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.
Your playbook to removing Trump from the WH in 2020 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter fantasycurse42
- Start date
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
It's really a simple formula and Trump is gone, my whole point.
Everyone gets a little less of what they want & Trump is gone - I consider that a compromise only a fool would turn down.
Skoo
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Independent =/= moderate or centrist This has been explained ad nauseam.fantasycurse42 said:
Regarding your plan to win over some of those centrists- you're absolutely right, that might swing the 2020 election. But so might other things. Bringing black turnout back to its 2008-2012 levels, for example. Or a Latino voter surge, which many expected in 2016 but didn't really happen (that seems tougher, not sure how to unlock that one). Or make an unprecedented jump in young voter turnout, which is a big part of how the Dems did so well in the midterms. Or they can get back to their blue collar union roots, which obviously helps them in the Great Lakes which is where most of the action will be.
There are a lot of ways to win or lose the 2020 election, and nobody knows exactly how any of them will play out. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Actually now is the time for the progressives to take over the party and win. If I offered you an 80/20 shot at $1,000,000 or 99/1 shot at $100, which are you taking?
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I don't know. My point was that we hear "a progressive candidate can't win" as often or more from liberals on this board as conservatives.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
3 questions, please just respond yes, no, or maybe to the questions:
1) If you have a very progressive candidate, do you bring over any meaningful amounts of those who held their noses and voted for Trump in 2016?
2) If you have a very progressive candidate, do you bring on any centrists who stayed home in 2016?
3) If you have a very progressive candidate, do you feel it will rile his base up and bring them out in full force?
Answer this question with increases, decreases, no difference:
If you answered yes to 1, 2, or 3, do you feel that increases, decreases, or makes no difference in his chances of reelection?
To the bold, if Trump didn't bring them out, nothing short of a Latino candidate will either, imo.
Punxsutawney Phil
Footballguy
I'm definitely not underestimating Trump now that they basically helped him out for 2020. I think the focus needs to be less about how to beat Trump himself, and more about how to strategically beat him. Getting rid of the electoral college and lowering the voting age to 16 would help. Also, Florida just allowed felons to vote which could tip the state back blue.JohnnyU said:
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Widbil83
Footballguy
Actually I talked to a few Bernie supporters last week (who live in Iowa by the way) and they told me under no circumstances would they vote for a Biden or Democrat establishment type.
They will take the Jill Stein route or vote 3rd party. They are comfortable enough with Trump on tariffs and criminal justice reform that they won’t vote for the Democrat nominee if it is one of the turd boxes.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
1. I have no idea. Probably some, yes. I'm thinking blue collar workers who resented the perceived "elitism" of the Dems, the people who handed Sanders his surprise primary victory in Michigan.
2. Probably some, see above.
3. I honestly don't think it matters one bit. His base is completely removed from reality. If the Dems nominated Joe Manchin, the Trump/Fox News propaganda machine would be calling him "Joe Marxist" by the end of the day.
Not sure I understand the rest of your question. Obviously nominating a progressives has positives and negatives. Nominating a centrist has positives and negatives. There's no way to know which positives outweigh which negatives. That's why I'm just kinda sitting out the primary, just planning to vote for whoever I personally like the best with only a side glance at electability, and then planning to devote all my energy to helping that person beat Trump, no matter who it is (within reason, obviously).
ffldrew
Footballguy
It's going to mean something when your 401K has gone nowhere.
If and when growth falls below 2% later this year - and there are plenty of Wall Street firms already in that camp. There is going to be stampede to the exits - Bears are going to have to be fed. It's going to make Christmas awfully gloomy. Not the way to start an election year.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
And did those Bernie supporters vote for Hillary in 2016?
Because the data suggests that there was a significant slump in Democratic turnout in 2016.
Part of that low turnout can be explained by an underestimation of Trump (i.e., assuming that Hillary would win easily). And part of it can be explained by a dislike of Hillary by Bernie supporters.
But those two factors are mostly gone. I'm sure that there are some Bernie diehards who would never vote for anyone who isn't as liberal as Bernie, but that loss will be offset by all the centrists who will vote for any non-Bernie Democrat.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
I thought you were going to be honest.NCCommish said:
Republican policies are why the economy is humming along right now.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
That reminds me, Dems lost the Iowa gubernatorial race by less than three points and outpolled Pubbies by an aggregate 50,000 votes in the four Congressional races in '18, three of which they won. There's another six electoral votes that aren't safe for Donald.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
We're humming along and have been bc of the easy money policies of the last decade, regardless of any politics.I thought you were going to be honest.
