Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Fair point. They'll definitely need to be well-funded.
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 Democratic Primaries (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsy Ejotuz
- Start date
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Thought this was an interesting look at the presumptive candidates.
If you're above 4.0 you're in a strong position; below 3.0 and you've got real problems.
In-between, I'd argue Sanders and Warren are also in some trouble with these numbers since they're already so well known, and Gillibrand is probably where I'd put the O/U in terms of legit chances to win.
If you're above 4.0 you're in a strong position; below 3.0 and you've got real problems.
In-between, I'd argue Sanders and Warren are also in some trouble with these numbers since they're already so well known, and Gillibrand is probably where I'd put the O/U in terms of legit chances to win.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I find it hard to believe that 12% of voters have a negative perception of Andrew Yang.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Can we tell Iowa, “Hey, I know you are ‘The Heartland’ and all but you shouldn’t have this much effect on the nation’s political landscape”?
timschochet
Footballguy
The decision by Jerry Brown to move the California primary in 2020 to March rather than June is profound. It may very well be decisive.
It changes the entire game. Specifically, it destroys the hold that small states with caucuses have in deciding the winner. You can lose a lot of those states and still be in the ballgame IF you can win the big prize.
For Kamela Harris this may be a dream come true.
It changes the entire game. Specifically, it destroys the hold that small states with caucuses have in deciding the winner. You can lose a lot of those states and still be in the ballgame IF you can win the big prize.
For Kamela Harris this may be a dream come true.
squistion
Footballguy
I haven't read anything about this. Where does California fall into the primary order? After Iowa and NH I would imagine, but where in relation to Super Tuesday, if you know offhand.
timschochet
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Delegates are awarded proportionally, right? Not winner-take-all for Democrats? Winning/losing states is often hyped up by the media more than it really matters. If candidates split California somewhat closely, it's not really a huge prize.
However, of course, it will reallocate resources (time and money) to California and away from some smaller states. The earlier states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) will still be important because candidates will want to start strong so they can get additional fundraising and gather momentum.
timschochet
Footballguy
If it were winner take all you might as well do away with most of the other primaries. Even by proportion it’s really big.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
According to an article I just read, California will account for 37% of the delegates awarded on Super Tuesday. Obviously that's a lot and will be exciting for Californians but I guess I don't see this as some major game changer.
Marauder
Footballguy
It's not the delegate count that makes the early primaries important, it's the perception of who the frontrunners are which has a huge affect on fundraising. Donors don't want to back candidates that they see as having no chance. Donors may tend to stick with their preferred candidates a little longer if they think their candidate might do well in CA.
It's not just that CA's primary is in early March, but CA also has early voting, which will start in early Feb. I would expect some candidates to basically punt the early states and focus all their efforts on CA right from the beginning.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I guess I see that as a Harris strategy although doing poorly in IA, NH, SC and NV beforehand would be damaging. I think it would be a mistake for her.
I don’t see any of the other top candidates doing that. There are other decent sized states on Super Tuesday including MA, TX and VA. If Beto is running, he would obviously spend time in TX. Castro too. Warren would want to win MA. Sanders and Biden wouldn’t punt any early states. Klobuchar’s best shot would be using a regional advantage she might have in IA. Not sure a CA strategy would be good for east coasters like Booker or Gillibrand either.
Interesting to think about all this.
I think trying to guess how the schedule will play out, and who will benefit, is a little like when fantasy players draft a guy in August because of his great match-ups during the fantasy playoffs. We have no idea how any of this will play out. Yes, if Harris is still viable in March she will probably do well in the CA primary, but those expectations will be baked in and won't necessarily affect the narrative (which is what's most important at that stage; the delegate count only starts to matter if the race continues into the spring).
