timschochet
Footballguy
They’re doing this already. And you don’t need to be smart, either; it’s a complete no-brainer.
Most elections are: it’s the economy, stupid!
This election will be: it’s suburban women, stupid!
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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
Most elections are: it’s the economy, stupid!
This election will be: it’s suburban women, stupid!
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I may need to revise my projection about Georgia staying purple in 2020 and 2024. With this bill I think it makes 2024 likely flip to blue and an outside shot at it happening in 2020.
The Commish
Footballguy
The EC will minimize this on the Presidential scale...probably little impact. However, it could be a factor in House/Senate races.
prefontaine
Footballguy
This is a winning issue for Trump.
The majority of Americans disagree, but this is not the number one issue to that majority. To the minority that drives this, this is their singular focus. If you wonder why evangelicals support Trump, this is why. This one issue is going to get them out to vote for him again and getting out the vote is the only way he wins.
But to your point, I'm sure there are an awful lot of Senators - particularly those that don't have a large evangelical electorate - that are not happy about this.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Would a cinematic dramatization of volume II of the Mueller report not get good ratings? I think it would. Is this in the works? If not, why not?
A lot of people understandably refuse to read the report because it's really long, seems like it would probably be pretty dry (until one starts reading it), and people have other stuff to do.
But a two-hour Netflix movie is an investment viewers would be willing to make, I think.
A lot of people understandably refuse to read the report because it's really long, seems like it would probably be pretty dry (until one starts reading it), and people have other stuff to do.
But a two-hour Netflix movie is an investment viewers would be willing to make, I think.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Understand your point, but I don’t think it applies. The vast majority of evangelicals live in states that are already locked in for Trump- in those states driving up their vote is meaningless.
In the states that matter (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.) driving up the evangelical vote would be helpful to Trump for sure, but it’s countermanded in each of those states by suburban women are who likely to resist. Because of those women I would have to think that this actually hurts President Trump.
prefontaine
Footballguy
Those folks are already highly motivated to vote against him. We saw that in the midterms.
I suspect this is true, but the midterms aren't airtight proof. Trump personally is more popular than other Republican politicians, so it's possible that Republican turnout will be significantly higher in a Presidential election year than in a midterm election.
ETA: Never mind. You're talking about Democratic turnout rather than Republican turnout, so I agree with your point.
Last edited by a moderator:
New Iowa poll from Change Research (C+ from 538)
https://iowastartingline.com/2019/05/20/starting-line-change-research-poll-biden-sanders-locked-in-iowa-tie/
Biden - 24%
Sanders - 24%
Buttigieg - 14%
Warren - 12%
Harris - 10%
O'Rourke - 5%
The rest are too low to matter.
https://iowastartingline.com/2019/05/20/starting-line-change-research-poll-biden-sanders-locked-in-iowa-tie/
Biden - 24%
Sanders - 24%
Buttigieg - 14%
Warren - 12%
Harris - 10%
O'Rourke - 5%
The rest are too low to matter.
Pollsters rush to patch fraying methods for Trump's reelection race
Politico article on the state of political polling (and polling in general) - pointing out the obvious - telephone polling is becoming harder and harder to accomplish - as fewer people pick up the phone now.
So, the industry is still trying to figure out how to effectively supplement telephone polling efforts.
Politico article on the state of political polling (and polling in general) - pointing out the obvious - telephone polling is becoming harder and harder to accomplish - as fewer people pick up the phone now.
So, the industry is still trying to figure out how to effectively supplement telephone polling efforts.
timschochet
Footballguy
Trump was in Scranton last night: basically it’s the direct center of the 2020 universe.
I watched some interviews with Trump supporters who came to the rally and honestly they sounded quite reasonable. They like his tax cut. They like his fight against China; they think he’s standing up for them and previous Presidents have not. He’s not perfect but they don’t care about most of the “junk” that the news seems to be focused on. They still think he fights for them.
This is going to be a difficult election.
I watched some interviews with Trump supporters who came to the rally and honestly they sounded quite reasonable. They like his tax cut. They like his fight against China; they think he’s standing up for them and previous Presidents have not. He’s not perfect but they don’t care about most of the “junk” that the news seems to be focused on. They still think he fights for them.
This is going to be a difficult election.
timschochet
Footballguy
I’m saying that the ones interviewed weren’t the fanatic caricatures that anti-Trump people seem so eager to portray. These are regular people.Wait...are you saying Trump supporters that went to one of his rallies support him?
Get OUT of here!!!!
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
That is basically the same as 2016, where Trump received 46.1% of votes cast.
ETA- Unless there is another segment of voters in the poll who "might" or are "likely to". That would be good.
Last edited by a moderator:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
The only 3 options were "Definitely vote for" (31%), "Consider voting for" (12%), and "Definitely not vote for" (54%). So even if Trump captured all of the voters who are "considering" him, he'd still be 3.1% down from where he was in 2016.That is basically the same as 2016, where Trump received 46.1% of votes cast.