Republican policies are why the economy is humming along right now.
We have had 3 rounds of QE and rates under 2.5% for 10 years (most of that time was 0%), with 2.5% apparently the highest it will get in this cycle, because anything higher than a ridiculously low 2.5%, and it all apparently tumbles down.
It's massive amounts of debt along with gigantic deficits fueling everything and it has zero to do with R/D.
Debts growing and deficits increasing aren't good for anything in the long haul - it's odd, but you GOP supporters are in the same group when it comes to MMT as AOC, you just spend it differently... Regardless, it is reckless.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Hardly. The economy is in slowdown and many signs point to a recession looming. For instance what's happened in the Midwest is going to pretty much destroy the corn crop that is going to have a huge effect on the US economy. Then there's the fact that company spent all those tax breaks they got pretty much completely on stock BuyBacks driving the Wall Street numbers but they're not going to keep doing that. Then there's the obvious economic like starting to set in from the stupid tariffs Farmers Park flooded are going bankrupt that's not going to be good for the economy. I could go on but I have a feeling it will fall on deaf ears.I thought you were going to be honest.
Republican policies are why the economy is humming along right now.
ffldrew
Footballguy
Good post - but it does have to do with R/D.
We were slowly getting well again or at least less sick. Then the R's decided to gamble with some wild ### cure straight out of the alleyways of Port-au-Prince. Maybe VooDoo will work this time - but it sure is starting to smell like sulfur. All I see are wolves and bears starting to circle this economy and stock markets. And I'm starting to tire of the R talking heads on financial television and elsewhere whistling past the graveyard on the trade war. How long are we going to hand out subsidies to keep Food, Inc. afloat with the deficits hitting the fan. But on the bright side wrecking the economy the last time kept the Obama administration handcuffed and unable to enact any "leftist" plans - so at least the R's are consistent.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Economy is being held up by the consumer, and the consumer is on fire, basically spending like there is no tomorrow. There will be no recession until the consumer tips, and while we might have some data pointing to slowing, nobody knows when and what will cause the consumer to tip.
Regardless, we're getting way off track. This thread is about the playbook to beat Trump.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
While continuing to speak on the issues of our time is most important, Dems also can't afford to allow Trump's continued personal enrichment from his presidency to fall beneath the radar. That won't affect the base, which remains unaffectable, but it will help keep the few independents who may have been considering joining the Trump armada from doing so. It may not be obvious, especially to his supporters, but constant reaffirmation of his grift can take a big toll on him.
I don't think your formulation is more accurate than NCC's. Trump seems to have a lot of backers who love him no matter what; and I think he's pretty unique among Republican politicians in that respect. George Bush didn't have that kind of unconditional love. Bush's approval ratings among Republicans swung up and down depending on how things were going at the moment. Likewise, Republican voters right now seem to love or hate non-Trump Republican politicans -- guys like Ted Cruz, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, et al. -- depending on whether they seem to favor or oppose Trump at any given time. It's not unconditional.Joe Bryant said:
Trump's base seems to be a lot more loyal than that of the other Republicans. I don't think it's "whoever is the Republican candidate" that they support as much as it's Trump himself.
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
It's amazing to me. But I wonder if we're not going to see more partisan entrenchment in the future from Republicans as they see their national numbers steadily decline. Demographics make the next decade or three look pretty grim for Republicans as they now define themselves and they may see their only hope as being united in a way that Democrats can never be (the couple of threads on the board right now with Dems in all sort of disagreement with each other about candidates, policies and strategies are my cite).
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we're talking about different things. NCC said 24% of Americans identify as Republican and 80% of that seem to be solidly in the Trump corner. I'm saying that 80% isn't dependent on Trump. My guess is that same 80% of the 24% were also solidly for Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008, W Bush in 2014 and so on.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
This is my point, his base is his base, his ceiling is close to the those that came out for him in 2016, imo... You need to get over that number to beat him in 2020, and to do so, you need to unite a group of people who would otherwise not unite.
All of those groups need to unite, make concessions/compromises, and meet somewhere. They aren't going to meet when the pendulum swings wildly to any side, it needs to be in the middle.
