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.

2018 Elections Thread (4 Viewers)

Since this is the election thread, we really should spend some time talking about the newly elected Brazilian president Jair Bosonaro, whom Trump has congratulated and is excited about. This dude is an extreme right wing demagogue who loves to spread hate. 
The main reason he won is the Odebrecht scandal. He will drain the swamp. And pull out of the Paris Climate Accord and relax gun laws and perhaps reduce civil liberties to deal with a real increase in crime. His remarks about gay people and black people are very offensive. Politics is more polarizing in Brazil than the USA.

My Brazilian friends here in Miami don't trust him. The USA is still the safest investment, hence the large capital flight from Latin America to Miami, NY, etc.

 
bud29 said:
538 has Kobach’s chances at 67%.  :X  This state is diseased.
Kansan here and after Brownback its hard to fathom for me. I guess we deserve what we get.

I think its a shame how all those rural poor out there think he's their guy.  They will get hit the worst. Education. Health Care. Agriculture prices.  

 
The main reason he won is the Odebrecht scandal. He will drain the swamp.
I agree it was a protest vote. But he will (eventually) be found to be just as kleptocratic as the rest of them.

As for social changes, the path he wants to go brings nothing good.

It is a pity for Brazil that they ended up with the plague/cholera choice, but such is reality it seems

 
Since this is the election thread, we really should spend some time talking about the newly elected Brazilian president Jair Bosonaro, whom Trump has congratulated and is excited about. This dude is an extreme right wing demagogue who loves to spread hate. 
If the office has term limits, then countdown until Bosonaro proposes eliminating them. He's a chip off the old Putin block.

 
And yet there have been zero reports of Cruz votes changing to Beto
I hate voting machines as much as the next guy (just do a ####### paper ballot with a scanner for god's sake), but this could be a result of the design of the ballot combined with a poor interface. Suppose they're listing the candidates alphabetically by last name, for example, and the issue is that clicking on the top part of Beto's name actually goes to Cruz due to ####ty programming or improper calibration. Then again, maybe it is something more nefarious, who knows? There's certainly not enough security around these things to discount the possibility. I definitely subscribe to the belief that the GOP was doing something screwy with the vote in Ohio in 2004, for example.

 
Sullenberger  - "Sully" - with the words we should expect from our political leaders

I am often told how calm I sounded speaking to passengers, crew and air traffic control during the emergency. In every situation, but especially challenging ones, a leader sets the tone and must create an environment in which all can do their best. You get what you project. Whether it is calm and confidence — or fear, anger and hatred — people will respond in kind. Courage can be contagious.

Today, tragically, too many people in power are projecting the worst. Many are cowardly, complicit enablers, acting against the interests of the United States, our allies and democracy; encouraging extremists at home and emboldening our adversaries abroad; and threatening the livability of our planet. Many do not respect the offices they hold; they lack — or disregard — a basic knowledge of history, science and leadership; and they act impulsively, worsening a toxic political environment.

As a result, we are in a struggle for who and what we are as a people. We have lost what in the military we call unit cohesion. The fabric of our nation is under attack, while shame — a timeless beacon of right and wrong — seems dead.

***

For the first 85 percent of my adult life, I was a registered Republican. But I have always voted as an American. And this critical Election Day, I will do so by voting for leaders committed to rebuilding our common values and not pandering to our basest impulses.

When I volunteered for military service during wartime, I took an oath that is similar to the one our elected officials take: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” I vowed to uphold this oath at the cost of my life, if necessary. We must expect no less from our elected officials. And we must hold accountable those who fail to defend our nation and all our people.

After Flight 1549, I realized that because of the sudden worldwide fame, I had been given a greater voice. I knew I could not walk away but had an obligation to use this bully pulpit for good and as an advocate for the safety of the traveling public. I feel that I now have yet another mission, as a defender of our democracy.

