Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

The Democrats need to wake up! Update: And near the last second, THEY HAVE

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, identikit said:

This is the Deplorables 2.0 guy, right?

Some strategist.

Don’t know anything about it. But I do know that what he writes in the book makes a lot of sense so far, at least to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1 story in the news this morning: can the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party unify in time to beat Trump?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

Just a hunch, but I don’t think Democrats are going to take advice from an ex-Republican strategist who hasn’t been right about anything in years. 

He’s selling books that parrot the comforting common wisdom that Democrats should run with the same strategies that delivered an historic loss in 2016, so he’s been right about that at least. 
 

Share this post


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

Don’t know anything about it. But I do know that what he writes in the book makes a lot of sense so far, at least to me. 

You need to get out more.

😋

Share this post


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

#1 story in the news this morning: can the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party unify in time to beat Trump?  

No way.  The progressive wing (Bernie, AOC, Talib, Omar, Hirono, etc...) only want complete control, obedience and purity tests.  The Civil War currently happening inside the Democratic Party is not even close to being over yet.

Reminds me of the good old days back in 2006 when the Democrats victoriously proclaimed the end of the Republican Party.  That's not aging well at all.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More from Mr. Wilson: 

The dirty but open secret of socialism in America, one which conservatives tend to underestimate and liberals overestimate, is this: Americans are OK with a splash of socialism, but they don’t like to call it that. 

And this: 

Watch how the word “socialism” will rise from Trump’s blubbery lips again and again over the coming year. It will be for one reason: Socialism per se has a horrible branding problem. 

If you think 2020 is the time and place to litigate socialism, Democratic or otherwisejust resign yourself to a generation of Trumps in the White House. 

This. A thousand times this. Wilson makes the point: don’t waste your time arguing how socialism really isn’t that bad and that “democratic socialism” is different from socialism and how we already have socialism- NONE of that is going to work in 2020. Wilson also goes into some detail explaining why Bernie’s support of Maduros will depress Latino voting in the main state where it matters: Florida. Latino voting is a microcosm of the The electoral situation as a whole- Democrats can win the vast majority of Latinos in California and Texas and it won’t matter because they’re already going to win California and they’re not going to win Texas. Latino voting matters in Florida and in that state it’s up for grabs. We can easily win it or easily lose it depending on the message sent 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another issue Wilson discusses: gun control. Universal background checks are fine. The vast majority of Americans want it and the NRA is on the wrong side.

BUT- banning AR-15s is NOT fine. If we push that too loudly, we lose Florida, and risk Michigan and Pennsylvania. Here Wilson makes the point that we should pay less attention to state polling on these issues and look at voting patterns- which voters are energized by what issues. Whether it rationally makes sense or not, rural voters believe that the banning of any current legally owned firearm will lead to government seizures of firearms. and that will add to their percentages to vote against the Democrat. Meanwhile the sad evidence is that as much as Democrats support these measures, they don’t add significantly to the Democrat vote. 

Share this post


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

 The Civil War currently happening inside the Democratic Party is not even close to being over yet.

 

I agree with you 100% on this point. But the real question is: can it be put aside for the time being in order to win in 2020? 

I say it can. Because I think that most Democrats, and independents as well, know that Donald Trump represents an immediate, existential threat to the USA as we know it. I get that you either don’t realize this or refuse to acknowledge it, but his combination of corruption and authoritarian tendencies, combined with the acquiescence of the Republican Party, is doing permanent damage to our Democratic freedoms. It needs to be stopped now and since our legal system is powerless to fight it, the election is our only means of doing so. 

Share this post


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

I agree with you 100% on this point. But the real question is: can it be put aside for the time being in order to win in 2020? 

I say it can. Because I think that most Democrats, and independents as well, know that Donald Trump represents an immediate, existential threat to the USA as we know it. I get that you either don’t realize this or refuse to acknowledge it, but his combination of corruption and authoritarian tendencies, combined with the acquiescence of the Republican Party, is doing permanent damage to our Democratic freedoms. It needs to be stopped now and since our legal system is powerless to fight it, the election is our only means of doing so. 

So what happens after that?  I get that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but the Civil War will continue.  What the reasonable Democrats need to do is purge their party of these extreme candidates (Bernie, AOC, Talib, Omar, Hirono, etc...). 

Share this post


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

So what happens after that?  I get that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but the Civil War will continue.  What the reasonable Democrats need to do is purge their party of these extreme candidates (Bernie, AOC, Talib, Omar, Hirono, etc...). 

I’m not worried about after that. I’m a centrist Democrat, sometimes a centrist Republican (though that doesn’t currently exist). I don’t want to see the people you mentioned purged. I want to see their ideas defeated (most of them.) 

