What's new
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.

The Democrats need to wake up! Update: And near the last second, THEY HAVE (1 Viewer)

huthut said:
There is a fairly reasonable 269 vs 269 scenario, where Trump wins Wisconsin and loses Pennsylvania and Michigan. 
Click to expand...
306 (Trump in 2016)

 -36      ( Pennsylvania 20, Michigan 16)= 270

The Democrats need to win Florida or Arizona if Trump wins Wisconsin. That could be tough. I’ve heard how people adore Trump in the Florida panhandle and they elected a guy like Sen Scott.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=4B5TXt-RIcm90PEPoqCykAk&q=map+of+the+electoral+college&oq=map+of+the+electoral+college&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..0l2j0i22i30l6.102742.124520..127748...0.0..3.191.8415.0j62......0....1.......8..41j0i273j0i131j46j41i131i275j46i273i275j46i67j46i131i155j46i131i67j0i67j46i131.YF-5b1dKFTk#imgrc=fas7-aioBdzqJM:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lazyike said:
306 (Trump in 2016)

 -36      ( Pennsylvania 20, Michigan 16)= 270

The Democrats need to win Florida or Arizona if Trump wins Wisconsin. That could be tough. I’ve heard how people adore Trump in the Florida panhandle and they elected a guy like Sen Scott.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=4B5TXt-RIcm90PEPoqCykAk&q=map+of+the+electoral+college&oq=map+of+the+electoral+college&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..0l2j0i22i30l6.102742.124520..127748...0.0..3.191.8415.0j62......0....1.......8..41j0i273j0i131j46j41i131i275j46i273i275j46i67j46i131i155j46i131i67j0i67j46i131.YF-5b1dKFTk#imgrc=fas7-aioBdzqJM:
Click to expand...
I did not exactly copy the 2016 map, I just mentioned a 269 scenario that could be pretty likely and similar to 2016. The difference is Trump getting 1 EV from Maine, while in my 269 scenario I had that go for Sanders. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huthut said:
I did not exactly copy the 2016 map, I just mentioned a 269 scenario that could be pretty likely and similar to 2016. The difference is Trump getting 1 EV from Maine, while in my 269 scenario I had that go for Sanders. 
Click to expand...
The GOP would control a vote by the state delegations with a majority in 26.5 states.

 
lazyike said:
306 (Trump in 2016)

 -36      ( Pennsylvania 20, Michigan 16)= 270

The Democrats need to win Florida or Arizona if Trump wins Wisconsin. That could be tough. I’ve heard how people adore Trump in the Florida panhandle and they elected a guy like Sen Scott.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=4B5TXt-RIcm90PEPoqCykAk&q=map+of+the+electoral+college&oq=map+of+the+electoral+college&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..0l2j0i22i30l6.102742.124520..127748...0.0..3.191.8415.0j62......0....1.......8..41j0i273j0i131j46j41i131i275j46i273i275j46i67j46i131i155j46i131i67j0i67j46i131.YF-5b1dKFTk#imgrc=fas7-aioBdzqJM:
Click to expand...
That Cuba stuff playing now isn't going to help Bernie in Florida.  Bernie might be better for D's in some states, I can see the argument.  But in Florida I think it moves it to a heavy lean red.  

 
James Daulton said:
I think Bernie beats Trump in Wisconsin.  Penn and Ohio no. 
Click to expand...
Latest YouGov H2H polls

Wisconsin

Warren  46-44

Sanders 46-44

Klobuchar 44-43

Buttigieg 45-43

Biden 45-43

Michigan

Warren 46-43

Sanders 48-41

Klobuchar 44-41

Buttigieg 47-41

Biden 47-43

Pennsylvania

Warren 45-45

Sanders 47-45

Klobuchar 43-43

Buttigieg 44-44

Biden 46-45

 
squistion said:
Another snapshot in time, take it for what it is worth. 

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1231611469667721216

New national CBS/YouGov head-to-head polls:

Sanders 47%, Trump 44%

Biden 47%, Trump 45%

Warren 46%, Trump 45%

Trump 44%, Buttigieg 44%

Trump 45%, Klobuchar 44%

Trump 45%, Bloomberg 42%
Click to expand...
Not surprising. I do expect this race to be very close either way because the President (and his opponent) will be so polarizing to 90% of the electorate. Interesting that Trump is capped at 45% in these polls (also about in line with his higher end numbers outside of his recent performance in Gallop). From a Trump perspective, once his eventual opponent is the limelight and getting all incoming from the GOP, how will this impact their numbers?

 
Tim, you're equal parts reader of history and prognosticator at heart. What does history say about the two parties reining in their "populist outbursts"? Because right now, all you need is a base of about 20% unwavering support to cakewalk through a large field.

Not that I'm complaining about it, just curious.

 
hagmania said:
Tim, you're equal parts reader of history and prognosticator at heart. What does history say about the two parties reining in their "populist outbursts"? Because right now, all you need is a base of about 20% unwavering support to cakewalk through a large field.

Not that I'm complaining about it, just curious.
Click to expand...
In American politics, I can’t think of a contest between two populists. So this is something new. 

