Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
Michelle can
No, seriously though, whoever is the next President must do a better job of bridging the gap, and bringing us back together. One of the great ironies with Trump's MAGA is that the US has always been at its best when unified towards a common goal. Trump is the great divider, and that has really hurt America in just a very short period of time.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
And in true Trumpian fashion, his supporters portray Obama, a champion of inclusion for all, as the Great Divider. I guess because he was concerned about black men getting shot unnecessarily by cops but you'd have to ask them that.Michelle can
No, seriously though, whoever is the next President must do a better job of bridging the gap, and bringing us back together. One of the great ironies with Trump's MAGA is that the US has always been at its best when unified towards a common goal. Trump is the great divider, and that has really hurt America in just a very short period of time.
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
The dems field in 2020 is going to be crowded like the repubs in 2016. I think everyone expects Beto to jump in and he won a moveon.org straw poll just recently. Julian Castro looks like he is getting ready to jump in also.
Beto and Castro in 2020 race?
Beto and Castro in 2020 race?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I'm coming around on Beto. The lack of experience isn't ideal but three terms in congress is nothing to sneeze at, and at this point anyone who has much more than that is gonna have some sort of stink on them. The DUI in his 20s is something he'll have to address but he can do so early on and it won't be an issue except with people who already oppose him.
In addition to the obvious reasons to pick him (age, personality, appeal across the Dem spectrum), I think he puts Texas into play, and putting Texas into play changes the game considerably. It's hard to do any solid analysis on his chances in Texas but it's worth noting that Cruz destroyed Trump in the 2016 GOP primary.
In addition to the obvious reasons to pick him (age, personality, appeal across the Dem spectrum), I think he puts Texas into play, and putting Texas into play changes the game considerably. It's hard to do any solid analysis on his chances in Texas but it's worth noting that Cruz destroyed Trump in the 2016 GOP primary.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Having the Dems biggest stars lose in the midterms isn't exact a shining endorsement for 2020.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I think that I speak for many in here when I say that we're all awaiting your indepth analysis of Democratic Party candidates in 2020.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Yeah you're probably right. Terrible showing by the Dems in the midterms. Trump and the GOP have nothing to worry about for 2020.
joffer
Footballguy
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I believe I already gave it about Amy Klobuchar. If you want to have a chance in winning in 2020, that is the candidate you should put front and center.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I had that same concern. But he's won three general elections for federal office (TX-16). That's one more than both of the major party candidates for President in 2016 combined.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Not sure what Democrat is winning a Senate race in Texas. The guy carried numerous down ticket Dems to wins there.
Beto would have rolled in any state a Democrat won.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Seems to me you could make the same argument about partisan balance when looking at his loss in the Texas senate race. If wins and losses are all that matters, he's got 3 wins for federal office. If you're gonna go deeper and look at the partisan makeup of the district/state, suddenly a 50-48 loss in a TX Senate race to a GOP incumbent who won the 2016 GOP presidential primary in Texas by 20 points looks a lot better.
Amy K is still #1 in my heart, but I feel pretty good about some of the other possibilities lately too.
Last edited by a moderator:
zoonation
Footballguy
DUI? Good one. There is a felon in the Oval Office.
His biggest hurdle will be his uber-liberal policies.
I still think he crushes Trump. If he is around, that is.
zoonation
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
He addressed it during the Senate campaign. And in an honest, open, non-Trumpian way. Wasn't an issue after that.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
A lot of progressives think he's not liberal enough, so I'll take this as a good sign.zoonation said:
the moops
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I like this thread. But the only conversation is from Dems. How bout you Pubbies -- who you like for '20?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I don't know that it really matters. The GOP nominee is gonna be either Donald Trump or whoever Donald Trump tells them to nominate. If he resigned and threw his support behind Jimmy Carter as the 2020 GOP nominee, Carter would win the nomination going away.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
That's interesting to think about. Who would Trump endorse? Would that person beat Pence (assuming he's clean in the Russia stuff), Haley, etc.?
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I can't imagine any circumstances that would lead to anything other than Trump or a Trump-approved nominee getting the 2020 nomination. Even if he's somehow impeached or convicted of a crime before then, enough Republicans would heed the cries of "witch hunt" and stand by him. They've already abandoned most of their previous positions on the issues in favor of him. It's gonna be a long time before the party is anything other than a cult of personality. Maybe 2024 if we're lucky, or maybe not until he passes away.
McCaskil is right, a progressive can win over Trump " as long as they don't fall off the left side of the earth"
JohnnyU
Footballguy
The only kind of democrat that can beat Trump is a moderate democrat. Do they still exist? Yes, and it's Amy Klobuchar. Someone like Harris, Beto, Sanders, Warren, or Booker don't stand a chance. Klobuchar is a very likable candidate and is very smart. IMO she could hold her own in any debate with any candidate (right or left). She's soft spoken and her demeanor could make her the perfect candidate to take on Trump. I don't think he could rattle her like he did Hillary.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Hell, I'm a Republican and I might vote for her. Living here in MN I see a lot of her on TV and she sure is likable. I can't say I agree with her politically, but let's say I like her politically more than those that lean too far left.
