the favorite had an easy task against a weak opponent and just botched it. Sometimes an unexpected outcome actually reveals something about the underdog that we didn't fully grasp at the time. Allow me to demonstrate.

You cited the 2018 midterm elections as evidence that Trump is way more popular than other Republicans.

That’s one possibility. Another is that 2018 was a referendum on Trump and he’s actually much more like Buster Douglas than he is like the 2001 Patriots.

Share this post


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

You cited the 2018 midterm elections as evidence that Trump is way more popular than other Republicans.

That’s one possibility. Another is that 2018 was a referendum on Trump and he’s actually much more like Buster Douglas than he is like the 2001 Patriots.

Sure that seems possible, but considering the current odds on Trump retaining the White House (mostly in the 40% range) are a lot stronger than you would expect after 2018, and that every article about GOP chances of retaking the House assume that a Trump win is a prerequisite to even considering it, it seems fair to say that he has some unique appeal that the rest of the party lacks. I think it's a combination of a lot of things- he's a better candidate than expected being one of them, more because American voters are way more accepting of certain things than was previously believed than because of his skill, and of course his politics of working class racial resentment are perfectly tailored to take advantage of swing states and voters who are given disproportionate influence by the electoral college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

Scoreboard seems to back JohnnyU's gut.

Which scoreboard? The one where the Democrats in the face of massive gerrymandering still had their biggest congressional win since the 70s?

Share this post


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

Yep, folks like FC and Tim.  “Progressive” is the new boogeyman term - except the policies are you know, actually popular with people.

It's funny, I vaguely remember a slightly progressive candidate running in 2016, I think, maybe, can't really remember. 

I'm excited to hear the best words anyone can utter before disaster strikes, there are 4 of them when they're strung together, do you know what they are? 

 

This time is different 

Esta vez es diferente

это время другое

这次是不同的

Diese Zeit ist anders

הפעם זה שונה

Popular with people? Anyone who says that doesn't really understand numbers... If they were popular with people, you'll easily be able to win this election. It's the Tea Party moment for the left :shrug:

@BassNBrew Once the candidates become clear, we'll line up wagers... Trump is going to trounce the progressive candidate should it come to that. Unlike last time, when I saw it clearly and wagered on Trump, this time, I'll take all the action in the world on this board from all of the progressives, we'll have someone trusted as an escrow holder, and at least I can be compensated for seeing it clearly, again. 

Edited by fantasycurse42

Share this post


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

oh I think I have a clue why his supporters wouldn't care if he shot someone on 5th avenue.  we're not supposed to talk about it here though

I don't think you understood the crux of my question. 

Joe replied with an answer I understand his response; people vote with their wallet.

While I agree with the concept and it obviously makes sense, are most of these people in his base that much better off financially than they were 2.5 years ago? 

Share this post


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

It's not that I'm refusing to acknowledge it. It's that saying something was an "upset" and saying the favorite just had to hit "a layup" and that they blew it are two very different things. Most upsets happen more because of some combination of an underestimated opponent and a quirky, unpredictable set of events, not just because the favorite "blew it." Think about famous upsets in sports- it's virtually always a combo of those two things more so than a favorite screwing up.

Knowing what we know now, especially after looking back at the primary, seeing what happened to the GOP in 2018 without him on the ballot, and getting a fuller reckoning of his relationship with the Murdoch media empire, it's obvious that Trump was a more formidable opponent than was thought at the time and will be again in two years.

On a scale of 0 (terrible) to 10 (fantastic) how good a campaign do you think Hillary Clinton ran? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

I don't think you understood the crux of my question. 

Joe replied with an answer I understand his response; people vote with their wallet.

While I agree with the concept and it obviously makes sense, are most of these people in his base that much better off financially than they were 2.5 years ago? 

no, they are not.  I was talking to the point of what makes Trump and his supporters different from Bush, Romney, or McCain and their supporters.  there's something else that makes his base so supportive that they literally don't care about anything he does, even if it hurts them.  if only I could put my finger on it......

