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.

If the 2020 GE Candidates are ___, then ____. (1 Viewer)

Trump vs. Warren

  • Trump

    Votes: 19 18.4%
  • Warren

    Votes: 61 59.2%
  • Ind/3rd Party/Other

    Votes: 16 15.5%
  • Staying home

    Votes: 7 6.8%

  • Total voters
    103
  • Poll closed .

ren hoek

Footballguy
If the 2020 general election candidates are ____, then who would you vote for?  Anonymous poll.

Just a hypothetical I was wondering about.  Specifically what type of ‘turnout’ and splits each candidate generates.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m on #TeamPete. If not him, then 3rd Party**

**(as a CA resident, my vote really doesn’t make a material difference in the GE. if I lived in a “swing state” my calculus would be different.) 

 
I expect this will be 90% "Anyone over Trump". 
I could be wrong, but I don't think that is the point of this particular pole.

I think the expectation is that each candidate will fare better than Trump in this forum.  But, how many will vote other/not participate - rather than support the Dem candidate.

 
1st 8 9 votes:

1 - All Trump

5 - All Dems

2 - Only Buttigieg

1 - Any Dem but Biden

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m on #TeamPete. If not him, then 3rd Party**

**(as a CA resident, my vote really doesn’t make a material difference in the GE. if I lived in a “swing state” my calculus would be different.) 
This.  I’ve voted 3rd party the last 3 elections. 08 and 12 in Illinois. 16 in Minnesota. 
 

Trump got close in 16 here but the Dem candidate will win handily here in 2020. But if it was close I’d go Dem. 

 
That's pretty much what I chose. I don't know their stances on issues very well yet, but I know I'm not going to vote for Trump.
I think that's going to be the board.

In the end, I don't think many will go with 3rd party or not vote. They'll vote for the person that has the shot at beating Trump. 

 
I expect this will be 90% "Anyone over Trump". 
The real interest for me is- which candidates depress turnout (if any)?  And which ones generate the best?  Does Sanders connect with independents/conservatives better or worse than the others relative to our small community?  I expect a ~90% turnout for DEM either way, but I suspect some have more general favorability than others.  

Just speaking purely of the realistic 'big 4' candidates on the Dem side right now, I'd consider voting for Sanders in a GE.  I wouldn't vote for Trump; didn't in 2016 either.  I probably wouldn't get out of bed for any other scenario, unless a good Green, Libertarian or Independent ran.  

 
I think that's going to be the board.

In the end, I don't think many will go with 3rd party or not vote. They'll vote for the person that has the shot at beating Trump. 
That's likely accurate. To me, Sanders isn't really viable because of age and failing health, Buttigieg has the sexuality thing working against him(like it or not, people will judge him for it. Personally, it's not my cup of tea, but it's his life, not mine), Warren has some questionable stances(again, need more info), and Biden is also fairly old, but in decent shape.

 
**(as a CA resident, my vote really doesn’t make a material difference in the GE. if I lived in a “swing state” my calculus would be different.) 
It does now, right?  Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?

 
It does now, right?  Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?
That only kicks in when there are enough states signed on to reach 270 electoral votes. So far they are short of that number. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The real interest for me is- which candidates depress turnout (if any)?  And which ones generate the best?   
I have to imagine that if anyone has a chance to dip into the 50% of voters who don't turn out because 'all politicians are the same' it's Sanders. That's a big part of how Trump pulled off his win

 
It does now, right?  Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?
That compact doesn't go into effect until enough states have signed on to reach 270 EC votes. I'm not a law talkin guy but I assume it would get bogged down in legal challenges at that point.

 
It does now, right?  Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?
I thought I remember something about a coalition of states doing this a while back, but don’t know if that’s something CA has agreed too. In any case, D votes dominate population centers (i.e. SF, LA proper) so there’s no real way for R - or “other” - votes to make a difference. 

I’d much prefer abolishing the EC (never happen), or at least implementing some type of proportional system for EC votes. 