Share this post


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

I’m not worried about after that. I’m a centrist Democrat, sometimes a centrist Republican (though that doesn’t currently exist). I don’t want to see the people you mentioned purged. I want to see their ideas defeated (most of them.) 

fair enough.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, timschochet said:

More from Mr. Wilson: 

The dirty but open secret of socialism in America, one which conservatives tend to underestimate and liberals overestimate, is this: Americans are OK with a splash of socialism, but they don’t like to call it that. 

And this: 

Watch how the word “socialism” will rise from Trump’s blubbery lips again and again over the coming year. It will be for one reason: Socialism per se has a horrible branding problem. 

If you think 2020 is the time and place to litigate socialism, Democratic or otherwisejust resign yourself to a generation of Trumps in the White House. 

This. A thousand times this. Wilson makes the point: don’t waste your time arguing how socialism really isn’t that bad and that “democratic socialism” is different from socialism and how we already have socialism- NONE of that is going to work in 2020. Wilson also goes into some detail explaining why Bernie’s support of Maduros will depress Latino voting in the main state where it matters: Florida. Latino voting is a microcosm of the The electoral situation as a whole- Democrats can win the vast majority of Latinos in California and Texas and it won’t matter because they’re already going to win California and they’re not going to win Texas. Latino voting matters in Florida and in that state it’s up for grabs. We can easily win it or easily lose it depending on the message sent 

The key for the Democrats is to talk about problems, not some theoretical concept of socialism.  Using government to curb wealth inequality, poverty, and rising costs of healthcare, education and childcare will be appealing to the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with you 100% on this point. But the real question is: can it be put aside for the time being in order to win in 2020? 

I say it can. Because I think that most Democrats, and independents as well, know that Donald Trump represents an immediate, existential threat to the USA as we know it. I get that you either don’t realize this or refuse to acknowledge it, but his combination of corruption and authoritarian tendencies, combined with the acquiescence of the Republican Party, is doing permanent damage to our Democratic freedoms. It needs to be stopped now and since our legal system is powerless to fight it, the election is our only means of doing so. 

I agree, which is why we do not need a centrist candidate whose message is "vote for me and I will continue to do nothing", further leading to 0 voter enthusiasm. New and young voters are not going to wake up eager to vote on election day when the message is "Republican policy, just a little slower". From https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/03/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus-polls.html (about 75% down the page)- Sanders completely swept the field with people who did not vote in 2016 or 2018. It would be nice to be able to further break that down between people who were not old enough to vote, and people who just chose to not vote, but either way that is a real population of new voters who will vote to remove Trump, not some hypothetical, finicky, most likely not existing, undecided voter who you need to beg and coddle with terrible policy to MAYBE have them not vote for Trump. 

Edited by huthut
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree, which is why we do not need a centrist candidate whose message is "vote for me and I will continue to do nothing", further leading to 0 voter enthusiasm. New and young voters are not going to wake up eager to vote on election day when the message is "Republican policy, just a little slower". From https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/03/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus-polls.html (about 75% down the page)- Sanders completely swept the field with people who did not vote in 2016 or 2018. It would be nice to be able to further break that down between people who were not old enough to vote, and people who just chose to not vote, but either way that is a real population of new voters who will vote to remove Trump, not some hypothetical, finicky, most likely not existing, undecided voter who you need to beg and coddle with terrible policy to MAYBE have them not vote for Trump. 

Sanders is the perfect candidate for Trump.

Share this post


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

Sanders is the perfect candidate for Trump.

I agree, it would be two candidates where their voters are enthusiastic about their message, as opposed to one candidate where the voters will turn up no matter what, and the other that maybe you will vote for because they are not Trump, if the lines are not too long.

Share this post


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

He’s selling books that parrot the comforting common wisdom that Democrats should run with the same strategies that delivered an historic loss in 2016, so he’s been right about that at least. 
 

Tim starting a thread titled “Democrats need to wake up” only to evangelize Rick Wilson’s book basically saying Joe Biden is your best chance is hilarious.

Edited by Widbil83
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I agree, it would be two candidates where their voters are enthusiastic about their message, as opposed to one candidate where the voters will turn up no matter what, and the other that maybe you will vote for because they are not Trump, if the lines are not too long.

It’s a huge gamble to assume that young voters are going to show up for Bernie. They never have. 

We lose that gamble, we lose the war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Widbil83 said:

Tim starting a thread titled “Democrats need to wake up” only to evangelize Rick Wilson’s book basically saying Joe Biden is your best chance is hilarious.

Not necessarily Biden. Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar. But not a socialist. 

Share this post


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

It’s a huge gamble to assume that young voters are going to show up for Bernie. They never have. 

We lose that gamble, we lose the war. 