Share this post


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

On a scale of 0 (terrible) to 10 (fantastic) how good a campaign do think Hillary Clinton ran? 

 

I know this was directed at Tobias but...

It was real bad. She came off as entitled. Her lead advisor actually said they didn't need blue collar Democrats. She didn't campaign in places she took for granted because of course they owed her. She didn't even put any ads out in many urban areas until the Saturday before.

So what happened? Her attitude turned quite a few independents off and they stayed home. Just enough blue collar folks said well screw you then here's some Trump for you for him to win the EC. And millions of black folks stayed home. She blew it in every way possible. 

Share this post


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

Ouch.

 

11 hours ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

Trump will lose the Corker and Flake conservatives in name only. He has a higher approval rating among one's own party than anyone in history not named George W Bush in the months following 9/11.

He will more than make up the loss of fake conservatives (or sensitive conservatives who get offended by Trump's mean words) from blacks and Hispanics who have better paying jobs than before Trump.

A better life for their family is more important to voters than 99% of what is debated on these pages or CNN/Fox..

These threads are an entertaining exercise but we all know they are not how most Americans think or vote.

 

It comments like above that really make me chuckle, makes me sad how soft we're getting that he needs to reply "ouch" to this post. I'd assume there were many people on this board who cried when Trump won.

I'll give my Trump reply though:

I enjoyed Celebrity Apprentice, watched it all the time, liked the show. To me, that's were he belongs, a Reality TV star. He wants to do what he does in that avenue, have at it. As the POTUS, no chance - it's embarrassing... It's like the US version of Brexit, their government just looks flat out foolish for this Brexit scramble they can't get in order over the last 3 years, this is how we look to the rest of the world. 

The POTUS shouldn't be saying grab her by the *****, can't be saying anything racist, can't be unhinged, should listed to his advisors, should not lie about everything, and I can go on forever. The POTUS should be above all things, part of the responsibility of the job. 

Nobody really talks about his performance as the President, and to me, it has been an utter failure, I'll list it out:

- Tax cuts, and they'll pay for themselves. That's a lie, they won't pay for themselves. They benefit the super wealthy and corporations a gazillion more times than everyone else. The economy is being held up by the consumer now, let them reap those benefits instead. Where are all those 1 time bonuses from last year? The ultimate corporate version of a headfake, a bonus is a 1x event, the tax cuts live on for the corporations. 

- His budget - based on 3% GDP. Is he serious? We barely cleared that during tax cut year, prob won't clear it again ever, yet he bases these awful ballooning budgets on 3% GDP for the next 10 years - It's offensive that he can even say that with a straight face. The economy has been expanding for a decade, you bring deficits down during these times, you don't balloon them. We aren't a company, if we default on our debts, it'll be a crisis like no other, and his policies and terrible fiscal stances will be paid for one day way down the road when he is long long gone.

- Trade - talking about screwing the pooch... Every country in the world would've taken on China and their awful trade practices with us. He decided it was better to go after everyone at the same time, it was idiotic! Instead of alienating these countries, use them as allies (he could've gone after them individually after he went at and handled China). Now, China has basically run the clock down on him (unless he wants to risk upsetting his precious stock market) , he knows it, we know it, they know it, and he'll take some ####ty unenforceable deal, declare it a huge win, and put the whole thing behind him... He actually could've done something good there, instead he completely botched it, pathetic!

He treats the government and other governments like they're brokering some commercial real estate deals together, he doesn't get it - he is unfit to be the POTUS on every level. 

Edited by fantasycurse42
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

no, they are not.  I was talking to the point of what makes Trump and his supporters different from Bush, Romney, or McCain and their supporters.  there's something else that makes his base so supportive that they literally don't care about anything he does, even if it hurts them.  if only I could put my finger on it......