 
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

196 electoral votes 

 Maryland

 New Jersey

 Illinois

 Hawaii

 Washington

 Massachusetts

 District of Columbia

 Vermont

 California

 Rhode Island

 New York

 Connecticut

 Colorado

 Delaware

 New Mexico

 Oregon

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The real interest for me is- which candidates depress turnout (if any)?  And which ones generate the best?  Does Sanders connect with independents/conservatives better or worse than the others relative to our small community?  I expect a ~90% turnout for DEM either way, but I suspect some have more general favorability than others.  

Just speaking purely of the realistic 'big 4' candidates on the Dem side right now, I'd consider voting for Sanders in a GE.  I wouldn't vote for Trump; didn't in 2016 either.  I probably wouldn't get out of bed for any other scenario, unless a good Green, Libertarian or Independent ran.  
Has there ever been ~90% voter turnout for any candidate? Looks like the election of Rutherford Hayes tops the list at 82% overall voter turnout.

 
The real interest for me is- which candidates depress turnout (if any)?  And which ones generate the best?  Does Sanders connect with independents/conservatives better or worse than the others relative to our small community?  I expect a ~90% turnout for DEM either way, but I suspect some have more general favorability than others.  

Just speaking purely of the realistic 'big 4' candidates on the Dem side right now, I'd consider voting for Sanders in a GE.  I wouldn't vote for Trump; didn't in 2016 either.  I probably wouldn't get out of bed for any other scenario, unless a good Green, Libertarian or Independent ran.  
This is the interesting question.

Personally, I think Pete is the answer for turnout. I don't think energizing true progressives is the answer. I think Pete can excite the moderates, and I think that's what's most important.

Look at what happened last week. Those Dem victories largely happened on the back of suburban moderates. 

 
Isn't what we're really asking here more like: "If you don't get the Democrat candidate nominee you want, will you waste your vote and vote for a 3rd party candidate / stay home"? That feels like what this question is asking. 

Is this pulling back up the 2016 Sanders supporters who didn't vote for Clinton in the General Election?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its also flawed in the sense that context really matters.

If you are in Michigan, for example, and you opt for a 3rd Party candidate - that has a much higher impact on the election than say, someone who lives in California, or Alabama.

So, if all of the 3rd party voters in the poll live in states where the outcome is pre-determined - it does not really give us a sense of how apathetic the electorate is towards two flawed candidates.

 
Its also flawed in the sense that context really matters.

If you are in Michigan, for example, and you opt for a 3rd Party candidate - that has a much higher impact on the election than say, someone who lives in California, or Alabama.

So, if all of the 3rd party voters in the poll live in states where the outcome is pre-determined - it does not really give us a sense of how apathetic the electorate is towards two flawed candidates.
Exactly...2016 for example...with Hillary and Trump as an option, I chose 3rd party.  While that may look bad without context...when you see that I live in TN and Trump was going to destroy her here...my 3rd party vote was pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of electoral math.

 
I misread the poll entirely. Thought it was for making predictions, not poll for our individual choices.

Against Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren ... Trump thus has one extra vote.

 
I can't get over thinking that all of these candidates are a sign of recklessness on the part of the American voting public.

 
Isn't what we're really asking here more like: "If you don't get the Democrat candidate nominee you want, will you waste your vote and vote for a 3rd party candidate / stay home"? That feels like what this question is asking. 

Is this pulling back up the 2016 Sanders supporters who didn't vote for Clinton in the General Election?
Clinton won the popular vote because of Sanders supporters.  More Sanders supporters turned out for her in 16 than Hillary supporters did for Obama in 2008, after Bernie enthusiastically endorsed her despite being betrayed by the party.  Big misconceptions about 2016.  The DNC party chieftains wanted to have their cake and eat it too, well they got their cake.  

