The Commish
Footballguy
I'd rather not have to wade through all the twitter crap, but......SaintsInDome2006 said:Anyone object to requesting this be merged with Squiz’s thread?
I'd rather not have to wade through all the twitter crap, but......SaintsInDome2006 said:Anyone object to requesting this be merged with Squiz’s thread?
There has to be a difference or the OP never would have started this thread after mine had been in existence for eight months and then continued it when people pointed out it seemed redundant. And as far as where to post, if Kamala Harris makes a statement about her possible candidacy you want to discuss, should it go in her thread, the Democratic primaries thread or a 2020 Presidential election thread? (and a couple other threads might qualify).What's the difference between the two threads, though? I get that there's different discussions because of different posts but they have the same theme. Let's say I want to discuss Candidate A doing or saying something ... where do I do that?
here pleaseWhat's the difference between the two threads, though? I get that there's different discussions because of different posts but they have the same theme. Let's say I want to discuss Candidate A doing or saying something ... where do I do that?
See they are different.I'd rather not have to wade through all the twitter crap, but......
I don't know what was happening with the bolded but that's not really an answer.There has to be a difference or the OP never would have started this thread after mine had been in existence for eight months and then continued it when people pointed out it seemed redundant. And as far as where to post, if Kamala Harris makes a statement about her possible candidacy you want to discuss, should it go in her thread, the Democratic primaries thread or a 2020 Presidential election thread? (and a couple other threads might qualify).
I don't know what was happening with the bolded but that's not really an answer.
Duplicate threads like this happen all the time because some feel the need to create threads months and months prior to them being relevant (for what reason, I am not sure). Then they fall off into the depths of nowhere because, well, they aren't relevant. Then the topic surfaces and becomes relevant and people create a thread at that time not thinking someone would have created thread that many months ago.
You are a little passive-aggressive %^&*@! - and this is why I have you on ignore.There has to be a difference or the OP never would have started this thread after mine had been in existence for eight months and then continued it when people pointed out it seemed redundant.
He is the guy who started a thread on State of the Union Address with a twitter post that already was being talked about in three threads. Clearly just wanted it to be his thread. Just ignore him and his constant repost of twitter posts which really should be the goal of all posters here.You are a little passive-aggressive %^&*@! - and this is why I have you on ignore.
I started this thread on November 9 - at 8:17 AM ET - Friday after the mid-terms were over. It seemed like a good time to turn the page on the 2018 election cycle and look forward to the 2020 cycle.
The thread you started back in March 2018 - when the 2018 races were relevant, not the 2020 race - had been buried due to inactivity. Prior to my starting this thread, the most recent activity was September 10, 2018 - or 2 months before I started this thread.
I am not going to apologize for not searching back two months worth of posts for a dormant thread, that had no prior relevance.
And then - after I started this thread - YOU bumped your old thread - at 12:31 PM ET on November 9, 2018.
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/765378-2020-presidential-election-thread/?do=findComment&comment=21498813
Now, explain to me how that is any different than what I posted in here?
####### %^&*@!.
I guess you are new here but we have had a separate State of the Union Address thread every year for as long as I can remember, going back to at least the beginning of Obama's first term. It usually starts a few days or a week before the actual scheduled address but sometimes before that if there is something newsworthy about it and Pelosi withdrawing Trump's invitation to appear in front of Congress would definitely qualify as news.He is the guy who started a thread on State of the Union Address with a twitter post that already was being talked about in three threads. Clearly just wanted it to be his thread. Just ignore him and his constant repost of twitter posts which really should be the goal of all posters here.
I have been here for much longer then you and I just don't feel the need to troll every thread up with constant twitter posts.I guess you are new here but we have had a separate State of the Union Address thread every year for as long as I can remember, going back to at least the beginning of Obama's first term. It usually starts a few days or a week before the actual scheduled address but sometimes before that if there is something newsworthy about it and Pelosi withdrawing Trump's invitation to appear in front of Congress would definitely qualify as news.
And the thread was actually started with an ABC News story about Pelosi's letter and while there was also a tweet, the tweet was a screen capture of the actual letter for those who just wanted to read that instead of the entire ABC article.
Politico's list of players in the Dem race
Lots of names, not sure how many are legitimate:
Senators - leading contenders
Booker - I think he'll run
Sherrod Brown - strategic candidate - carries Ohio
Gillibrand - don't think she has the backing of the machine, or independent voices - she will not be a factor
Tim Kaine - don't think he can go it alone, might be a VP candidate again
Klobuchar - gaining some early buzz, we'll see if its sustainable - should do well in Iowa.
Merkley - Oregon senator - I don't know much (anything?) about him - seems like a long-shot, at best
Kamala Harris - she'll run. Lets see how she does in the mid-west.