Again, you're so hung up on racism (what I think you're implying?), you can't even see my question... It wasn't why he won't lose his base and why they will support him regardless, it was why he cares so much about the stock market. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Again, you're so hung up on racism (what I think you're implying?), you can't even see my question... It wasn't why he won't lose his base and why they will support him regardless, it was why he cares so much about the stock market. 

 

yes, then I misread your question.

Trump doesn't care about the stock market, he cares about whatever he can use push a narrative that he wants.  if the stock market goes up, he'll push that and take the credit for it.  I don't think he mentioned the market much the last half of 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only reference the other stuff because that is what binds his supporters together, and makes him more untouchable to them than previous Repub.  Trump can use a successful market to give his supporters a reason to support him that isn't deplorable.  otherwise, all they're left with is a racist with a bad stock market and who would support that?  I'd guess somewhere around 33%, but if he can point to a rising stock market, he can get that number up to 40-45%ish

Share this post


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

I know this was directed at Tobias but...

It was real bad. She came off as entitled. Her lead advisor actually said they didn't need blue collar Democrats. She didn't campaign in places she took for granted because of course they owed her. She didn't even put any ads out in many urban areas until the Saturday before.

So what happened? Her attitude turned quite a few independents off and they stayed home. Just enough blue collar folks said well screw you then here's some Trump for you for him to win the EC. And millions of black folks stayed home. She blew it in every way possible. 

Thanks. That's exactly how I see it.

It's super interesting he's pushing back so hard on "she blew it". Although not that much I guess as that's been her angle too. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/11/hillary-clinton-what-happened-review-215595

Quote

 

It’s not really her fault.

That’s the underlying theme of Hillary Clinton’s new book, What Happened, in which the former first lady, New York senator and secretary of state blames a long list of characters for her defeat at the hands of Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election. While admitting she failed to connect with American voters on some level, Clinton also points a finger at her primary opponent Bernie Sanders, WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange, the media and the “deplorables”—yes, she doubles down on them.

 

I guess it makes people feel better to deflect blame from themselves or their side and say the real reason we lost is the other side was amazing.

It's ok to make an error. But the doubling down refusing to admit you had responsibility in the loss is fascinating. 

Share this post


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

I only reference the other stuff because that is what binds his supporters together, and makes him more untouchable to them than previous Repub.  Trump can use a successful market to give his supporters a reason to support him that isn't deplorable.  otherwise, all they're left with is a racist with a bad stock market and who would support that?  I'd guess somewhere around 33%, but if he can point to a rising stock market, he can get that number up to 40-45%ish

My point was that I don't think a lot of this base is tied to the market or has much invested there, yet he cares so much about it. Joe made the point that people vote with their wallet. I agree with his sentiments, but I don't really know that a strong stock market really benefits them, nor are they that much better off than they were 2.5 years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really isn't that complicated.  Trump in 2016 was an aberration.  He stood as an outsider,  anti-establishment,  blunt-speaking threat to the DC morass that most Americans claim to abhor. He ran against an entitled, widely reviled career bureaucrat that had decades of baggage, came from a dynastic political family, who ran an awful campaign and was the pitch-perfect example of what we are "tired of." Hell, if Donald Trump weren't, ya know, Donald Trump, I would've voted for him. It was a perfect storm. And Trump won by a razor thin margin.

Now we know Trump and what he's all about. I dont need to elaborate on that. He has not won over any new voters. All the Dems need to do is run a functional adult who can walk the walk and stay out of a scandal. Run a good campaign.  Just dont scew it up (yeah, I know...).

I think most Trump supporters underestimate how truly reviled he is.  I didnt vote for Hillary.  But I would vote for a hamster in 2020 right now before I'd vote for any Republican. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m still marveling over Trump’s healthcare decision from last night. In terms of his chances for re-election, it’s his biggest political blunder- ever. He may just have handed the Democrats the election regardless of who they choose. I’m dead serious. 