Maybe, but we have proven time and time again, centrists will lose - even to historically terrible candidates. Unless I am forgetting President Kerry and President Hillary Clinton. I would rather take a chance with something new, rather than something that has failed numerous times in recent history.

Share this post


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

This tells us nothing about the general election. 

Your comment was young voters have never shown up for Bernie. When has Bernie been in a Presidential election? 

Share this post


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

Iowa’s caucus  system isn’t exactly the friendliest to people who have kids at home. I would expect numbers for youth and empty-nesters/older people being anomalously high, percentage-wise, compared to other states and systems

Edited by Hugh Jass

Share this post


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

Maybe, but we have proven time and time again, centrists will lose - even to historically terrible candidates. Unless I am forgetting President Kerry and President Hillary Clinton. I would rather take a chance with something new, rather than something that has failed numerous times in recent history.

You didn’t forget them but you did forget President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama. 

Share this post


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

It’s a huge gamble to assume that young voters are going to show up for Bernie. They never have. 

We lose that gamble, we lose the war. 

Side note:  I do find it incredibly ironic that the oldest candidate is inspiring a youth movement.  For the crowd that calls anyone "boomer" over the age of 35 and decries "old white men" as it's mantra, it's hilarious that they are embracing the most ancient - and white - candidate they can find.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


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

Your comment was young voters have never shown up for Bernie. When has Bernie been in a Presidential election? 

No I said that young voters don’t show up in general elections period. Not enough to make a difference. 

Share this post


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

No I said that young voters don’t show up in general elections period. Not enough to make a difference. 

I agree with this.  Young voters typically don't care or aren't interested.  Getting the youth to show up at election time has ALWAYS been a problem for both parties.

Only when they're older and starting actually earning money and raising a family is when most of them start taking an interest.  The youth might whine the most and be very vocal, but when it comes time to actually do something they are nowhere to be found.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


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

Not necessarily Biden. Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar. But not a socialist. 

Yes I know, it’s such a lazy never Trumper analysis though. “Be like Hillary and not the socialist with actual voter enthusiasm and you can beat Trump!” Don’t misunderstand, myself and every Trump supporter can only hope Democrats take Rick Wilson’s advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in terms of the general election we need to stop making arguments about the nation as a whole. What the nation as a whole thinks is irrelevant. It comes down to 15 states- really more like 4-5. I could actually make a decent argument that it comes down to one state: Pennsylvania. Forget about the other 49: if the voters of Pennsylvania want Trump to be re-elected, he will be re-elected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Widbil83 said:

Yes I know, it’s such a lazy never Trumper analysis though. “Be like Hillary and not the socialist with actual voter enthusiasm and you can beat Trump!” Don’t misunderstand, myself and every Trump supporter can only hope Democrats take Rick Wilson’s advice.

Most Trump supporters (and Trump himself) disagree with you. They want Bernie. 

Share this post


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

You didn’t forget them but you did forget President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama. 

Obama did not run as a centrist, he just turned out that way. Plus he was a much better speaker than 99% of other candidates, they will not get the same amount of votes without his charisma. And the economy crashed right before the election (though I think he would have won either way). Clinton was before modern history where the Republican Party is driven by Fox News/Stormfront, and Perot was also in the election mucking stuff up. None of those are nearly as similar as the examples I mentioned. But you probably already knew that. 

Share this post


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

Obama did not run as a centrist, he just turned out that way. Plus he was a much better speaker than 99% of other candidates, they will not get the same amount of votes without his charisma. And the economy crashed right before the election (though I think he would have won either way). Clinton was before modern history where the Republican Party is driven by Fox News/Stormfront, and Perot was also in the election mucking stuff up. None of those are nearly as similar as the examples I mentioned. But you probably already knew that. 

And you know that none of them ran against Donald Trump in 2020. I think John Kerry of 2004 beats the pants off Donald Trump in 2020. I think Hillary Clinton of 2016 wins a close race against Trump in 2020. So I’m not buying your argument. 

Share this post


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

Obama did not run as a centrist, he just turned out that way. Plus he was a much better speaker than 99% of other candidates, they will not get the same amount of votes without his charisma. And the economy crashed right before the election (though I think he would have won either way). Clinton was before modern history where the Republican Party is driven by Fox News/Stormfront, and Perot was also in the election mucking stuff up. None of those are nearly as similar as the examples I mentioned. But you probably already knew that. 

This is :bs:.

At the very least, if you're going to accuse the GOP of this then you certainly have to accuse the DNC of the same thing with CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and on and on and on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And you know that none of them ran against Donald Trump in 2020. I think John Kerry of 2004 beats the pants off Donald Trump in 2020. I think Hillary Clinton of 2016 wins a close race against Trump in 2020. So I’m not buying your argument. 