We cannot wait for someone to save us. We must do it ourselves. This Election Day is a crucial opportunity to again demonstrate the best in each of us by doing our duty and voting for leaders who are committed to the values that will unite and protect us. Years from now, when our grandchildren learn about this critical time in our nation’s history, they may ask if we got involved, if we made our voices heard. I know what my answer will be. I hope yours will be “yes.”

 
I am starting to get cautiously optimistic about the Dems' chances to retake the House again, and maybe even get a draw in the Senate.  Some good polling in the right places for them in the last couple days. Dems in open races getting some small leads, and just as importantly a lot of incumbent Republicans in toss-up races are failing to pull away (late voters almost always go against incumbents). The way the money is flowing, and the White House is acting, are also encouraging.

God knows what horrors await us in the next week, though.

 
Almost all of the polls focus on likely voters. I think there’s going to be a lot of unlikely voters on Tuesday, and most of them are going to vote Democrat. 

 
I am starting to get cautiously optimistic about the Dems' chances to retake the House again
They are over 85% to win it. The numbers just don't make sense for it not to happen. Dems have outraised Reps by like 2-1, they have the suburban white women on their side, they are polling at greater than 9% in the popular vote, and Trump's numbers are in the tank.

 
They are over 85% to win it. The numbers just don't make sense for it not to happen. Dems have outraised Reps by like 2-1, they have the suburban white women on their side, they are polling at greater than 9% in the popular vote, and Trump's numbers are in the tank.
Over 85% to win at 538 based on their advanced model, but under 80% based on polls-only.  There's good reasons to prefer the advanced model (one being the thing I said about lake undecideds usually breaking against the incumbent), but either way it's no guarantee.  I've seen enough pitchers get base hits to know that things with a 15% chance of happening actually happen all the time. Hell, I saw an AL starting pitcher hit a three-run double off Max Scherzer three months ago. The GOP definitely isn't gonna gain seats, or lose even lose less than ten. But losing only 15-20 and keeping the majority by a narrow margin is definitely a possibility.

 
Wow, that's terrifying. We definitely need to get more women and minorities into politics. Hopefully that will help pull more women and minority voters into the voting process. The education levels...that's sobering. 
I wonder why they didn't show us the results for non-educated minorities?  Well, I'm not really wondering, but you should be. 

 
I wonder why they didn't show us the results for non-educated minorities?  Well, I'm not really wondering, but you should be. 
I'm not because I suspect the reasons they didn't is that it would be pretty much identical to the map for all minorities. But I feel like maybe you have are itching to share your explanation, so let's hear it!

 
I'm not because I suspect the reasons they didn't is that it would be pretty much identical to the map for all minorities. But I feel like maybe you have are itching to share your explanation, so let's hear it!
That the left loves to push forth the non-educated whites stereotype, as if only educated people vote democratic.  Non educated people vote for both sides, but the focus is always on the non-educated white republican voter. This poll is another example. 

 
I'm not because I suspect the reasons they didn't is that it would be pretty much identical to the map for all minorities. But I feel like maybe you have are itching to share your explanation, so let's hear it!
That the left loves to push forth the non-educated whites stereotype, as if only educated people vote democratic.  Non educated people vote for both sides, but the focus is always on the non-educated white republican voter. This poll is another example. 
Actually it is probably because educated white verse uneducated white often break in different ways whereas education black and uneducated black do not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a simple fact that Donald's strongest demographic is white men without college degrees. He does significantly worse with different demographics, though white men with college degrees may be his second best. 

 
That the left loves to push forth the non-educated whites stereotype, as if only educated people vote democratic.  Non educated people vote for both sides, but the focus is always on the non-educated white republican voter. This poll is another example. 
Huh? You didn't answer your own question.  You asked "why they didn't show us the results for non-educated minorities?" I'm pretty sure the reason is that the results wouldn't be interesting because they'd look the same as the "only nonwhite people" results. Whining about "the left" doesn't answer your question.

Also it's not a poll.