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

On a scale of 0 (terrible) to 10 (fantastic) how good a campaign do you think Hillary Clinton ran? 

 

Sorry, I didn't see this before.

I'd say 2 or 3. But that doesn't mean the 2016 election was a lay-up, or that the 2020 election will be.  People need to acknowledge that Trump is formidable politically, both because he is (see the 2016 GOP primary if you think his success was just about Clinton's failures) and because we need to be honest with ourselves about the problems in America that make him so formidable so we can correct them.

Also if Clinton had campaigned more in Wisconsin and Michigan I would probably raise my rating of her campaign to 4 or 5 at least. I think most would.  But as I pointed out earlier, even if Clinton had won those two states Trump still would have won the election. The absurdities of the electoral college were and are another thing working in his favor that make him more formidable. Before 2016 people assumed that someone who won the popular vote by a couple percentage points would win the election, because that's always been the case in the past. So the assumption was that all Clinton had to do was get a couple million more votes than Trump, and that was expected to be a simple task. But Clinton did that, and she still lost.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Sorry, I didn't see this before.

I'd say 2 or 3. But that doesn't mean the 2016 election was a lay-up, or that the 2020 election will be.  People need to acknowledge that Trump is formidable politically, both because he is (see the 2016 GOP primary if you think his success was just about Clinton's failures) and because we need to be honest with ourselves about the problems in America that make him so formidable so we can correct them.

Also if Clinton had campaigned more in Wisconsin and Michigan I would probably raise my rating of her campaign to 4 or 5 at least. I think most would.  But as I pointed out earlier, even if Clinton had won those two states Trump still would have won the election. The absurdities of the electoral college were and are another thing working in his favor that make him more formidable. Before 2016 people assumed that someone who won the popular vote by a couple percentage points would win the election, because that's always been the case in the past. So the assumption was that all Clinton had to do was get a couple million more votes than Trump, and that was expected to be a simple task. But Clinton did that, and she still lost.

I'm genuinely curious what everyone was saying before the 2016 election... I found the old Hillary thread, bc outside of the Bernie supporters, I don't really remember all of this negativity around her from liberals. 

Anyways, I started a few days before the election which was page 1200. I've got a flight on Friday, figure reading that thread will be good for a laugh.

Amazingly, I started right around CSTU running his mouth off - he challenged Dodds to a wager on this page too, I'm sure I'll come across more gold here too. 

Possibly the biggest clown this board has ever known

Edited by fantasycurse42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

I'm genuinely curious what everyone was saying before the 2016 election... I found the old Hillary thread, bc outside of the Bernie supporters, I don't really remember all of this negativity around her from liberals. 

Anyways, I started a few days before the election which was page 1200. I've got a flight on Friday, figure reading that thread will be good for a laugh.

Amazingly, I started right around CSTU running his mouth off - he challenged Dodds to a wager on this page too, I'm sure I'll come across more gold here too. 

Possibly the biggest clown this board has ever known

That thread has some great quotes.

Share this post


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

That thread has some great quotes.

I've skimmed from 1200 to 1215, really doesn't appear many Hillary supporters thought it would be close, yet talking about it in 2019, & Trump was basically unbeatable! 

CSTU, the political strategist, and master DVD salesman was apparently highly worried about New Hampshire and their whopping 4 electoral college votes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fantasycurse42 said:

I've skimmed from 1200 to 1215, really doesn't appear many Hillary supporters thought it would be close, yet talking about it in 2019, & Trump was basically unbeatable! 

CSTU, the political strategist, and master DVD salesman was apparently highly worried about New Hampshire and their whopping 4 electoral college votes. 

  

FWIW I'm the primary person pushing the "Trump was/is actually a strong candidate" argument, and I was pretty alarmist about his chances of winning throughout most of 2016. I probably got overconfident about Clinton's chances after the Access Hollywood tape just like everyone else on both sides of the aisle, but for most of the summer and fall I was pretty consistently spooked about the possibility of the thing that actually happened- a popular vote win overcome by narrow losses in the Great Lakes states.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fantasycurse42 said:

I don't think you understood the crux of my question. 