I disagree on the HRC part.  I think America has had enough of the Clintons in general and HRC even more.

She was a terrible candidate in 2016 and is an even worse person today.  Bitter, old and completely out of touch with reality.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

And you know that none of them ran against Donald Trump in 2020. I think John Kerry of 2004 beats the pants off Donald Trump in 2020. I think Hillary Clinton of 2016 wins a close race against Trump in 2020. So I’m not buying your argument. 

Wat? Hillary already lost against Trump. How desperate are you getting to bring up Kerry and Hillary.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Wat? Hillary already lost against Trump. How desperate are you getting to bring up Kerry and Hillary.

I didn’t bring them up. 

Share this post


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

I disagree on the HRC part.  I think America has had enough of the Clintons in general and HRC even more.

She was a terrible candidate in 2016 and is an even worse person today.  Bitter, old and completely out of touch with reality.

Hillary of 2020 losses to Trump of 2020. Hillary of 2016, I believe, beats Trump in 2020, mainly because suburban women in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania don’t vote the same way they did in 2016. Pretty simply formula. 

Share this post


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

Hillary of 2020 losses to Trump of 2020. Hillary of 2016, I believe, beats Trump in 2020, mainly because suburban women in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania don’t vote the same way they did in 2016. Pretty simply formula. 

Oh, okay. I see what you were getting at.  I thought you were talking about HRC today.  Thanks for the clarification!  👍

Share this post


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

Most Trump supporters (and Trump himself) disagree with you. They want Bernie. 

Looking at education demographics both the Trump supporters and you would be wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You didn’t forget them but you did forget President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama. 

Hillary and John Edwards weren’t on the left of Obama.  I think Kucinich was the only one who was and he was never considered a serious candidate.

Besides, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were largely selected due to their personalities and charisma, not their detailed policy positions and place on the political spectrum.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Hillary of 2020 losses to Trump of 2020. Hillary of 2016, I believe, beats Trump in 2020, mainly because suburban women in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania don’t vote the same way they did in 2016. Pretty simply formula. 

😂

the only Hrc that beats trump is the  one subservient to Bill

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Hillary of 2020 losses to Trump of 2020. Hillary of 2016, I believe, beats Trump in 2020, mainly because suburban women in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania don’t vote the same way they did in 2016. Pretty simply formula. 

"suburban women in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania don’t vote the same way they did in 2016" - is there any evidence for this, because it seems like wishful thinking.  All evidence I've seen indicates Trump's popularity has never been higher.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the comment.  I think it is highly unlikely he's going to get fewer votes in those states in 2020.   For what its worth, I live in Wisconsin, but I only know a couple suburban women (at my workplace) and I'm not aware of any shift in their voting pattern.  

Share this post


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

"suburban women in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania don’t vote the same way they did in 2016" - is there any evidence for this, because it seems like wishful thinking.  All evidence I've seen indicates Trump's popularity has never been higher.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding the comment.  I think it is highly unlikely he's going to get fewer votes in those states in 2020.   For what its worth, I live in Wisconsin, but I only know a couple suburban women (at my workplace) and I'm not aware of any shift in their voting pattern.  

They shifted in ‘18 compared to ‘16.

Share this post


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

😂

the only Hrc that beats trump is the  one subservient to Bill

And let's face facts here - the ONLY reason HRC was a candidate was BECAUSE of Bill and the thought of Bill being back in the WH.  

Bill was the real reason many people were voting for HRC, IMO.

Share this post


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

This is :bs:.

At the very least, if you're going to accuse the GOP of this then you certainly have to accuse the DNC of the same thing with CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and on and on and on.

You really dont have to...the leader of the party (Trump) openly gets his

mater from Fox and OANN.  Its in his tweets and statements where they continually come almost verbatim after Fox or OANN report them.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Another issue Wilson discusses: gun control. Universal background checks are fine. The vast majority of Americans want it and the NRA is on the wrong side.

BUT- banning AR-15s is NOT fine. If we push that too loudly, we lose Florida, and risk Michigan and Pennsylvania. Here Wilson makes the point that we should pay less attention to state polling on these issues and look at voting patterns- which voters are energized by what issues. Whether it rationally makes sense or not, rural voters believe that the banning of any current legally owned firearm will lead to government seizures of firearms. and that will add to their percentages to vote against the Democrat. Meanwhile the sad evidence is that as much as Democrats support these measures, they don’t add significantly to the Democrat vote. 

Bloomberg is the Democratic candidate most closely associated with gun control.  

Share this post


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

You didn’t forget them but you did forget President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama. 

BHO ran as FDR.  It wasn't until he was in the Oval Office that he became Romney. 

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.