ETA- Unless there is another segment of voters in the poll who "might" or are "likely to". That would be good.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Well, that's better, though wondering where the remaining 3% that closes the gap is.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Mark Sanchez has better polling numbers in New York.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Mayor Pete is also net positive.Also, it's funny that Elizabeth Warren's net favorable (-9) is actually better than Trump's (-19).
-fish-
Footballguy
They categorized him as mixed since over 50% of respondents didn’t have an opinion of him one way or another
Also, it's funny that Elizabeth Warren's net favorable (-9) is actually better than Trump's (-19).
[scooter]
Footballguy
I see that now. I guess my real issue, then, is the fact that they described Biden as "clear positive" when 51% of people polled did not have a positive opinion of him.They categorized him as mixed since over 50% of respondents didn’t have an opinion of him one way or another
Last edited by a moderator:
On this Memorial Day - most of the candidates took time out to remember individual servicemen who gave their lives for the country. A pretty moving tribute - with a very non-political message from the candidates.
https://twitter.com/votevets/status/1132946340428886016
https://twitter.com/votevets/status/1132946340428886016
joffer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
So long as Trump keeps talking about Biden every other day or so, Biden doesn’t have to do much to stay on top of the polls.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Dems changing the Debate requirements for September (the debates in June and July remain the same)
The DNC announced on Wednesday that it would double the requirements for candidates to reach the 2020 debate stage in September, per the AP.
Why it matters: With a massive field of over 20 candidates, the DNC is under pressure to focus its primary race on those who have a chance of breaking through the noise and challenging President Trump.
Details: After the first round of June and July debates, candidates will need to obtain 2% support in four approved polls over the summer and obtain contributions from at least 130,000 donors before Aug. 28 to qualify for the second debate round.
A handful of top 2020 Dems already won't have to worry about meeting that goal, including former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke.
Between the lines: DNC President Tom Perez is likely to be criticized for the changes after he guaranteed an inclusive debate format to satisfy the party's liberal, grassroots wing.
But the original requirements for the first round of debates — reaching 1% in four approved polls and a minimum of 65,000 individual donors — has faced criticism for being too easy to reach.
The DNC announced on Wednesday that it would double the requirements for candidates to reach the 2020 debate stage in September, per the AP.
Why it matters: With a massive field of over 20 candidates, the DNC is under pressure to focus its primary race on those who have a chance of breaking through the noise and challenging President Trump.
Details: After the first round of June and July debates, candidates will need to obtain 2% support in four approved polls over the summer and obtain contributions from at least 130,000 donors before Aug. 28 to qualify for the second debate round.
A handful of top 2020 Dems already won't have to worry about meeting that goal, including former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke.
Between the lines: DNC President Tom Perez is likely to be criticized for the changes after he guaranteed an inclusive debate format to satisfy the party's liberal, grassroots wing.
But the original requirements for the first round of debates — reaching 1% in four approved polls and a minimum of 65,000 individual donors — has faced criticism for being too easy to reach.
I don't know about the donor numbers, but that could really cut the field to about 8 - just looking at recent national polling and who has been able to reach 2% often enough:
Other candidates would certainly have a chance to move the needle in the June/July debates - but I wonder how many people will really be paying attention.
- Biden
- Sanders
- Harris
- Warren
- Buttigieg
- O'Rourke
- Booker
- Klobuchar
Other candidates would certainly have a chance to move the needle in the June/July debates - but I wonder how many people will really be paying attention.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Buttigieg losing steam. That sucks.
I still don't know how anyone can listen to all of these people speak and still prefer those others to him.
prefontaine
Footballguy
Definitely for the best. They need to cull the field somehow. I hate to hear voices quieted, especially those outside the mainstream, but at some point you have to do something. Giving everyone a chance first time out of the gate to get traction and then narrowing makes sense.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Is he? I'm not sure. I think exposure helps him and he's pretty much fixed in the top tier of candidates. One thing he has shown is that people are thirsting for coherent, thoughtful arguments that actually respond to issues and questions, I don't think that appeal is going to dissipate, but it will only expand as more people hear him. He does have a serious problem with the black vote though apparently.
The person that needs to be recalibrating is O'Rourke. He's absorbing oxygen and funds and it's not really clear what his campaign is or where he's going when he talks IMO.
I think that is about where Buttigieg has been for a bit - factoring in margin of error.
He really needs the luck of the draw in the summer debates - he needs to be on the same stage as Biden - but, we will see these numbers shake out again by September.
joffer
Footballguy
no one's really listening this early other than those really into politics. there's time.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Thought he was up a bit over 10% and ahead of Warren...sure the margin of error here. Seems she is moving up a bit and he slid back a little.
That is true...still hoping he surges going forward.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
About 6%, behind warren in these. Plus, margin of error. He's stable here.sho nuff said:
Looking at the last few Morning Consult polls, no one has really moved more than a point.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Totally agree. I think this is the responsible thing to do. They have about six months and a national debate. The field needs to start to narrow in the fall.prefontaine said:
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
he rolled out early. there are only so many things one can do that matter outside of competition and he did them early. the debate realm is when he was always going to matter. the available info on each candidate still has us thinking vanilla, chocolate, strawberry. we'll be getting into rum raisin, cookie dough, rocky road and eliminating the pumpkin caramel, mango & ghost pepper and razor blade crunch in the next phasesho nuff said:
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Biden/Harris still the surefire ticket to beat Trump. To quote Red Leader from Star Wars: A New Hope..."Stay on Target".