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
The idea of having small states first is that it allows relative unknowns to get there early and work for a year on a small budget. Having CA up front is a huge plus for the top several Dems -- who are already known.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Markos, of Daily KOS fame, riffed on this idea today -- basically saying that if you don't enter 2020 with a massive movement available to you (e-mail list, followers, small donors), you won't have time to build one once things get started. He lists Harris, Beto, Warren, Booker and Sanders as the ones who can compete. The Biden and Klobuchar omissions are interesting to say the least. Not sure I agree.Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Once upon a time, being good at “retail politics” maybe mattered. The media world was … different than it is today. Without getting into the weeds about it, all we need to do is point to Donald Trump. He can’t do retail politics to save his life, and wouldn’t do it to save his life. Yet his mastery of media manipulation propelled him to the White House.
Iowa and New Hampshire have justified their unjustified “first in the nation” status by claiming it gives underdog candidates a chance to compete against deep-pocket establishment types. If that ever mattered before, it sure doesn’t matter now. And certainly, we can point to the demographics of those states and make a compelling argument why their lily-white complexion makes them grossly out-of-step with the modern Democratic Party. But no need for that now.
It’s this simple—the candidates who will be competitive are those who can build mass movements behind them. I’m talking strong social media presence, email list in the millions, and the ability to rally tens of thousands of people instantaneously. There are just a handful of candidates, out of the 25 or so Democrats who we think are running, who fit the bill at the moment: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, maybe Beto O’Rourke, and … I’m having a hard time coming up with more (though undoubtedly, additional candidates will get there during the next year). If you can’t build that movement in 2019, then you have no business running for president. And no, Iowa and New Hampshire won’t save you. Why?
Because of California.
The Iowa caucuses will be February 3.
New Hampshire on February 11.
Nevada caucus is next on February 22.
South Carolina primary: February 29.
Super Tuesday is March 3.
On Super Tuesday, Alabama, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia will all vote.
While the exact delegates-by-state haven’t been released, these states will account for about one-third of all delegates allocated. California alone will have several hundred delegates (they had 475 in 2016), compared to about 40 for Iowa, and about two dozen for New Hampshire. And given that delegates are allocated proportionately, it makes zero sense to bet your marbles on Iowa and New Hampshire, for five to 10 delegates to a winning campaign, when just a few weeks later, the two largest states (and several more large ones) will be allocating delegates.
If that’s not reason enough to essentially ignore Iowa and New Hampshire …
California is essentially, nearly entirely, vote-by-mail at this point. And guess when ballots drop? The first week of February—the same time as the Iowa caucuses.
Political strategists in the state will tell you that you have to spend at least a month in the state beforehand, campaigning, to do well with the early ballots.
What’s more, California doesn’t early vote at the same rates. Northern California generally comes in earliest, with the late voters concentrated in southern California. So statewide campaigns will spend the early part of the voting period in NorCal, then shift southward for the last two weeks. That’s a lot of time in California, time that would’ve been spent shuttling back and forth between Iowa and New Hampshire in previous cycles.
And then there’s Texas (222 delegates in 2016), and North Carolina (107 delegates in 2016)! Anyone thinking they can propel an Iowa victory into something bigger against a media behemoth should just … ask Ted Cruz how that went. And 2016 didn’t even have the kind of front-loading of delegates that we’re seeing in 2020. So you either enter 2020 with cash and name ID to compete in what is essentially a nationwide primary day, or save everyone the trouble and pack it in early.
Now, some may say that California doesn’t matter because Kamala Harris will win it (she will), and that Massachusetts doesn’t matter because Elizabeth Warren will win it (she will), and Texas doesn’t matter because Beto O’Rourke will win it (he will, if he runs). But remember, states allocate delegates proportionately. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won California 53-46, yet came away with a narrow delegate lead of 254-221. Second place is almost as important as first. And in an extended contest, winning a bunch of early second-places puts you in a good position to win later, when the other two-thirds of delegates are decided.
A bunch of no-name candidates will continue to focus on Iowa and New Hampshire because 1.) it’s what’s always been done, 2.) they can’t afford to compete in Texas and California, and 3.) no one knows who they are, so shaking hands at a bunch of diners makes them feel like they’re in the game.