Bernie - He'll run. He won't be a factor.
Mark Warner - might have a better chance than Kaine - former Governor also
Warren - I think she dip her toes, but she won't last long - her window was last election cycle.
House Members - bigger step up, imo
Delaney (maryland) - meh - he is running, but hard to see him generating any enthusiasm.
Gabbard (Hawaii) - a progressive favorite, but a bit out of her depth imo
Joe Kennedy (Massachusetts) - has the name - but needs a moment
Seth Moulton (Massachusetts) - military background - I know nothing else
Beto O'Rourke (Texas) - he'll run, but needs to get in the national spotlight to work against Harris and Booker.
Tim Ryan (ohio) - anti-Pelosi - will need to fundraise like a madman
Eric Swalwell (California) - born in Iowa - not sure that is enough to get a good start
Governors - dark horses
Steve Bullock - Montana
Andrew Cuomo - New York
John Hickenlooper - Colorado
Jay Inslee - Washington
Terry McAuliffe - Virginia - too much a part of the machine...
Martin O'Malley - same as it ever was
Deval Patrick - Massachusetts
Mayors
Bloomberg - NYC
Pete Buttigieg - South Bend - young, openly gay - no chance
Eric Garcetti - Los Angeles - too much California to win in the rustbelt imo
And the first of the field, I believe, to skip an exploratory committee.To the surprise of no one, Kamala Harris is in the race.
https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1087327713277460481
When you know. You know.And the first of the field, I believe, to skip an exploratory committee.
I don't know much about Gillibrand, but I will give her lots of credit for being credible and consistent on #MeToo. We need more like her on both sides of the aisle.
How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?Kamela could very well be the nominee. California moving up its primary really helps her. If she can survive Iowa and New Hampshire and then win South Carolina, she could lock it up by Super Tuesday..
This is fine question but I’m not going to answer it. My problem is that I’m honestly not sure in my own mind how we should go about defining progressivism, and whether or not there is a consistent scale.How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?
Lets call the main contenders: Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand
Thats fair - I was not looking to put you on the spot - just a general gauge on where the candidates stood. I figure you have as much knowledge as anyone here in that regard.This is fine question but I’m not going to answer it. My problem is that I’m honestly not sure in my own mind how we should go about defining progressivism, and whether or not there is a consistent scale.
For instance: based on her stated views I’ve always regarded Harris as rather leftist. Then I heard some progressives attempt to disqualify her because she has taken corporate donations. (I certainly hope that doesn’t become a litmus test.)
In the past I’ve done as much labeling as anyone else but I’ve decided I won’t do it anymore. I want to hear these guys debate and then decide on how many issues I agree with them on vs disagree and which ones to prioritize. I also want to move away from labels in general, for both political parties. I am open to new innovative ideas.
Sanders - Warren - Booker - Gillibrand - Harris - Biden - O'Rourke - KlobucharHow would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?
Lets call the main contenders: Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand
SandersHow would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?
Lets call the main contenders: Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand
How about making it simple and putting in terms of what the country (electorate) is wanting. So if the country wants two years of further education, running on two years is "moderate", running on four years is "progressive", running on not expanding it at all is "conservative".This is fine question but I’m not going to answer it. My problem is that I’m honestly not sure in my own mind how we should go about defining progressivism, and whether or not there is a consistent scale.
For instance: based on her stated views I’ve always regarded Harris as rather leftist. Then I heard some progressives attempt to disqualify her because she has taken corporate donations. (I certainly hope that doesn’t become a litmus test.)
In the past I’ve done as much labeling as anyone else but I’ve decided I won’t do it anymore. I want to hear these guys debate and then decide on how many issues I agree with them on vs disagree and which ones to prioritize. I also want to move away from labels in general, for both political parties. I am open to new innovative ideas.
I don't understand what this ranking is based on. Certainly not electability or chances of winning? (I hope?) Or is it just supposed to be from left to right in order?For the "Left" looks like 538 rates them as follows:
1. Sanders
2. Warren
Tie Sherrod Brown
4. Harris
Tie Gillibrand
6. Castro
7. Booker
Tie Biden
This is a good image of how 538 sees the Dem contenders
Article here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/
In a nutshell, it maps the contenders against 5 key constituents:
1. African-American
2. Hispanic/Asian
3. Party Loyalists
4. The Left
5. Millennials
Harris has the biggest footprint - scoring well with African-Americans with no real weak areas. Booker also rates well.
Gillibrand has no weak spots - but she has no strengths either.
I was a little surprised with Klobuchar - only rated well with Party Loyalists.
its in the article I posted above - Klobucher is rated low on the "Left" scale - but very high on the "Party Loyalist" scaleI don't understand what this ranking is based on. Certainly not electability or chances of winning? (I hope?) Or is it just supposed to be from left to right in order?
