Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I was not aware those polls existed - can you shoot me a link?

I wasn’t aware the polls only referred to pop vote. If wrong I stand corrected on that.  Here is an interesting story.   http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnnyU said:

Well, consider this your first lesson in national polling then...

 

Its also why its not a great idea to pay attention to national polls, when you are looking at a state-result oriented outcome.  (And, for good measure, state polls tend to be more volatile than national polls due to fewer samples.  Its easier to get 1000+ responses to a national poll - extremely difficult to do that at the state level.  There are a number of good polling sources for state data, but they are fewer and less reliable than national polls).

 

From the article you posted:

"Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%"

The polls weren't wrong - the people were incorrectly interpreting the results.  There is nothing in a national poll to allow anyone to dissect the results from an Electoral College perspective.

So, Clinton performed how the Polls said she would - but she did not perform well in the states she needed to - and that was not data that was a part of those polls. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

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?

That where your thinking stops? 

 

Right there, all the info and data and such is set aside once you reach that moment?   😕

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roadkill1292 said:

This is why we say you don't understand things.

I think when normal people think of election polls they think of them in terms of who will win the election, not a subset of the election like popular vote.

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

I think when normal people think of election polls they think of them in terms of who will win the election, not a subset of the election like popular vote.

sure...but as has been pointed out, presidential election polls are a different beast because of the EC....always have been always will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, stlrams said:

So we have news coverage of Ken Starr bringing garbage of all things but Robert mueller coverage is nonexistent.  Why?  Fundamental fairness is missing here..  

You want to see more grandstanding out of Mueller?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't get on New Jersey presidential ballot without disclosing 5 years of tax returns.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.    I imagine a lot of other states may follow.

Edit:  It hasn't passed yet, but Democrats control the state assembly and governor's mansion as well.

Edited by -fish-
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, -fish- said:

Can't get on New Jersey presidential ballot without disclosing 5 years of tax returns.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.    I imagine a lot of other states may follow.

Edit:  It hasn't passed yet, but Democrats control the state assembly and governor's mansion as well.

I don’t see how that would be constitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

What part of the constitution do you think it violates?

I'm not good at this, so please be nice,

Article II, Section 1.5

Quote

5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Is it established that states can impose further restrictions?  Like, southpaws need not apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jonessed said:

14th and possibly the 1st.  

The constitution determines the qualifications required to run for President.  The states don’t get to create their own.

Every state gets to determine requirements for appearing on the ballot, such as collecting a certain number of signatures.  Do you think that's unconstitutional too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Every state gets to determine requirements for appearing on the ballot, such as collecting a certain number of signatures.  Do you think that's unconstitutional too?

Only for those things spelled out in the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jonessed said:

Only for those things spelled out in the Constitution.

I don't understand your answer.  If Howard Shultz wants to appear on the ballot in California for the general election, he needs to get something like 200,000 signatures.  Do you think that requirement is constitutional?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, -fish- said:

Can't get on New Jersey presidential ballot without disclosing 5 years of tax returns.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.    I imagine a lot of other states may follow.

Edit:  It hasn't passed yet, but Democrats control the state assembly and governor's mansion as well.

Are you allowed to do "day of write ins" in NJ?  If so, I don't see a major issue.  If not, I don't see how this is different than not being allowed to write in whomever you want or the requirements like "must get XXXX signatures to be on the ballot" etc.  Though I think it all unconstitutional (I should be able to vote for whomever I choose) clearly there is some precedent in place that allows states to have other laws like this one.  I'd like a lawyer explanation for those sorts of "requirements"...TIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Harris is making far too many and unnecessary promises. She's making a fool of herself saying 'Yes' to every question asked of her to gauge her support. At some point you need some substance. Although Trump got elected so what do I know.

This is Bernie's too lose.  How people don't see it stuns me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article about Maryland's proposed bill to require tax returns to get on its ballot last year:

Quote

The constitutionality of a bill advancing through the Maryland legislature

By MATT FORD

March 7, 2018

 

Donald Trump owes his presidency to the Electoral College more than any other factor, even Russian interference. This constitutional quirk also gives a hint of irony to an unusual bill passed earlier this week by Maryland’s Democratic-controlled State Senate.

The senators voted 28-17 on Monday, largely along party lines, to require presidential candidates to file copies of their tax returns with the state board of elections two months ahead of Election Day, so the filings can be made public. Failure to comply would result in the candidate’s removal from the state ballot that November.

The bill’s target is clear: Trump, who broke a forty-year precedent by refusing to release his tax returns during his campaign. Now that he’s in the White House, the most reliable accounting of his wealth and debts is something of a state secret: the Internal Revenue Service keeps his returns (and those of other presidents) in a locked and guarded room that even the agency’s commissioner can’t access alone. States like Maryland are now working to fill that transparency void—and may be on solid constitutional footing to do so.