Last edited by a moderator:
And as NCC said, my sense is it works similarly for the Democratic side too.
Let's say 24% identify as Democrat ( I don't know if that's the right number) I'd guess 80% of that 24% likely voted Clinton in 2016, Obama in 2012 and 2008, Kerry in 2004 and so on.
Let's say 24% identify as Democrat ( I don't know if that's the right number) I'd guess 80% of that 24% likely voted Clinton in 2016, Obama in 2012 and 2008, Kerry in 2004 and so on.
I think we're talking about the same thing. We're just disagreeing.
If Romney had been the nominee in 2016 and got caught on tape bragging about what could reasonably be interpreted as sexual assault, I don't think Republican voters would have stood by him the same way they stood by Trump. Or if McCain had insulted a gold star family. Or if Bush had said that McCain wasn't a hero. Or any number of other things. Trump's support is invincible in a way that no other politician's has been, it seems to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
This is 100% accurate, imo. Nothing will deter his supporters. What I find most amazing is his undying support and love affair with the stock market as his report card. You'd have to make an assumption that a large portion of this base has little to nothing tied to the stock market and that they might even look negatively on those that do - I find this the most puzzling piece of all of this.
All about some who support him I find unpleasant, but I can figure it out, this I cannot... I just don't understand.
While I'm talking pure gut feels, I'll also say it seems to me that the true "Trump Base" meaning those rabid supporters who are exceptionally loyal to him is actually a pretty small number.
BUT, I think they appear bigger as they are notable, as Trump is, for the hot takes and strong, even outlandish positions.
They also are the picture of the classic "It's us against the world". For good reason. Regardless of whether it's Trumps own doing or not (I think it mostly is) the dynamic is MAGA vs Everyone. They see themselves as the NFL's New England Patriots with the "Bet Against Us" shirts daring people to say they can't do it.
Never in history has wearing a campaign hat for the sitting President of the United States been seen as offensive. But we know it is. For a Trump loyal supporter, this feels like a battle. And the feeling is accurate I think.
Again, the fact they got there because their guy is abrasive and over the top gets lost. The reality is they know they're despised. And social dynamics means people in that situation either leave or it draws a group tighter together. I think that's where we are.
BUT, I think they appear bigger as they are notable, as Trump is, for the hot takes and strong, even outlandish positions.
They also are the picture of the classic "It's us against the world". For good reason. Regardless of whether it's Trumps own doing or not (I think it mostly is) the dynamic is MAGA vs Everyone. They see themselves as the NFL's New England Patriots with the "Bet Against Us" shirts daring people to say they can't do it.
Never in history has wearing a campaign hat for the sitting President of the United States been seen as offensive. But we know it is. For a Trump loyal supporter, this feels like a battle. And the feeling is accurate I think.
Again, the fact they got there because their guy is abrasive and over the top gets lost. The reality is they know they're despised. And social dynamics means people in that situation either leave or it draws a group tighter together. I think that's where we are.
Cool. We are disagreeing then. I think the vast majority of the loyal Republicans or Democrats vote for the POTUS candidate from their party in every election.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
The Electoral College isn't going anywhere. The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they created it.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I don't understand why you're portraying an election as a strategic decision that can be executed. There is no chance for "all those groups to unite, make concessions, and meet somewhere." It might sound nice in theory, but so does Trump resigning and retreating from public life and taking his grotesque, felonious family with him. Both of those things are equally likely to happen. There's going to be a primary battle, and it's gonna be productive at times and ugly at times, and the candidate preferred by people engaged enough in the process to vote in the primaries will win.
So given that, the best way to approximate the cooperative effort among the "good guys" that you're talking about is to realize (1) the things that bind all of the people who want Trump out are MUCH stronger and more important than the things that divide us, and (2) a far-left progressive and a left-leaning centrist will probably end up governing in roughly the same way, considering the likely makeup of the next Senate, so these divisions are basically irrelevant anyway.
Fight all you want about who the nominee should be based on politics or electability or whatever ... just as long as we all keep those two things in mind. That's my perspective, at least.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
The bolded is just plain bad. Sixteen year olds are brain damaged and felons shouldn't vote.
Oh I totally get that. Stock Market is how a huge number of people keep a scorecard for the economy. It may be a gross simplification but I totally get it.
For the blue collar guy who may not have stock, he sees it with raises at work or low unemployment or general "good times".