Joe replied with an answer I understand his response; people vote with their wallet.

While I agree with the concept and it obviously makes sense, are most of these people in his base that much better off financially than they were 2.5 years ago? 

This is the key question IMO.  Trump made a lot of promises to the rust belt and barely won those states.  No way that tax scam helped those people.  He also hasn't delivered on jobs in key antiquated industries (shocker).

Trump will lose because his policies failed.  Middle america won't be judging his success based on a stock market they don't play in and tax cuts that not only didn't result in material change to their daily standard of living, but also will gut most of the entitlements that many of them rely on.

The Dems will win on these issues because, if they do it right, Trump will be exposed for the con man he is and always has been.

Oh, and they have to run a moderate.  Biden is the best choice.  Until 2024, when legions of kids will be shaping policy.

Share this post


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

This is the key question IMO.  Trump made a lot of promises to the rust belt and barely won those states.  No way that tax scam helped those people.  He also hasn't delivered on jobs in key antiquated industries (shocker).

Trump will lose because his policies failed.  Middle america won't be judging his success based on a stock market they don't play in and tax cuts that not only didn't result in material change to their daily standard of living, but also will gut most of the entitlements that many of them rely on.

The Dems will win on these issues because, if they do it right, Trump will be exposed for the con man he is and always has been.

Oh, and they have to run a moderate.  Biden is the best choice.  Until 2024, when legions of kids will be shaping policy.

Doesn't matter, this goes back to the base, which most agree, no matter what, they'll stay loyal and vote for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Doesn't matter, this goes back to the base, which most agree, no matter what, they'll stay loyal and vote for him.

the base didn't win him the election.

Share this post


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

the base didn't win him the election.

We've discussed this topic in the thread - his voters are some of the most loyal ever. 

You want a strategy to beat him, you need to be realistic. 

The only people you're pulling away are the voters who held their noses and voted for him bc they hated Hillary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no clue as to which page you would find them on, but there are post by a few of us that Trump posed a unique threat in "blue collar" states that other GOP candidates would not have in play.   You'd be correct though that most people (from all sides) didn't see it that way.  You'd also be correct that the betting markets and the 535 chances and other things made the results on election night a stunner despite these stated concerns.  But these stated concerns made what was about to happen pretty self evident pretty early in the night.

There was also a Trump thread where in Aug of 2015 I posted that Trump seemed similar to Nixon (we stuck a fork in Nixon after he lost his bid in California), Reagan (his brand of conservatism died about the same time and the voting public wouldn't go for his moronic metaphors), W (bankrupted everything he ran except for when he was the powerless, figurehead governor), and even Eisenhower (who was democrat - right?) than he was like the GOP candidates that were defeated when it was their turn.   That Trump was the kind of "no way in hell" candidate that the GOP actually gets elected president.  In Aug 2015 the response was that I must be trolling posting such stuff.  I let it go after that point, but it wasn't trolling nor was it wrong.

Then again with a lifetime of almost always supporting candidates that are defeated on election night, my being pessimistic about my choice is "built in".  There is never any room for confidence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

We've discussed this topic in the thread - his voters are some of the most loyal ever. 

You want a strategy to beat him, you need to be realistic. 

The only people you're pulling away are the voters who held their noses and voted for him bc they hated Hillary. 