Rick Hasen, a U.C. Irvine law professor who specializes in elections, explored the possibility in a March 2017 article for Politico. At the time, he noted that almost half of the state legislatures were considering some kind of measure that would compel future presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns. The optimal path for this reform is through each state’s power to determine how it selects its presidential electors.

Today, the states invariably leave the choice to the voters. But the earliest American presidential elections saw a variety of methods ranging from popular vote to selection by state legislators. There’s no formal barrier that prevents a return to the old ways, either. “In other words, if the California or Texas state legislature wanted to directly choose the state’s presidential electors in 2020, the state could do so,” Hasen noted.

Since the states can tinker with the method of choosing electors, he explained, the argument follows that they could impose other barriers like the mandatory release of tax returns:

The logic then goes like this: If a state legislature can take back from the voters the right to vote at all for president, it may be able to use ballot-access laws to limit the candidate choices presented to voters. And doing so would not impinge on the Qualifications Clause in Article II because Congress ultimately counts the Electoral College votes and can police that Clause. If a state legislature, for example, chose electors supporting a candidate under the age of 35, the U.S. House of Representatives, which counts the Electoral College votes, could disregard those votes after deeming the underage candidate unqualified.

Hasen acknowledges that the tax-return maneuver is more of a “gambit” than a surefire strategy. “The Supreme Court might, if faced with the issue, hold that state legislators cannot require tax returns of presidential candidates even given state legislatures’ much greater power over presidential elections,” he wrote. He also warned that Republican legislators would almost certainly retaliate in state legislatures that they controlled.

Existing legal precedents regarding states’ power (or lack thereof) to restrict federal candidates pertain mainly to congressional candidates rather than presidential aspirants. The most famous episode involved Adam Clayton Powell Jr., the legendary New York City congressman who represented Harlem during the civil rights era. House members who grew weary of scandalous reports turned on him after his 1966 re-election and voted to exclude him from the legislative body. After three years of legal battles, the Supreme Court sided with the congressman in Powell v. McCormack.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the court’s majority that “in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution.” Since Powell met those qualifications, “the House was without power to exclude him from its membership,” he concluded.

Another qualifications issue surfaced in 1992 when Arkansas voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution to impose term limits throughout the state government. It also barred candidates seeking a fourth term in the U.S. House of Representatives or a third term in the U.S. Senate from having their names printed on election ballots for those offices.

That provision drew a legal challenge from a group of Arkansas voters, who argued that it went beyond what the Constitution authorized. The Supreme Court agreed, striking down the amendment’s restrictions on federal officeholders. Once again, the justices took an exclusive view of the Constitution’s qualifications.

“Allowing individual states to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the Framers’ vision of a uniform national legislature representing the people of the United States,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority in U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton. “If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.”

It’s possible the Supreme Court could rely on these precedents to strike down laws like the one working its way through the Maryland legislature. But the justices would have plenty of reasons to distinguish those rulings from today’s situation. While the Constitution might command uniformity in the national legislature, experience from the founding era shows that states enjoy wide latitude when choosing their electors for the chief executive. Public disclosure of one’s tax returns is also a much lower barrier for candidates to overcome than term limits or expulsion.

Other legal experts are also confident in the soundness of the tax-return maneuver. Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor and frequent critic of the Trump administration, described Maryland’s bill as a “neutral, even-handed way” to allow voters to assess the “financial and ethical history” of would-be candidates. He also viewed its constitutional footing as more secure.

“It’s not an interference with any federal prerogative, nor does it filter out in advance any set of presidential candidates who meet the Constitution’s age, residence, and other qualifications,” Tribe said.

Before it faces a legal challenge, though, the bill has to become law. It now heads to the state House of Delegates, which is also controlled by Democrats, but would then need the signature of Governor Larry Hogan—a Republican who has yet to weigh in on the bill. If he were to veto the bill, Democrats could override it with a three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate. In the latter chamber, that means 29 votes: one shy of the number of senators who backed the bill this week.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IC FBGCav said:

This is Bernie's too lose.  How people don't see it stuns me.

I think so too. I was the first to mention it here when he raised $6 million in his first 24 hours. I said that was a significant indicator and was quickly shot down. Where were you with all this energy then?  :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Harris is making far too many and unnecessary promises. She's making a fool of herself saying 'Yes' to every question asked of her to gauge her support. At some point you need some substance. Although Trump got elected so what do I know.

I haven't watched a ton of her talks, but I have seen a few and it did strike me as odd that she seemed to be going the same path as Hillary by promising everything to everyone.  If I could pick up on it in the limited time I've watched, I have to think she's laying it on pretty thick.  That's not going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not read too much into what the candidates are doing right now - 99% of America is not paying attention.