 
That the left loves to push forth the non-educated whites stereotype, as if only educated people vote democratic.  Non educated people vote for both sides, but the focus is always on the non-educated white republican voter. This poll is another example. 
Huh? You didn't answer your own question.  You asked "why they didn't show us the results for non-educated minorities?" I'm pretty sure the reason is that the results wouldn't be interesting because they'd look the same as the "only nonwhite people" results. Whining about "the left" doesn't answer your question.
But at least he gets to whine...

 
I am starting to get cautiously optimistic about the Dems' chances to retake the House again, and maybe even get a draw in the Senate. 
What is making you optimistic about the Senate?  And by a "draw" do you mean that Republicans maintain the 51-49 advantage, or that the Senate would be split 50-50?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huh? You didn't answer your own question.  You asked "why they didn't show us the results for non-educated minorities?" I'm pretty sure the reason is that the results wouldn't be interesting because they'd look the same as the "only nonwhite people" results. Whining about "the left" doesn't answer your question.

Also it's not a poll.
Or, maybe it would show how many "non-educated" people vote left and take away the "dumb white" republican voter narrative. 

 
Huh? You didn't answer your own question.  You asked "why they didn't show us the results for non-educated minorities?" I'm pretty sure the reason is that the results wouldn't be interesting because they'd look the same as the "only nonwhite people" results. Whining about "the left" doesn't answer your question.

Also it's not a poll.
Or, maybe it would show how many "non-educated" people vote left and take away the "dumb white" republican voter narrative. 
2016 exit polls (Nov. 23, 2016)

You can see that data here, no narrative, just data for the last presidential election.

non-whites, educated and non-educated, were about the same in vote percentages for each candidate. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump (Nov 22, 2016)

When this article specifies a degree type it talks about bachelor’s degrees, doesn't mention associated degree once.
Great. Thanks. But it still doesn't show how many non-educated minorities vote left. How come? If they are going to segment voters on one side, they should do it for the other. And my non-educated electrician friend has a very nice home and pays a lot of taxes. And he's a republican. I know lots of people like that. Inferring they are dumb is devisive and unnecessary 

 
Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump (Nov 22, 2016)

When this article specifies a degree type it talks about bachelor’s degrees, doesn't mention associated degree once.
Great. Thanks. But it still doesn't show how many non-educated minorities vote left. How come? If they are going to segment voters on one side, they should do it for the other. And my non-educated electrician friend has a very nice home and pays a lot of taxes. And he's a republican. I know lots of people like that. Inferring they are dumb is devisive and unnecessary 
Exit polls from 2016 election

non-whites, educated and non-educated, were about the same in vote percentages for each candidate. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Or, maybe it would show how many "non-educated" people vote left and take away the "dumb white" republican voter narrative. 
The uneducated white voter narrative really only took off in the 2016 Presidential election.  I'm sure there are examples of it being used to describe Republican voters before then, but really it seems like a Trump thing, not a longstanding Republican thing. 

 
Great. Thanks. But it still doesn't show how many non-educated minorities vote left. How come? If they are going to segment voters on one side, they should do it for the other. And my non-educated electrician friend has a very nice home and pays a lot of taxes. And he's a republican. I know lots of people like that. Inferring they are dumb is devisive and unnecessary 
Why are you assuming that uneducated is a euphemism for dumb?  Maybe educated is a euphemism for brainwashed.

 
What is making you optimistic about the Senate?  And by a "draw" do you mean that Republicans maintain the 51-49 advantage, or that the Senate would be split 50-50?
By draw I meant keep things where the currently are, at 51-49.  Sorry, should have been clearer.

I'm somewhat encouraged by the recent polling in Arizona and Florida along with scuttlebutt about the Hispanic voter turnout possibly activating late in the game.  If the Dems win the Senate races in Arizona, Nevada and Florida they can afford to lose two incumbent races and still keep things at 51-49. Nevada is the iffiest of those three but still looks pretty close to a coin flip.