Somehow it seems like the takeaway from 2016 is that progressives/independents didn’t settle hard enough for Clinton, rather than the Democratic party not doing enough to win these voters over.  Picking the least worst every time is a race to the bottom.  To me, the only wasted vote is for bad candidates that don’t actually stand up for your values. 

 
How so?  Im not sure I understand this one at all.
I think they're reckless choices because of the policies they seek to implement.

President Trump's foreign policy, cabinet stability, fiscal choices, and other things are reckless.

Pete Buttigieg is a mayor of a college town. To expect him to have any foreign policy import is reckless.

Elizabeth Warren would absolutely fundamentally change the economic system of the United States, as would Bernie Sanders. Neither has real foreign policy experience. Both of those items make them reckless choices.

Joe Biden has proven over the years to be pretty much wrong and reckless about many things, especially including foreign policy.

That these people are our top candidates for high office shows a recklessness among voters for putting them there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It does now, right?  Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?
That only kicks in when there are enough states signed on to reach 270 electoral votes. So far they are short of that number. 
Removing Trump is a priority for a lot of folks. If Trump wins again while NOT winning the popular vote, that could push more states to sign on. To that end, there's some value in voting for the "not Trump" candidate who is most likely to beat Trump (eg. the Dem candidate) even in states like CA.

 
Isn't what we're really asking here more like: "If you don't get the Democrat candidate nominee you want, will you waste your vote and vote for a 3rd party candidate / stay home"? That feels like what this question is asking. 

Is this pulling back up the 2016 Sanders supporters who didn't vote for Clinton in the General Election?
3rd party votes aren't wasted votes

 
As someone that has vote 3rd party in a presidential election (Harry Browne) I can tell you that while it was nice to vote my conscience, the guy  had no shot and it did nothing to further the cause.  
It shouldn't matter if they have no shot, your vote is just a representation of the platform you'd like to see implemented... not the best choice of who you think everyone else is voting for.  If I were placing a bet on the winner, yea that would be a waste, in that case but thats not what we're doing.

It does matter to some extent too because it gives funding to parties that reach certain thresholds and builds them up for the future.

 
Contra that, though, your vote is also a representation of policies you think can be implemented in lieu of ones that you think ought be implemented. Big difference, and so goes the argument for voting for the established candidate. 

 
It shouldn't matter if they have no shot, your vote is just a representation of the platform you'd like to see implemented... not the best choice of who you think everyone else is voting for.  If I were placing a bet on the winner, yea that would be a waste, in that case but thats not what we're doing.

It does matter to some extent too because it gives funding to parties that reach certain thresholds and builds them up for the future.
Yeah that was my point.  I don't think the Libertarian party is any better off that I (and a few others) voted for Harry Browne in 1996.  According to wikipedia the Libertarian party currently has no members in Congress, or governorships, and over the past decade, has had less than 10 members elected to state legislatures or other state office.   

 
Exactly...2016 for example...with Hillary and Trump as an option, I chose 3rd party.  While that may look bad without context...when you see that I live in TN and Trump was going to destroy her here...my 3rd party vote was pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of electoral math.
Same here (TN). While I thought HRC would have done a great job as POTUS, she had zero chance of getting any electoral votes from this state. My 3rd party vote was not about any candidate at all, but just lashing out at the Dems because they had written off states like ours a decade ago.

But I don't think our 3rd party vote was meaningless. On the good side, it seems like the Dems are going back toward a 50-state strategy (compete everywhere). On the bad side, this decreased the margin by which Trump lost the popular vote. 

 
Yeah that was my point.  I don't think the Libertarian party is any better off that I (and a few others) voted for Harry Browne in 1996.  According to wikipedia the Libertarian party currently has no members in Congress, or governorships, and over the past decade, has had less than 10 members elected to state legislatures or other state office.   
Yea they're definitely not doing too well (Greens either in my case)... sadly thats more of a failing of the party as a whole, but increases in funding/recognition would hopefully help that. I'd rather keep trying in my tiny way than vote for D's and R's who outright oppose the issues I'm most concerned about. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top