Those advocating for a different strategy aren't looking to pull away Trump voters but are looking to energize democratic voters that stayed home or voted 3rd party in 2016.  Including new voters that have never voted.   The reason for this is simply that there are potentially many more of these people.  The problem with this strategy is that they are not reliable voters and with razor thin margins maybe the tiny number of swing voters is the safe play.  The other problem with this strategy is that if you go too far you energize the opposition.    I think history favors "energizing the base" rather than "most electable" for both parties but as someone else posted who knows in a given election cycle.   In the era of Trump it might just be that "we" want the least exciting candidate possible this time around.  Maybe  🤷‍♂️

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Those advocating for a different strategy aren't looking to pull away Trump voters but are looking to energize democratic voters that stayed home or voted 3rd party in 2016.  Including new voters that have never voted.   The reason for this is simply that there are potentially many more of these people.  The problem with this strategy is that they are not reliable voters and with razor thin margins maybe the tiny number of swing voters is the safe play.  The other problem with this strategy is that if you go too far you energize the opposition.    I think history favors "energizing the base" rather than "most electable" for both parties but as someone else posted who knows in a given election cycle.   In the era of Trump it might just be that "we" want the least exciting candidate possible this time around.  Maybe  🤷‍♂️

What needs to happen is a few hundred thousand voters, most of whom voted Obama twice either stayed home or threw a brick at the window, need to hear policies that makes them want to reform the rust belt blue wall. Centrist, mealy mouth, playing around the edges isn't going to get that done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fantasycurse42 said:

We've discussed this topic in the thread - his voters are some of the most loyal ever. 

You want a strategy to beat him, you need to be realistic. 

The only people you're pulling away are the voters who held their noses and voted for him bc they hated Hillary. 

so how big of a group do you think that is?  his fiercely loyal base is always pegged at less than %40 of the voting electorate.  there leaves roughly 10% that are up for grabs in 2020.  Win those, you win the election.  especially in the rust belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fantasycurse42 said:

We've discussed this topic in the thread - his voters are some of the most loyal ever. 

You want a strategy to beat him, you need to be realistic. 

The only people you're pulling away are the voters who held their noses and voted for him bc they hated Hillary. 

The strategy is to NOT try and pry his voters away.  Tailoring a message to try and court them has the potential to alienate other voter blocs.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to simply my playbook.  While the recommendations seem obvious, we've now been presented a brand new option that simplifies at and reduces the work to virtually nothing.  Simply allow him to start messing with healthcare and DARE him and the GOP to come out with an actual proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

You cited the 2018 midterm elections as evidence that Trump is way more popular than other Republicans.

That’s one possibility. Another is that 2018 was a referendum on Trump and he’s actually much more like Buster Douglas than he is like the 2001 Patriots.

One would have to think that Dem voters in '18 actually disliked all the other Republicans more than they disliked Donald Trump and will happily switch sides once it's him vs. a Dem for the White House. That's whistling past the graveyard. 

Of course, as NCC correctly noted, our archaic and un-democratic electoral system gives the candidate with fewer votes a fighting chance. It's a glorious system, I don't understand why the rest of the western democracies haven't adopted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the “she blew an easy layup” narrative involves a hefty dose of hindsight bias. In hindsight, many of her mistakes look obvious. But pointing out why some of her strategies were mistakes would have been a lot more impressive if people had done it before the electoral results were in rather than afterwards. As far as I recall, almost all of the second-guessing came after she’d lost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think the “she blew an easy layup” narrative involves a hefty dose of hindsight bias. In hindsight, many of her mistakes look obvious. But pointing out why some of her strategies were mistakes would have been a lot more impressive if people had done it before the electoral results were in rather than afterwards. As far as I recall, almost all of the second-guessing came after she’d lost.

Donald wasn't expecting to win and neither were the people who voted for him.

Share this post


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

I think the “she blew an easy layup” narrative involves a hefty dose of hindsight bias. In hindsight, many of her mistakes look obvious. But pointing out why some of her strategies were mistakes would have been a lot more impressive if people had done it before the electoral results were in rather than afterwards. As far as I recall, almost all of the second-guessing came after she’d lost.

It was done at least around here by me and some others. But we, and those issues, were largely dismissed. Now some things we didn't find out about for sure until later so you can only hindsight those.