And where is Klobuchar?
I would have Warren below Sanders and O'Rourke a mile below Biden. O'Rourke refused to support a democrat for house and tacitly supported the republican instead. I don't know that democrat's policies, so maybe if she thought that Hitler did nothing wrong or something where it is reasonable not to support her, but in a bubble that is a 1 strike and you are out offense for the democratic nomination.Sanders
Harris
Klobuchar
O'Rourke
Warren
Gillebrand
Booker
Biden
Isn't the end game to nominate someone that can beat Trump? Harris isn't that person. She would get smoked.I think Harris would do well across the board with Dems. Younger (54) than most of her more fossilized competition.
The danger in these polls are that individual states matter more than national polls. I raised that issue in the 2016 cycle, only to be chastised...PublicPolicyPollingVerified account @ppppolls
FollowFollow @ppppolls
More
Our new national poll finds no matter what Dem you test against Trump, he is stuck at 41-42%
Biden 53 Trump 41
Sanders 51 Trump 41
Harris 48 Trump 41
O'Rourke 47 Trump 41
Warren 48 Trump 42
Booker 47 Trump 42
Gillibrand 47 Trump 42:
Dems only need a slight up bump in those states and that's a big swing.The danger in these polls are that individual states matter more than national polls. I raised that issue in the 2016 cycle, only to be chastised...
Having said that, I don't think Trump can win key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania in 2020 (maybe Ohio). Those are the states that matter.
Agree - I think it will be very difficult for Trump to hold those states.Dems only need a slight up bump in those states and that's a big swing.
I know you weren't necessarily excluding them but I think the playing field is way broader than that. I would add North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Arizona to the list of very possible Dem pickups (Minnesota, Maine and Nevada as possible GOP pickups, although I think they're all less likely unless something changes considerably). So Trump needs to win most of those Great Lakes states, but even if he does he can still be defeated. One of many possible paths for the Dems would be to win Florida and either Arizona or North Carolina (or Michigan, the Great Lakes state that seems to be reverting to the status quo the most). On the other hand Trump almost certainly can't win without them.The danger in these polls are that individual states matter more than national polls. I raised that issue in the 2016 cycle, only to be chastised...
Having said that, I don't think Trump can win key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania in 2020 (maybe Ohio). Those are the states that matter.
I know you weren't necessarily excluding them but I think the playing field is way broader than that. I would add North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Arizona to the list of very possible Dem pickups (Minnesota, Maine and Nevada as possible GOP pickups, although I think they're all less likely unless something changes considerably). So Trump needs to win most of those Great Lakes states, but even if he does he can still be defeated. One of many possible paths for the Dems would be to win Florida and either Arizona or North Carolina (or Michigan, the Great Lakes state that seems to be reverting to the status quo the most). On the other hand Trump almost certainly can't win without them.
Underestimate Trump....again.And, I would add, as Tobias already did - those states are more important to Trump than they are to the Dems - because I don't see Trump winning any new states, so he has to keep what he already won, and given the narrow margins - it will be difficult at his current popularity levels.
Hey johnny, what new states do you think he could win in 20w0? Also, do you think he will have a tough primary challenge? Kasich is who i suspect will try.Underestimate Trump....again.
Wondering if they should have had a key constituent category for the Women's vote?This is a good image of how 538 sees the Dem contenders
Article here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/
In a nutshell, it maps the contenders against 5 key constituents:
1. African-American
2. Hispanic/Asian
3. Party Loyalists
4. The Left
5. Millennials
Harris has the biggest footprint - scoring well with African-Americans with no real weak areas. Booker also rates well.
Gillibrand has no weak spots - but she has no strengths either.
I was a little surprised with Klobuchar - only rated well with Party Loyalists.
I don’t believe people failed in their estimation of Trump, but rather failed in their estimation of their fellow Americans in general.JohnnyU said:Underestimate Trump....again.
Not nearly as much as you underestimate Harris.JohnnyU said:Underestimate Trump....again.
From my understanding, “the women vote” is a bit more heterogeneous and less reliable for electoral purposes than other demographics. There’s a big sociological aspect to it which I’m not well read on, but the gist of it is that gender is usually not central to one’s identity in the way that race tends to be.mr fancypants said:Wondering if they should have had a key constituent category for the Women's vote?
His supporters are really holding out this as their only hope. Polls are totally fake, despite what we saw in the midterms, and a majority of the country loves Trump despite all recent election and polling saying otherwise. And here's where Johnny will talk about picking up 2 seats in the Senate...JohnnyU said:Underestimate Trump....again.