But they won’t be. Build a big list and build a national movement, compete in Texas and the rest of those March 3 states, or be relegated to also-ran status. That’ll be the story of the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Iowa and New Hampshire have justified their unjustified “first in the nation” status by claiming it gives underdog candidates a chance to compete against deep-pocket establishment types. If that ever mattered before, it sure doesn’t matter now. And certainly, we can point to the demographics of those states and make a compelling argument why their lily-white complexion makes them grossly out-of-step with the modern Democratic Party. But no need for that now.
It’s this simple—the candidates who will be competitive are those who can build mass movements behind them. I’m talking strong social media presence, email list in the millions, and the ability to rally tens of thousands of people instantaneously. There are just a handful of candidates, out of the 25 or so Democrats who we think are running, who fit the bill at the moment: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, maybe Beto O’Rourke, and … I’m having a hard time coming up with more (though undoubtedly, additional candidates will get there during the next year). If you can’t build that movement in 2019, then you have no business running for president. And no, Iowa and New Hampshire won’t save you. Why?
Because of California.
The Iowa caucuses will be February 3.
New Hampshire on February 11.
Nevada caucus is next on February 22.
South Carolina primary: February 29.
Super Tuesday is March 3.
On Super Tuesday, Alabama, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia will all vote.
While the exact delegates-by-state haven’t been released, these states will account for about one-third of all delegates allocated. California alone will have several hundred delegates (they had 475 in 2016), compared to about 40 for Iowa, and about two dozen for New Hampshire. And given that delegates are allocated proportionately, it makes zero sense to bet your marbles on Iowa and New Hampshire, for five to 10 delegates to a winning campaign, when just a few weeks later, the two largest states (and several more large ones) will be allocating delegates.
If that’s not reason enough to essentially ignore Iowa and New Hampshire …
California is essentially, nearly entirely, vote-by-mail at this point. And guess when ballots drop? The first week of February—the same time as the Iowa caucuses.
Political strategists in the state will tell you that you have to spend at least a month in the state beforehand, campaigning, to do well with the early ballots.
What’s more, California doesn’t early vote at the same rates. Northern California generally comes in earliest, with the late voters concentrated in southern California. So statewide campaigns will spend the early part of the voting period in NorCal, then shift southward for the last two weeks. That’s a lot of time in California, time that would’ve been spent shuttling back and forth between Iowa and New Hampshire in previous cycles.
And then there’s Texas (222 delegates in 2016), and North Carolina (107 delegates in 2016)! Anyone thinking they can propel an Iowa victory into something bigger against a media behemoth should just … ask Ted Cruz how that went. And 2016 didn’t even have the kind of front-loading of delegates that we’re seeing in 2020. So you either enter 2020 with cash and name ID to compete in what is essentially a nationwide primary day, or save everyone the trouble and pack it in early.
Now, some may say that California doesn’t matter because Kamala Harris will win it (she will), and that Massachusetts doesn’t matter because Elizabeth Warren will win it (she will), and Texas doesn’t matter because Beto O’Rourke will win it (he will, if he runs). But remember, states allocate delegates proportionately. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won California 53-46, yet came away with a narrow delegate lead of 254-221. Second place is almost as important as first. And in an extended contest, winning a bunch of early second-places puts you in a good position to win later, when the other two-thirds of delegates are decided.
A bunch of no-name candidates will continue to focus on Iowa and New Hampshire because 1.) it’s what’s always been done, 2.) they can’t afford to compete in Texas and California, and 3.) no one knows who they are, so shaking hands at a bunch of diners makes them feel like they’re in the game.
But they won’t be. Build a big list and build a national movement, compete in Texas and the rest of those March 3 states, or be relegated to also-ran status. That’ll be the story of the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I think that article doesn't properly account for the giant news coverage bumps the winners get after Iowa and New Hampshire. Let's say Amy Klobuchar does the retail thing well in Iowa and wins. Suddenly millions of voters will seriously consider voting for her who hadn't even known who she was beforehand. And Super Tuesday would still be weeks away.
If most everyone votes in California early, it's possible the results after election day could be viewed as stale.