But as a general rule, populism from the right does better than from the left. @SaintsInDome2006 has often cited Huey Long, the right wing populist from Louisiana (though significantly he began his political career as a left-winger.) During Long’s heyday in the 30s, the left wing counterpart to his populism was Upton Sinclair, author of The Jungle who ran for governor of California with the slogan EPIC (End Poverty In California). Sinclair’s program, like Bernie’s was a more radical extension of the New Deal that would be paid for by taxing the very rich. Louis B Mayer of MGM financed an extremely negative campaign against Sinclair, calling him a Communist and implying that he was a front for Soviet Russia. Sinclair was easily defeated in the end. 

There is, IMO, an important point here that plays into the current campaign: although establishment types don’t usually approve of right wing populists, in the end they will support them. But they will NOT support left wing populists, ever, because of fear of taxation. This means generally that left wing populists have a much tougher climb to power. 

 
timschochet said:
In American politics, I can’t think of a contest between two populists. So this is something new. 

But as a general rule, populism from the right does better than from the left. @SaintsInDome2006 has often cited Huey Long, the right wing populist from Louisiana (though significantly he began his political career as a left-winger.) During Long’s heyday in the 30s, the left wing counterpart to his populism was Upton Sinclair, author of The Jungle who ran for governor of California with the slogan EPIC (End Poverty In California). Sinclair’s program, like Bernie’s was a more radical extension of the New Deal that would be paid for by taxing the very rich. Louis B Mayer of MGM financed an extremely negative campaign against Sinclair, calling him a Communist and implying that he was a front for Soviet Russia. Sinclair was easily defeated in the end. 

There is, IMO, an important point here that plays into the current campaign: although establishment types don’t usually approve of right wing populists, in the end they will support them. But they will NOT support left wing populists, ever, because of fear of taxation. This means generally that left wing populists have a much tougher climb to power. 
Click to expand...
I remember reading and rereading The Jungle as a 6th grader.  Also for a countervailing perspective Animal Farm.  Each held some truths if not The truth, at least to a young DW.

 
timschochet said:
In American politics, I can’t think of a contest between two populists. So this is something new. 

But as a general rule, populism from the right does better than from the left. @SaintsInDome2006 has often cited Huey Long, the right wing populist from Louisiana (though significantly he began his political career as a left-winger.) During Long’s heyday in the 30s, the left wing counterpart to his populism was Upton Sinclair, author of The Jungle who ran for governor of California with the slogan EPIC (End Poverty In California). Sinclair’s program, like Bernie’s was a more radical extension of the New Deal that would be paid for by taxing the very rich. Louis B Mayer of MGM financed an extremely negative campaign against Sinclair, calling him a Communist and implying that he was a front for Soviet Russia. Sinclair was easily defeated in the end. 

There is, IMO, an important point here that plays into the current campaign: although establishment types don’t usually approve of right wing populists, in the end they will support them. But they will NOT support left wing populists, ever, because of fear of taxation. This means generally that left wing populists have a much tougher climb to power. 
Click to expand...
Tim, thanks for including me and I love the subject, however Long was decidedly left wing.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I remember reading and rereading The Jungle as a 6th grader.  Also for a countervailing perspective Animal Farm.  Each held some truths if not The truth, at least to a young DW.
Click to expand...
A better comparison to The Jungle , IMO, is Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Both novels are 3/4 brilliant critiques of society (Sinclair of capitalism, Rand of bureaucracy) but the last quarter of each book is a rather turgid, boring offer of a solution which is basically a didactic lecture. 

The best thing about Animal Farm, and what makes it superior to the above novels (and perhaps every other political novel that has ever been written) is that Orwell never lectures the reader. He presents a story and invites the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. 

 
timschochet said:
A better comparison to The Jungle , IMO, is Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Both novels are 3/4 brilliant critiques of society (Sinclair of capitalism, Rand of bureaucracy) but the last quarter of each book is a rather turgid, boring offer of a solution which is basically a didactic lecture. 

The best thing about Animal Farm, and what makes it superior to the above novels (and perhaps every other political novel that has ever been written) is that Orwell never lectures the reader. He presents a story and invites the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. 
Click to expand...
My first reading of Atlas Shrugged was in 7th grade.  I put it down.  I finally picked it back up at around 35 simply to be culturally literate.  The redundant berating on points which could have been made in a ten page essay was off-putting and the story was not compelling enough to hide that.  Certainly it contained some truth.  Again, not The truth.

In some ways the repetition reminded me of the epic poems of the Greeks where repetition made memory of them easier to tell in an oral format.  Like the Iliad but with far less compelling storylines.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hm, I do believe you are confusing corruption for ideology, my friend.
Click to expand...
He was a nativist, much like Trump. (He had a LOT of similarities to Trump actually, including the belittling of opponents. But my point is that the so-called “elites” (bankers, oil interests, etc) were always willing to support a man like Long but never a man like Sinclair. Sinclair, like Bernie Sanders , was an ideologue, immune to corruption. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
My first reading of Atlas Shrugged was in 7th grade.  I put it down.  I finally picked it back up at around 35 simply to be culturally literate.  The redundant berating on points which could have been made in a ten page essay was off-putting and the story was not compelling enough to hide that.  Certainly it contained some truth.  Again, not The truth.