 

I saw a good quote yesterday from an Iowa voter, and the gist was "Iowa does not choose who will be the nominee, Iowa chooses who will not be the nominee."  And, I think that applies to all the early primaries - and even more so now.

You can't win a nomination early - but you can lose one.

 

At this stage, players are still jockeying for position - nobody has really started running yet.  There are a few candidates, who I think are already out of the race (even if they don't know it).  But, I don't think anyone is "winning" right now.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

I would not read too much into what the candidates are doing right now - 99% of America is not paying attention.

Isn't that the old cliche though.  "If you want to really know what a person is about, pay attention to what they are doing when the spotlight is shining elsewhere" or some such?  I don't put a ton of stock in what's going on right now, but it was something I saw that felt very familiar when I saw it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, IC FBGCav said:

This is Bernie's too lose.  How people don't see it stuns me.

A lot of people, including a lot of Dem primary voters, just don't like Bernie. Here's a poll where he only has a +2 overall favorability and only 74% among Dems, with Biden at +20 and 84%.  Here's another that gives him a 28% unfavorable among Dems, higher than anyone else and almost twice as high as anyone other than Bloomberg.  Some people probably don't like him because his online supporters are off-putting, to say the least. Some probably don't like him because the party just had great success in 2018 setting aside its differences and uniting to defeat a common enemy and they see Sanders, who isn't a Democrat, as the antithesis of that. Some probably still think he did too much damage to Clinton during the primary race and not enough to support her afterwards. Some are genuine centrists who have legitimate disagreements with his policies.

You can obviously take issue with their reasoning if you want. I think most of it is silly (the Clinton stuff is particularly dumb), and even the stuff that's true is unimportant. But even if you're 100% correct and their perspective is 100% wrong, that doesn't mean their votes count for less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

A lot of people, including a lot of Dem primary voters, just don't like Bernie. Here's a poll where he only has a +2 overall favorability and only 74% among Dems, with Biden at +20 and 84%.  Here's another that gives him a 28% unfavorable among Dems, higher than anyone else and almost twice as high as anyone other than Bloomberg.  Some people probably don't like him because his online supporters are off-putting, to say the least. Some probably don't like him because the party just had great success in 2018 setting aside its differences and uniting to defeat a common enemy and they see Sanders, who isn't a Democrat, as the antithesis of that. Some probably still think he did too much damage to Clinton during the primary race and not enough to support her afterwards. Some are genuine centrists who have legitimate disagreements with his policies.

You can obviously take issue with their reasoning if you want. I think most of it is silly (the Clinton stuff is particularly dumb), and even the stuff that's true is unimportant. But even if you're 100% correct and their perspective is 100% wrong, that doesn't mean their votes count for less.

I wonder if we can think of any examples of a candidate in a crowded field getting the nomination due to a very loyal fan base despite the fact that he wasn't well-liked by many people in the party.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I wonder if we can think of any examples of a candidate in a crowded field getting the nomination due to a very loyal fan base despite the fact that he wasn't well-liked by many people in the party.

Bernie certainly has a decent chance, I wouldn't argue against that at all.  I was only disputing the idea that "this is Bernie's to lose" and that it's "stunning" that people don't see that. He can definitely win, but he probably needs Warren to exit early and for a couple other things to go in his favor.

Edited by TobiasFunke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Bernie certainly has a decent chance, I wouldn't argue against that at all.  I was only disputing the idea that "this is Bernie's to lose" and that it's "stunning" that people don't see that. He can definitely win, but he probably needs Warren to exit early and for a couple other things to go in his favor.

That's his shtick though....easiest to scroll past it and focus on the issues as you have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Bernie certainly has a decent chance, I wouldn't argue against that at all.  I was only disputing the idea that "this is Bernie's to lose" and that it's "stunning" that people don't see that. He can definitely win, but he probably needs Warren to exit early and for a couple other things to go in his favor.

I don't think Bernie's success/failure relies on Warren.

He is pretty clearly head and shoulders above her right now - and she is doing better than I thought....

 

 

I see this as a 4-way race at the moment:

  1. Harris
  2. Sanders
  3. Klobuchar
  4. Mystery

 

I don't know who the 4th candidate is yet - could be Booker if he steps up, or possibly Biden or O'Rourke if they enter the race at a later date.  

 

Most of the candidates are either gaining experience or wasting money.  I think Warren lost her chance when Bernie got in and crushed the fundraising/donor lists.  One of the things I thought might hurt Bernie's chances was if other candidates figured out the small donor game that Bernie played in 2016.  It does not look like any of them figured it out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

One of the things I thought might hurt Bernie's chances was if other candidates figured out the small donor game that Bernie played in 2016.  It does not look like any of them figured it out.

He's got a huge head start since he's maintained his infrastructure and contact list from 2016. They could catch up. One thing that should be helpful for Sanders is just the experience he got by running in 2016. He started out as a protest candidate and unexpectedly became a semi-legitimate challenger. He didn't have a real campaign going until relatively late in the game. Now he's starting early. Could make the difference against a relatively inexperienced Presidential candidate field.