It's funny in that President Clinton's stock market record turned my lifelong republican voting dad into voting democrat. He was "voting his wallet".
He felt the same way about President Obama.
Had nothing to do with his investments (which weren't in the stock market).
I totally get that.
Widbil83
Footballguy
Yes they did vote for Hillary in the end and it absolutely disgusted them. That is part of the reason why they won’t vote for some forced establishment Democrat candidate this time around.
Just trying to warn you guys that being anti-Trump won’t be enough. It’s fun to believe people will vote for anybody over Trump, but this isn’t reality.
I do really personally think that the Democrats will end up going the whole Clinton Eastwood empty chair route this election and lose big. I thought this well before yesterday.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
Here's a thought. Run a challenger who supports the majority of Americans want. Apparently, these days that's a "progressive" candidate. Distinguish the policies that Americans want against the bad policies that Trump peddles. Path to victory. Go centrist and you push the GOP even farther right to distinguish from the Democrats aka GOP lite.
squistion
Footballguy
No, they didn't. Individual votes from Wyoming carry 3.6 times more influence, or weight, than those from California.
http://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280
That isn't right. I doubt the founding fathers wanted that kind of disparity.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
@fantasycurse42 Do you think any of the D candidates (of those who've qualified for the debates so far) meet the criteria you're forwarding here? I realize it's early yet, just wondering if you have a feel for whether any of them would be palatable for you and those of like mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter]
Footballguy
The founding fathers didn't create the Electoral College as you know it. They created a system which gave extra electoral votes to slave slates and tried to counter the slave state dominance by making the 2nd place finisher Vice President.
They also expected that electors would be directly chosen by the legislatures of each state.
None of those concepts are in place today.
Also, they didn't call it the "Electoral College". That phrase was not implemented until 1845.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
It’s comments like the one above that really anger me and prob anger those like-minded. It’s condescending at best, apparently a centrist is now a Republican
That attitude gave us Trump, and it’ll give us another 4 years of him. This board is very very left leaning, and I’d bet the majority of these people associate with like-minded individuals. So much so, that they’ve convinced themselves that’s what the majority of Americans want, yet we have Trump and a GOP Senate, so maybe, just maybe, they might want to rethink what the majority of Americans want. These policies are all great; healthcare for everyone, free college, energy independence, etc. etc.. Unfortunately, these people apparently don’t think beyond a few years; maybe there is a time 30 years in the future that the world reserve currency isn’t the US Dollar - running up endless deficits/spending would lead our children to a complete disaster (and most of us in retirement) when we can’t just print until infinity. Not only is this a possibility, I think it’s almost probable.Bloomberg was my horse, and sadly rejected. Apparently being white & very successful was a negative to the left, at least how I perceived it. A guy who is very savvy financially, balanced NYC’s budget (where basically nobody else could, after 9/11 & during the financial crisis nonetheless), opposes Trump’s immigration policies, adamantly supports climate change reforms, & the list goes on and on and on - this wasn’t good enough for those progressives.
While I def don’t agree with all of Biden’s policies, if it was him or Trump, give me Biden - I’d bet the arrogant progressives wouldn’t come out enough to get him the support needed to beat Trump though. I also think the primaries will be ugly, which will be a mistake - I’m feeling pretty confident we’ll get another 4 years of Trump and I blame the Dems almost as much as I blame the Republicans.
The Commish
Footballguy
I put 100% of 2016 on the Democrats. The Republicans put up the most unelectable candidate in history, and won. It'll be 100% on the Democrats if Trump wins in 2020.
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
I agree - it’s pretty horrible. Everyone has to concede some things that are important to them. Find a likable scandal-free adult whose policies aren’t such a turnoff to either side of the aisle that they’ll go out and vote for this individual.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
The Commish
Footballguy
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
38% of the population is in his base?
How is that possible when the numbers before showed that only 26% (IIRC) are registered GOP?
JohnnyU
Footballguy
The EC is brilliant. Prevents mob rule.
The founding fathers didn't create the Electoral College as you know it. They created a system which gave extra electoral votes to slave slates and tried to counter the slave state dominance by making the 2nd place finisher Vice President.
They also expected that electors would be directly chosen by the legislatures of each state.
None of those concepts are in place today.
Also, they didn't call it the "Electoral College". That phrase was not implemented until 1845.
Similar threads
