GoBirds
Footballguy
It’s unfortunately common and a very bad look from those upset they didn’t get their way. Not sure how acting like that appeals to anyone.
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 (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Mile High
Footballguy
Far from making up my mind on who I support, but anyone thinking Bernie has no shot are crazy.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
In fairness to scooby, he was smarter and better equipped to argue with us long before Trump was elected. It only now seems like liberal arrogance when in reality it’s just well earned arrogance.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
The dude thought Tottenham was going to win something this year - OF COURSE he’s crazy.
Patrick Bateman
Footballguy
He struggles with African American voters. That's a hurdle. Many candidates have adopted his platform, so he's no longer unique. I'm not counting him out by any means, but he definitely has his work cut out for him.
TripItUp
Footballguy
mcintyre1
Footballguy
True, but a lot of the struggles with African Americans was in the older age groups, which are less Internet savvy than the younger generations. He won the young African American vote. I saw something from Tyndall Report back in the day that, in 2015, the broadcast TV networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) gave 327 minutes of coverage to Trump, 121 mins to Clinton, and 20 mins to Sanders (with 10 of those minutes coming in Dec 15). The first primaries were only a month or two after that. Also, remember that during 2015, Sanders was drawing larger rally crowds than both Trump and Clinton. I think when he went through one West Coast trip later in the year, he had about 77,000 rally attendees in something like 2-3 stops.
I also worry about the lack of totally unique messaging, but I could also see that as a potential benefit. As one of my friends put it on social media: "why settle for imitation when you can have the original?"
Dedfin
Footballguy
Dedfin
Footballguy
Gave money in 16. Put his emails on ignore, but I might resubscribe if the train gets going.
skol asylum
Footballguy
I'm fine with a Klobuchar/Sanders administration. His ideas shepherded incrementally with her pragmatism. Works for me.
timschochet
Footballguy
That’s not Bernie’s problem. I don’t think there’s enough of us anymore to decide anything.
Bernie’s problem is that he’s not popular enough with blacks, particularly black women.
-fish-
Footballguy
Harris and Warren have co-sponsored at least three of the bills he has introduced in the Senate. Many of their points are things Sanders ran on in 2016.
Link to brief blurb on all candidates
This is a BBC link that has a way to filter the Dem contenders by some broad criteria (Woman, Minority, Young Gun, Progressive, Centrist, Wild Card) and then a brief summary of each candidate.
Good, if you want a quick overview.
This is a BBC link that has a way to filter the Dem contenders by some broad criteria (Woman, Minority, Young Gun, Progressive, Centrist, Wild Card) and then a brief summary of each candidate.
Good, if you want a quick overview.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
Bernie's polling about as well as anyone with minorities...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/12/18221752/2020-democrats-biden-bernie-sanders-beto-poll
Based on the polling in the article, Bernie has the 2nd highest combined polling percentage among Blacks and Hispanics of the top 5. And he's the only one polling at 20% or above with both...
Harris - 45%
Sanders - 43%
O'Rourke - 40%
Biden - 36%
Warren - 29%
Last edited by a moderator:
WaPo - Ranking the Dem contenders
Other than Harris as the favorite, and Bernie as a top contender, not sure I agree with much else about the list.
- Kamala Harris
- Bernie Sanders
- Elizabeth Warren
- Cory Booker
- Joe Biden
- Beto O'Rourke
- Amy Klobuchar
- Sherrod Brown
- Kirstin Gillibrand
- Michael Bloomberg
- Hillary Clinton
- Julian Castro
- Jay Inslee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Eric Holder
Other than Harris as the favorite, and Bernie as a top contender, not sure I agree with much else about the list.
Rolling Stone - Ranking the Dem contenders
- Harris
- Sanders
- Brown
- Biden
- O'Rourke
- Warren
- Booker
- Gillibrand
- Klobuchar
- Castro
- Hickenlooper
- Buttigieg
- Inslee
- Bullock
- Holder
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Gillibrand is way too high. Then again, she is trying to replicate Trump's strategy of building a small, but loyal, base. Maybe she's onto something.
New Hampshire polling
Obviously way too early to take a poll like this too seriously, but its a bad sign for both Warren and Gillibrand to poll this poorly in a near-by state. Sanders should be expected to do well here, Harris' number is respectable, same for Klobuchar.
- Bernie Sanders - 27%
- Joe Biden - 25%
- Kamala Harris - 12%
- Elizabeth Warren - 9%
- Amy Klobuchar - 8%
- Beto O'Rourke - 5%
- Cory Booker - 5%
- Michael Bloomberg - 2%
- Kirsten Gillibrand, Pete Buttigieg, John Delaney, Sherrod Brown - 1%
- Tulsi Gabbard, Julian Castro - 0%
- Other - 5%
Obviously way too early to take a poll like this too seriously, but its a bad sign for both Warren and Gillibrand to poll this poorly in a near-by state. Sanders should be expected to do well here, Harris' number is respectable, same for Klobuchar.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
The lesson continues to be that a large amount of people don’t understand polling and statistics.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
TripItUp
Footballguy
Including those pundits and "experts" on liberal stations like CNN and MSNBC.