And all that assumes the GOP wins in Tennessee and Texas. I think they will, but it's nice that the possibility is at least out there. The 538 model has Blackburn and Cruz only slightly more likely to win than Donnelly and Nelson. If they lose one of those ...

 
Just imagine a fox assessment of the election where they said non educated minorities overwhelmingly voted democrat? People would flip out.  You should be asking why the uneducated white people are  voting republican instead of just calling them dumb. Which is exactly what's going on here. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one inferred that "non-educated" equals "dumb". You're making yourself look pretty non-educated here.
And you're being dishonest. The dumb white voter narrative has existed for quite a while now, and anyone who has been paying attention knows that. James Carville was saying it 30 years ago. 

 
Just imagine a fox assessment of the election where they said non educated minorities overwhelmingly voted democrat? People would flip out.  
If there were numbers that showed a substantially larger percentage of non educated minorities voted democrat compared to educated minorities, pretty sure people would be like - oh cool, interesting data

 
Maybe some of you can then tell us why uneducated whites vote republican? It would be nice to hear that. 
Obviously the answer is complicated, but this has been the most documented post-election story in political media.  It's weird that you haven't read any of the hundreds and hundreds of stories on the subject published in the last two years.

 
No one inferred that "non-educated" equals "dumb". You're making yourself look pretty non-educated here.
And you're being dishonest. The dumb white voter narrative has existed for quite a while now, and anyone who has been paying attention knows that. James Carville was saying it 30 years ago. 
I would agree that is the narrative that is being portrayed.  But it isn't just a left wing media reporting on education and how voters cast ballots in that group...

Fox News general election exit poll summary (Nov. 9, 2016)

 
Maybe some of you can then tell us why uneducated whites vote republican? It would be nice to hear that. 
I suspect it's because more of them live in rural areas that are less reliant on government services.
A Bipartisan Nation of Beneficiaries (Dec. 18, 2012)  

This is dated but the narrative has been what you are suggesting for a long time and seems inaccurate.  

The survey finds that the ranks of beneficiaries are as diverse as the nation as a whole but that there are some notable group differences. For example, women are more likely than men to have received an entitlement benefit (61% vs. 49%). Blacks (64%) are more likely than whites (56%) or Hispanics (50%) to have gotten federal help from these programs, and rural residents (62%) are more likely than urban (54%) or suburban (53%) dwellers to have gotten help.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also there are so many  more whites than minorities in this country that when a group, like uneducated whites, vote as a bloc it has a huge impact.  Uneducated blacks and latinos for example just don't have the same political juice.

Also, it's interesting how how educated vs non-educated people of the same race vote when they vote so differently.  Also, when you see the interviews before Trump's rallies, and the chanting at the rallies themselves, it clears things up pretty well. 

 
Democrats to the Midwest: Welcome Home.

During the Obama years, Republicans won total control of the state government1 in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Then, on Election Day in 2016, Hillary Clinton narrowly lost in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — states Democrats had won at the presidential level for more than two decades. She was easily defeated in Iowa and Ohio, which had tended to be close.2 Clinton barely won in Minnesota, another state where Democrats are usually strong. Post-election, there was a lot of doom and gloom about the Democratic Party’s prospects in the Midwest, with both nonpartisan analysts and even some party strategists suggesting the party needed a dramatic overhaul or risk losing in this region, which will be packed with white, working-class voters, for the foreseeable future.

Never mind all that now. Democrats are looking strong in the Midwest — it is by some measures the region where they are likely to make their biggest gains this November

...

It’s not just the House, either. Democratic incumbents are clear favorites to win their Senate races in Michigan, Minnesota (two races there, actually), Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They are modest favorites to hold on to seats in Indiana and Missouri — which were very red in 2016. Democrats are favored to win gubernatorial races in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. The gubernatorial contests in Ohio and Wisconsin are toss-ups, and Democrats even have a chance in two very conservative states, Kansas and South Dakota. A win by Tony Evers in Wisconsin would be particularly significant for Democrats, who have failed in three different attempts to defeat Gov. Scott Walker.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top