Share this post


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

I want to simply my playbook.  While the recommendations seem obvious, we've now been presented a brand new option that simplifies at and reduces the work to virtually nothing.  Simply allow him to start messing with healthcare and DARE him and the GOP to come out with an actual proposal.

This.

Let's make it even simpler. All the Democrats need to do now is focus on two words, over and over and over:

Pre-existing conditions.

"Trump wants to take away healthcare from people with pre-existing conditons."

That's it. That's the formula. That's how you win.  Focus focus focus on pre-existing conditions. You win Florida, you win Pennsylvania, and that's the ballgame.  So easy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I want to simply my playbook.  While the recommendations seem obvious, we've now been presented a brand new option that simplifies at and reduces the work to virtually nothing.  Simply allow him to start messing with healthcare and DARE him and the GOP to come out with an actual proposal.

I'm not sure if this is really a strategy, or that it'll work.  First, everything he's doing to mess with it is stuff he can do regardless of what the Dems do.  Second, even if the case they're backing wins at the ultra-conservative 5th Circuit most people seem to think the Supreme Court will reverse.  In other words it seems pretty likely that on election day in 2020 the ACA will be mostly the same as it is right now.

I agree with the broader strategy though. Hammer Trump and the GOP on health care and their consistent efforts to remove protections for preexisting conditions, over and over and over. Never stop, never let them breathe, never let them change the subject.  Every time he says "no collusion" respond that he's colluding with health insurance companies to get rid of protections for preexisting conditions. Every time he says the economy is doing well, point out that it's not doing well enough to allow people with preexisting conditions to get the treatment they need. By 2020 everyone in America should know that Donald Trump wants poor people with cancer to die.

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

I'm not sure if this is really a strategy, or that it'll work.  First, everything he's doing to mess with it is stuff he can do regardless of what the Dems do.  Second, even if the case they're backing wins at the ultra-conservative 5th Circuit most people seem to think the Supreme Court will reverse.  In other words it seems pretty likely that on election day in 2020 the ACA will be mostly the same as it is right now.

I agree with the broader strategy though. Hammer Trump and the GOP on health care and their consistent efforts to remove protections for preexisting conditions, over and over and over. Never stop, never let them breathe, never let them change the subject.  Every time he says "no collusion" respond that he's colluding with health insurance companies to get rid of protections for preexisting conditions. Every time he says the economy is doing well, point out that it's not doing well enough to allow people with preexisting conditions to get the treatment they need. By 2020 everyone in America should know that Donald Trump wants poor people with cancer to die.

My statement should have read "Simply allow him to start messing with healthcare by daring him and the GOP to come out with an actual proposal".  Just a plain repeal with no replacement would be a gift that kept giving for the Dems.  All those scenarios are easy to boil down in to those popular talking points like "Trump is trying to take away your insurance" the average American likes so much.

Share this post


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

My statement should have read "Simply allow him to start messing with healthcare by daring him and the GOP to come out with an actual proposal".  Just a plain repeal with no replacement would be a gift that kept giving for the Dems.  All those scenarios are easy to boil down in to those popular talking points like "Trump is trying to take away your insurance" the average American likes so much.

I was just thinking this morning of that day in 2017 when Republicans unveiled their replacement health plan. There were piles and piles of booklets on tables, each containing the multitude of new health care regulations that they had compiled. No one, however, to our amusement and dismay, was allowed to actually read any of it. They could have been blank pages for all we know!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe instead of a strategy that focuses on attacking Trump the Democrats could put their energy into nominating a candidate worthy of an independent's vote regardless of the opponent.

Share this post


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

Maybe instead of a strategy that focuses on attacking Trump the Democrats could put their energy into nominating a candidate worthy of an independent's vote regardless of the opponent.

There's lot of us. We can do both! 

 

(and advance a modern health care system)

Share this post


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

There's lot of us. We can do both! 

 

(and advance a modern health care system)

That would be wonderful.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.