Doubtful the morons learn from their mistake, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt...should be fun.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
More the people who roll out the “are those the same polls that had Hillary winning...”
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Yes and no....hard to say if the methodology is the same, sample size, margin of error...but if they were that is pretty irrelevant to the point.
Do you need a lesson in polling, statistics, and margin or error? I don’t mean to be snarky...but it seems many need such a lesson when they ask that question or act as if polling was all that bad.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Sure, give me a lesson in polling and then tell me why they were so far off in 2016, but please do both. It may clear things up.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3
Bloomberg 11/4 - 11/6 799 LV 3.5 44 41 4 2 Clinton +3
IBD/TIPP Tracking 11/4 - 11/7 1026 LV 3.1 43 45 8 2 Trump +2
Economist/YouGov 11/4 - 11/7 3677 LV -- 45 41 5 2 Clinton +4
ABC/Wash Post Tracking 11/3 - 11/6 2220 LV 2.5 47 43 4 1 Clinton +4
FOX News 11/3 - 11/6 1295 LV 2.5 48 44 3 2 Clinton +4
Monmouth 11/3 - 11/6 748 LV 3.6 50 44 4 1 Clinton +6
Gravis 11/3 - 11/6 16639 RV 1.0 47 43 3 2 Clinton +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/3 - 11/5 1282 LV 2.7 44 40 6 2 Clinton +4
Reuters/Ipsos 11/2 - 11/6 2196 LV 2.3 42 39 6 3 Clinton +3
Rasmussen Reports 11/2 - 11/6 1500 LV 2.5 45 43 4 2 Clinton +2
CBS News 11/2 - 11/6 1426 LV 3.0 45 41 5 2 Clinton +4
These were the last national polls prior to the 2016 election - with the final RealClear Politics average being Clinton +3.3.
The final election result was Clinton +2.1
I'm not sure that difference is statistically significant. The national polls seemed to be remarkably accurate.
Bloomberg 11/4 - 11/6 799 LV 3.5 44 41 4 2 Clinton +3
IBD/TIPP Tracking 11/4 - 11/7 1026 LV 3.1 43 45 8 2 Trump +2
Economist/YouGov 11/4 - 11/7 3677 LV -- 45 41 5 2 Clinton +4
ABC/Wash Post Tracking 11/3 - 11/6 2220 LV 2.5 47 43 4 1 Clinton +4
FOX News 11/3 - 11/6 1295 LV 2.5 48 44 3 2 Clinton +4
Monmouth 11/3 - 11/6 748 LV 3.6 50 44 4 1 Clinton +6
Gravis 11/3 - 11/6 16639 RV 1.0 47 43 3 2 Clinton +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/3 - 11/5 1282 LV 2.7 44 40 6 2 Clinton +4
Reuters/Ipsos 11/2 - 11/6 2196 LV 2.3 42 39 6 3 Clinton +3
Rasmussen Reports 11/2 - 11/6 1500 LV 2.5 45 43 4 2 Clinton +2
CBS News 11/2 - 11/6 1426 LV 3.0 45 41 5 2 Clinton +4
These were the last national polls prior to the 2016 election - with the final RealClear Politics average being Clinton +3.3.
The final election result was Clinton +2.1
I'm not sure that difference is statistically significant. The national polls seemed to be remarkably accurate.
sho nuff
Footballguy
No. Because of you still think was so far off in 2016, despite this topic coming up and people explaining that many times over the past 2+ years...you may never understand it.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Didn’t those polls have Hillary winning and it wasn’t supposed to be close? Just as CNN and MSNBC experts all had Hillary winning in a landslide?
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
psst - those numbers (one actually did have Trump winning) reflect the national vote.
Clinton did, in fact, win the national vote - by about the same amount that those polls suggested she would win by.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Do you understand what the popular vote was bs what the polling said (the polling wasn’t based on electoral votes) and was quite accurate wishing the margin of error?
Thwy didn’t have her as a landslide as you keep claiming and SF just showed you the numbers.
But if you want to keep digging that hole, go ahead.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I distinctly remember all those liberal pundits asking why the polls had it so wrong.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
No. Thats not what those numbers indicate.
And, that is part of the problem, and general misunderstanding of polls in general, and extrapolating information from polls that the data does not support.
Those polls suggested that Clinton would win the national vote by 3.3%. She won the national vote by 2.1%. From a statistical polling standpoint - that is pretty darn accurate.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Similar threads