In some ways the repetition reminded me of the epic poems of the Greeks where repetition made memory of them easier to tell in an oral format.  Like the Iliad but with far less compelling storylines.
Click to expand...
Which is another great thing about Animal Farm: it’s only 100 pages. In that space Orwell tells a compelling story and completely destroys the Soviet Union for all time. How absolutely brilliant is that? 

 
timschochet said:
Which is another great thing about Animal Farm: it’s only 100 pages. In that space Orwell tells a compelling story and completely destroys the Soviet Union for all time. How absolutely brilliant is that? 
Click to expand...
I found it quite brilliant.  I like authors that invite or welcome a conclusion over those who demand it. 

 
whoknew said:
I reckon this is going to make you hate me but I have to disagree on this one. Of course I know what a person means when they say "I could care less." But its like nails on a chalkboard to me because it doesn't make any sense. They are literally saying something that is the opposite of what they are trying to convey.
Click to expand...
I like the Merriam-Webster usage note on this:

We understand why could care less sticks in your craw: it appears to mean something rather opposed to what it purports to mean. The person who says “I could care less” is, on the face of it, stating “Yes, it would be possible for me to care less deeply about this matter than I do, and therefore I am betraying some unspecified degree of care.” But if you are the kind of person who cries out against this abomination we must warn you that people who go through life expecting informal variant idioms in English to behave logically are setting themselves up for a lifetime of hurt.

Both could and couldn’t care less are informal, and so you are unlikely to use either one in formal writing. If you have need of using it in some other context, and would like to avoid alienating some portion of your audience you should stick with couldn’t care less. And if you can’t get past some people continuing to use could care less, and the fact that there’s nothing you can do about it, you may console yourself with the notion that at least they are not saying “I could care fewer.”

 
TripItUp said:
Perhaps if the Dems didn't do silly things like pursue an impeachment when it should have never been pursued, they wouldn't be in this position.

A lot of energy wasted in the impeachment thread in this very forum is a prime example of misguided strategy and politics.   

Or perhaps trying to convince the world that Obamacare has lived up to its promises is another failed strategy.   Just admit your mistakes and convince us your going to actually do something to improve American lives, because from where I'm standing, one party is dominating the other in that respect...and it's not the Democrats dominating.

Americans want results, not hopes and dreams.
Click to expand...
Why did Republicans get so smoked in the midterm elections?

 
"Sleepy" Joe woke up the democrats, and will help wake the nation up from this 4 year long nightmare of Trump.

Joe's not anywhere near the top of my list for who I'd chose, but I'd stand out in snow for hours to vote for him over Trump.

 
The General said:
Why did Republicans get so smoked in the midterm elections?
Click to expand...
There is usually apathy from the party that won the Presidential election in the mid-terms and a sense of motivation in the party that lost.  George Bush in 2002 was the only 1st term President to not lose House seats since FDR in 1934.  Bush's response to 9/11 is probably the reason he bucked the trend.  I've never see America more united in my lifetime, of course, that didn't last too long.  

 
This isn't over.  The Dems still need to make it crystal clear that their support is for Biden.  They can't leave any room for doubt.  Biden's support needs to be unquestionable and appear on the up and up to keep the Bernie wing from melting down and dividing them further.  They need to rebuke the "distrust" narrative with complete and crystal clear support.  Good news is, it seems like that's more likely today than it was two days ago.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
This isn't over.  The Dems still need to make it crystal clear that their support is for Biden.  They can't leave any room for doubt.  Biden's support needs to be unquestionable and appear on the up and up to keep the Bernie wing from melting down and dividing them further.  They need to rebuke the "distrust" narrative with complete and crystal clear support.  Good news is, it seems like that's more likely today than it was two days ago.
Click to expand...
Based on conservations with my youngest daughter, it will be a challenge to keep some in the Bernie wing from melting down. I can't see them voting for Trump, but they need to vote in large numbers in the general.

 
SoBeDad said:
Based on conservations with my youngest daughter, it will be a challenge to keep some in the Bernie wing from melting down. I can't see them voting for Trump, but they need to vote in large numbers in the general.
Click to expand...
It'd be helpful, but I don't think it's necessary. If overall turnout is up then that's probably enough and all signs point to turnout being up - yutes or no yutes. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
This isn't over.  The Dems still need to make it crystal clear that their support is for Biden.  They can't leave any room for doubt.  Biden's support needs to be unquestionable and appear on the up and up to keep the Bernie wing from melting down and dividing them further.  They need to rebuke the "distrust" narrative with complete and crystal clear support.  Good news is, it seems like that's more likely today than it was two days ago.
Click to expand...
Michigan will tell us a lot. 4 years ago I rhoiught Hillary had the whole thing sewn up and then Bernie surged back with Michigan. So we’ll see. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Democrats need to wake the hell up
6 7 8
Replies
397
Views
9K
John123
J
Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
The Commish
The Commish
timschochet
Democrats behaving stupidly again…
2 3
Replies
119
Views
3K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top