If most everyone votes in California early, it's possible the results after election day could be viewed as stale.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Not sure exactly what Beto is angling for, but the dentist stuff and now this Jack Kerouak costume just comes off as weird.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Not sure what you're talking about with the costume, but the "dentist stuff" was just an Instagram story of him talking to a bunch of people about border issues. One of them was his dental hygienist and it included a very quick shot of them talking during his cleaning and someone did a screenshot and spread a fake story about him live streaming a dentist appointment.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Safe to say Hillary won't be supporting Bernie.
And IMO Bernie's going to find out how much of his support in 2016 was, like Trump, due to being heads up against an unpopular candidate. Won't surprise me if he's out after the first ~month of voting this time around.
And IMO Bernie's going to find out how much of his support in 2016 was, like Trump, due to being heads up against an unpopular candidate. Won't surprise me if he's out after the first ~month of voting this time around.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hilts
Footballguy
Jfc, what a crybaby. She's unbelievably unlikeable at every single turn. I see she's sharing Trump buck stopping everywhere else mentality. Bernie backed her. Just because his supporters didn't fall in love with a crappy, boring, unlikeable candidate is an issue she needs to be responsible for. He can't force them to vote for her.
Dedfin
Footballguy
Best if she just shuts the hell up if she cares about the Democrats finding the best candidate and getting elected in 2020.
timschochet
Footballguy
She’s absolutely right. The Bernie supporters were awful in 2016, they weren’t the reason Trump won but they certainly contributed. Hopefully they will be marginalized this time around.
Dedfin
Footballguy
I supported Bernie. I voted for Hillary when the time came. I know more peoplw like me than thede bernie bros that ruined hillarys election. I dont see it. Its BS sour grapes and she should knock it off. Its 2019 for chrissakes
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
If the DNC actually ran an unbiased primary like it's supposed to do, we wouldn't have had so many sour grape "bitter scorched Earth gonna vote for Trump now to say FU Hillary" Bernie voters. DNC had one job 3 years ago and it failed.
Dedfin
Footballguy
It really came down to this. I mean, I voted for Hillary like I said. But the DNC overlooked an inspiring candidate. I don't think the Bernie election would have been close, but I'm an idiot so who cares I guess
Hilts
Footballguy
Your political predictive abilities are matched only by your abilities of hindsight.
Most of the Bernie supporters in real life were fine. The awful Bernie supporters were mostly just online ... and perhaps largely non-American or even inorganic.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Harris and Beto have the best chance to win it all.
Bernie and Warren are distractions IMO. Castro a good VP.
Harris and Beto would stand tall vs Trump, the socialism bs is not going to play to the moderates. Dems need a clear choice candidate, not sure they have one yet.
Harris is the antithesis of the
range: so I think this is the best path.
Bernie and Warren are distractions IMO. Castro a good VP.
Harris and Beto would stand tall vs Trump, the socialism bs is not going to play to the moderates. Dems need a clear choice candidate, not sure they have one yet.
Harris is the antithesis of the
range: so I think this is the best path. 
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Still learning more about Harris, and she sounds awesome. Of all the Dem hopefuls, either Harris or O'Rourke would be be my pick, I think. But I'm not going to lie though, I do have concerns about whether or not America will vote for a black woman from SF.
Please don't hate me. It's 2019, and this shouldn't be an issue. I deeply hope it's not an issue, but the last 2 years don't inspire much confidence. I've been very wrong before (I texted a buddy in 2007 saying there was no way in hell that the America would vote for a black man named Barack Obama, and that was before I knew what his middle name was).
The 2020 Dem candidate is going to need to, among other things, connect with rural Midwestern voters. Obama did, but he might've been a once in a lifetime candidate and was also a Midwestern candidate.
It was exciting to see the success of so many female candidates in the mid-terms. But I still have concerns that that last glass ceiling might be even tougher than it would seem. The absolute vitriol towards HRC was so shocking to me, with so little to substantiate it, that it feels like there must be more there.
Rural voters and a brilliant woman? Seems like a tough nut to crack. Doable, of course, but it seems it would take just the right personality to connect with them. From what I've seen, Harris is extremely likable, but the hill to climb from simply being from California is a massive one.
I hate myself for even bringing this up, and I hope it's not a valid concern. But it feels like it could be.