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Nate Silver looking at the data for Debate Qualification for the Dems . (sorry for the formatting - looks better in the link provided):
Which candidates are good bets to make the third debate?
CANDIDATE QUALIFYING POLLS* UNIQUE DONORS NATE’S ASSESSMENT
Sanders 9 525,000 as of 3/31 Almost certain
Warren 9 135,000 as of 3/31 Almost certain
Harris 9 138,000 as of 3/31 Almost certain
Biden 9 96,926 as of 4/26 Almost certain
Buttigieg 8 158,550 as of 3/31 Almost certain
O’Rourke 9 163,000 as of 3/31 Almost certain†
Klobuchar 8 65,000+ as of 5/3 Probable
Booker 8 65,000+ as of 5/3 Probable
Yang 1 110,000 as of 5/29 Tossup
Castro 2 65,000+ as of 5/3 Tossup
Gabbard 1 65,000+ as of 4/10 Tossup at best
Gillibrand 1 <65,000 Tossup at best
Inslee 0 65,000+ as of 5/24 Tossup at best
Hickenlooper 1 <65,000 Tossup at best
Williamson 0 65,000+ as of 5/9 Leaning against
Ryan 1 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Bullock 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Delaney 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Swalwell 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
de Blasio 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Bennet 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Moulton 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/silver-bulletpoints-whos-in-danger-of-missing-the-third-debate/
Which candidates are good bets to make the third debate?
CANDIDATE QUALIFYING POLLS* UNIQUE DONORS NATE’S ASSESSMENT
Sanders 9 525,000 as of 3/31 Almost certain
Warren 9 135,000 as of 3/31 Almost certain
Harris 9 138,000 as of 3/31 Almost certain
Biden 9 96,926 as of 4/26 Almost certain
Buttigieg 8 158,550 as of 3/31 Almost certain
O’Rourke 9 163,000 as of 3/31 Almost certain†
Klobuchar 8 65,000+ as of 5/3 Probable
Booker 8 65,000+ as of 5/3 Probable
Yang 1 110,000 as of 5/29 Tossup
Castro 2 65,000+ as of 5/3 Tossup
Gabbard 1 65,000+ as of 4/10 Tossup at best
Gillibrand 1 <65,000 Tossup at best
Inslee 0 65,000+ as of 5/24 Tossup at best
Hickenlooper 1 <65,000 Tossup at best
Williamson 0 65,000+ as of 5/9 Leaning against
Ryan 1 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Bullock 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Delaney 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Swalwell 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
de Blasio 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Bennet 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
Moulton 0 <65,000 Lots of work to do
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/silver-bulletpoints-whos-in-danger-of-missing-the-third-debate/
They have no chance, but my regard for Yang and Hickenlooper tends to increase whenever I am further exposed to them.
I still think Buttigieg is the class of the field.
I still think Buttigieg is the class of the field.
Last edited by a moderator:
With more women in the presidential race than ever before, the Democratic National Committee is requiring that each 2020 Democratic presidential debate includes at least one female moderator, Refinery29 is exclusively reporting.
"The DNC is committed to an inclusive and fair debate process," DNC senior adviser Mary Beth Cahill told Refinery29. "That means that all 12 DNC sanctioned debates will feature a diverse group of moderators and panelists including women and people of color, ensuring that the conversations reflect the concerns of all Americans."
I am not sure that the choice of moderators ensure that the conversations reflect the concerns of all Americans - but I think this is a good move.
"The DNC is committed to an inclusive and fair debate process," DNC senior adviser Mary Beth Cahill told Refinery29. "That means that all 12 DNC sanctioned debates will feature a diverse group of moderators and panelists including women and people of color, ensuring that the conversations reflect the concerns of all Americans."
I am not sure that the choice of moderators ensure that the conversations reflect the concerns of all Americans - but I think this is a good move.
Just popped in here, looks like 46 pages of talk about who the Dems are going to roll out there. Question: I suppose the Republican nominee will be Trump, but does that just automatically happen? I’d like to see some Republicans step up to offer an alternative (and to expose Trump to some friendly fire). Does that ever happen with an incumbent? If not, and Trump is revered for breaking norns, maybe it will happen this time.
rustycolts
Footballguy
Primary system really did not become a thing until recently as far as history goes. No modern president has lost in a primary. There were a few who lost to a member of their own party in the 1800s.pecorino said:
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Here are a couple of threads to check out.pecorino said:
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/772349-will-trump-face-a-serious-primary-challenge/
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/775268-official-bill-weld-for-president-thread/
ren hoek
Footballguy
Bernie Sanders asked about tepid support for 2016 dem nominee, explains how he 'ran all over the country' for war criminal Hillary Clinton in 2016: https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/1134207499287105537
Sanders has endorsed every Democrat running for president since 1996
Sanders has endorsed every Democrat running for president since 1996
Good ol sheepdog Bernie!
Similar threads