ETA: Klobuchar is the one candidate that could win the appeal of blue collar workers and farmers in the Midwest and south, thus stealing part of Trump's base. That won't happen with someone that is too left leaning. These types of voters despise the type of candidate that consider this voter demographic deplorable and let's face it, far left progressives haven't had a clue what these people are thinking, nor how to appeal to them. If the Democrats don't figure that out they can't beat Trump.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
I think that was the other way around.
"No, you're the puppet!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu0Bn3ulcOk
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Man, you just blew by the whole premise of that post and jumped on the Hillary train. She was about as likable as salt on a paper cut. You better hope the dems get a moderate candidate to run in 2020, or it will be a repeat of 2016.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
If memory serves they thought the same thing in 2016. Are you dems going to make the same mistake twice? Go ahead and run Harris, Booker, Warren, Sanders, Beto, or God forbid (for you) Hillary again. I'm telling you man, Klobuchar (or some other moderate Democrat, perhaps Biden?) is the only hope the Democrats have in beating Trump.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
You have talked about what a great candidate you think Klobuchar would be probably a dozen times in varying threads and I have pointed out she is rather colorless and lacking in charisma - that I doubt there would be a great deal of enthusiasm about her candidacy to make Democrats flock to the polls to vote for her or to GOTV.
Since you talked about something different in your pitch for her for a change, I thought I would address that.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Charisma doesn't mean a damn thing if it's too left leaning. You won't win the segment of the population you need with that type of candidate. If not Klobuchar, then some other moderate Democrat. You must know this, or you're too far left yourself and doesn't understand a huge chunk of the US population. These voters are more than just fly over states, which the Dems can't seem to figure out.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Republicans are a very poor judge of who is appealing to Democrats and independents.
Recall that Republicans didn't give Obama much of a chance in 2008, being supposedly too liberal to beat any Republican. Before that, they also thought that Joe Liebermann was a great centrist candidate and would appeal to moderates.
Democrats need a candidate that excites the base and while Klobuchar is a very nice person, she is probably too bland for the rank and file to get excited about.
Of course Democrats would flock to the polls to vote for Klobuchar, just like they’d flock to the polls to vote for pretty much anyone running against Trump.
In general, turnout for one party’s candidate isn’t driven by enthusiasm for that candidate. It’s driven by dislike for the other party’s candidate.
Klobuchar’s relative blandness (if that’s the general perception of her) is a point in her favor. It will drive many fewer Republicans to the polls than Clinton did, thus helping Democrats win the turnout race.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Democrats need more than to excite their base, they need to win over some of those blue collar voters, as well as the farmers and those that didn't go to college. Ignoring the fly over states is what got them beat in 2016. If the Democrats can't steal a chunk of those that voted for Trump they can't beat Trump. And to do that is run a candidate that appeals to that voter demographic. I can tell you that Klobuchar is loved by everyone in Minnesota and I think that what appeals to Minnesotans, would also appeal to the rest of the nation, especially the Midwest and South. Calling her bland isn't a correct description of her. What I see is someone that is very smart, hold her own against anyone, has unbelievable composure, and is likable to boot.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
This. If democrats need a reason to get fired up other than the one already provided, they are doing it WAY wrong. It's like suggesting Duke needing bulletin board material to get fired up to play UNC.
squistion
Footballguy
Walter Mondale was loved by everyone in Minnesota too - but like Klobuchar he was a bland and unexciting candidate.
Against the charismatic Reagan, his appeal didn't carry much beyond the Minnesota borders, as he only carried his home state and Washington DC.
squistion
Footballguy
If that would have been the case Democrats would flocked to the polls for Hillary, but just running against Trump was not enough in itself for her to win the electoral college - nor would just being the standard bearer be enough for any candidate, contrary to your belief that any dull, colorless candidate would do well running against Trump.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I think that I speak for many in here when I say that we're all awaiting your indepth analysis of Democratic Party candidates in 2020.
squistion
Footballguy
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Don't need them to flock to the polls, just need them not to run away from the polls. 4 million more Americans voted for Obama 1 even though the population was 20 million smaller.
squistion
Footballguy
Not true. Obama in 2012 only got about 60,000 more votes than Hillary in 2016.
Obama in 2012:
65,915,795 votes
Hillary in 2016:
65,853,514 votes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I’m sure they will primarily back up my continuing decision not to join the party.I think that I speak for many in here when I say that we're all awaiting your indepth analysis of Democratic Party candidates in 2020.
The Commish
Footballguy
There was a significant question about whether Trump meant the stupid #### he was saying prior to the election. There was an element of risk involved and that doesn't get to be overlooked just because those who were guessing he actually meant it were correct. We have a completely different set of documented circumstances in front of us. A lot less guessing this time
The Commish
Footballguy
He said right in his post he was talking about Obama 1....which would have been 2008 which would have been 69,498,516 votes. Read what he's saying...it might help
squistion
Footballguy
The conversation before that involved Hillary. Read what the previous discussion was about...it might help.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Similar threads