Please don't hate me. It's 2019, and this shouldn't be an issue. I deeply hope it's not an issue, but the last 2 years don't inspire much confidence. I've been very wrong before (I texted a buddy in 2007 saying there was no way in hell that the America would vote for a black man named Barack Obama, and that was before I knew what his middle name was).
The 2020 Dem candidate is going to need to, among other things, connect with rural Midwestern voters. Obama did, but he might've been a once in a lifetime candidate and was also a Midwestern candidate.
It was exciting to see the success of so many female candidates in the mid-terms. But I still have concerns that that last glass ceiling might be even tougher than it would seem. The absolute vitriol towards HRC was so shocking to me, with so little to substantiate it, that it feels like there must be more there.
Rural voters and a brilliant woman? Seems like a tough nut to crack. Doable, of course, but it seems it would take just the right personality to connect with them. From what I've seen, Harris is extremely likable, but the hill to climb from simply being from California is a massive one.
I hate myself for even bringing this up, and I hope it's not a valid concern. But it feels like it could be.
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
No, she’s not and any stupid anecdotal evidence you decide to share doesn’t make it true.timschochet said:
Trey
Footballguy
In an ideal world, Sanders Biden and Warren would have sat out 2020 and issued statements to the effect of "our country is in great hands with the new crop of leaders running in the D primary. I'll do everything in my power to put the person who emerges in the White House."
But not to be.
But not to be.
timschochet
Footballguy
I’m a little bit surprised by this response as it doesn’t really sound like your normal discussion and debate, which IMO is pretty good. Been taking lessons from our current President?
timschochet
Footballguy
Some conservatives are trying to slam Kamela Harris for having an affair 20 years ago with former San Francisco Mayor and Democratic bigwig Willie Brown. Willie admits its true:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/politics/amp/Sure-I-dated-Kamala-Harris-So-what-13562972.php
I don’t think this will hurt her at all.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/politics/amp/Sure-I-dated-Kamala-Harris-So-what-13562972.php
I don’t think this will hurt her at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
My apologies but you’re sweeping generalization of Bernie Supporters irks me. It’s not based in fact but anecdotal evidence. Bernie supported Hillary, asked his supporters to back her and from what I could tell did what he could to make sure Trump didn’t get elected. Hillary’s comments are sour grapes and another attempt to deflect from her loss to Trump.
Look, I’m on record saying I’m voting for a rabid raccoon over Trump - why the need to bring this crap back up 2 years later? You don’t see me bringing up Donna Brazille and DWS. How about we move on?
AAABatteries
Footballguy
pollardsvision
Footballguy
You have more faith in the public than I do. Not a big deal, and I have no clue how much it'll hurt. But I do believe the rules are still different for women.
timschochet
Footballguy
Two points and then we can move on: first, I never said that Bernie himself was responsible for anything bad that happened. I thought his behavior was fine. Some of his followers were a different story.
Second. I actually agree with the criticism of Hillary that she shouldn’t have brought it up. It is unproductive to do so now. I responded because what she said was called false and I don’t think it is. But she still probably shouldn’t have said it. I do understand her though I think: for Hillary Clinton, for the rest of her life, the 2016 election will always be happening right now. But that doesn’t have to be true for the rest of us.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
That key word was missing from your other post and thus makes your point unnecessary to bring up. I could make any number of statements about some Hillary supporters but there’s no reason to do that 2 years later unless I’m bitter. I agree, let’s move on.
Marauder
Footballguy
I'm sure the Trump supporters would make a big deal out of it and not see the irony at all.
This may be splitting hairs, but not sure if "affair" is accurate. She was unmarried at the time. He was married but in an open relationship.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
On top of that the when combined with Biden, the signs almost read Osama bin Laden.
timschochet
Footballguy
Kamela is very impressive. Very impressive.
the moops
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I fixed it. Damn you guys are tough!So apparently you really do think this is how she spells her name. Hmm
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Current power rankings (final delegate count prediction)
- Harris
- Klobuchar
- O'Rourke
- Biden
- Sanders
- Warren
- Gillibrand