Another open question whose answer will have a big impact is where do the big money liberal donors go? They're not going to find a home with Sanders, and it seems like a couple more candidates are making themselves sound like populists. Who is going to buckle and cozy up to the corporate Democrats? All that money and power isn't going to just sit on the sidelines through the whole election cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

My guess is Harris and/or Klobuchar.

With the potential for that money to get Biden interested.

Those would be my guesses as well. I think Harris is steering into HRC adjacent territory. It'll be interesting to see if she can pull of that kind of balancing act as a rookie Pres candidate. I think she's stumbling on it a little bit right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

He's got a huge head start since he's maintained his infrastructure and contact list from 2016. They could catch up. One thing that should be helpful for Sanders is just the experience he got by running in 2016. He started out as a protest candidate and unexpectedly became a semi-legitimate challenger. He didn't have a real campaign going until relatively late in the game. Now he's starting early. Could make the difference against a relatively inexperienced Presidential candidate field.

Another open question whose answer will have a big impact is where do the big money liberal donors go? They're not going to find a home with Sanders, and it seems like a couple more candidates are making themselves sound like populists. Who is going to buckle and cozy up to the corporate Democrats? All that money and power isn't going to just sit on the sidelines through the whole election cycle.

I honestly thought that Sanders would be a non-factor this time around because of the plethora of options available.  Looks like I was wrong about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IvanKaramazov said:

I honestly thought that Sanders would be a non-factor this time around because of the plethora of options available.  Looks like I was wrong about that.

I had the same thoughts.

I grossly underestimated the enthusiasm for Bernie - not only from his old crowd, but they are talking about a large number of new donors to his campaign already this cycle.

 

I think one factor I really discounted was his messaging - I thought people would tire of the same messaging, but instead, Bernie's consistency on these issues over the last 2, 5, 10, 20 years helps build his authenticity to levels the other candidates can only dream about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I honestly thought that Sanders would be a non-factor this time around because of the plethora of options available.  Looks like I was wrong about that.

He's committed to addressing the problems he sees and he's genuine about it. Those two things have pull when contrasted with most other career politicians. In his populist messaging he's a lot like Trump. In his unapologetic honesty he's the opposite of Trump. It's an appealing mixture, even when some of his policy ideas are obviously half baked.

Harris is from the CA Dem school of slick politicians (like Newsome whose protege she sort of was) - I'm not sure she truly believes everything she says even when I agree with many of the things she says. She very much has a feel of calculation, telling people what they want to hear to her. Big contrast between her and Sanders style wise.

Edited by Gr00vus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

He's committed to addressing the problems he sees and he's genuine about it. Those two things have pull when contrasted with most other career politicians. In his populist messaging he's a lot like Trump. In his unapologetic honesty he's the opposite of Trump. It's an appealing mixture, even when some of his policy ideas are obviously half baked.

Harris is from the CA Dem school of slick politicians (like Newsome whose protege she sort of was) - I'm not sure she truly believes everything she says even when I agree with many of the things she says. She very much has a feel of calculation, telling people what they want to hear to her. Big contrast between her and Sanders style wise.

At a minimum I think we can agree you exaggerated the comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gr00vus said:

He's committed to addressing the problems he sees and he's genuine about it. Those two things have pull when contrasted with most other career politicians. In his populist messaging he's a lot like Trump. In his unapologetic honesty he's the opposite of Trump. It's an appealing mixture, even when some of his policy ideas are obviously half baked.

Harris is from the CA Dem school of slick politicians (like Newsome whose protege she sort of was) - I'm not sure she truly believes everything she says even when I agree with many of the things she says. She very much has a feel of calculation, telling people what they want to hear to her. Big contrast between her and Sanders style wise.

 

3 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

At a minimum I think we can agree you exaggerated the comments.

I'm not sure how your post is related to mine. Did you mean to quote a different post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

The clueless millennials are a powerful force.

Who are more clueless:

  • Millennials
  • People who think millennials are clueless

 

I think its a mistake to assume millennials are clueless simply because they look at the world differently than you think they should.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Who are more clueless:

  • Millennials
  • People who think millennials are clueless

 

I think its a mistake to assume millennials are clueless simply because they look at the world differently than you think they should.

And I do not...hence the joy of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lotta buzz on the internets today about Texas being in play in 2020 thanks to two recent polls:  one showing Trump underwater there (47/50) even with the GOP governor at +30, Cornyn at +17 and Cruz at +11, and another showing him at 41/53 in Texas, which is actually worse than his standing in Wisconsin Michigan and Pennsylvania in the same poll.

Dems would be smart to let the GOP hang themselves on this border wall. String out the fight as long as possible, keep it in the headlines.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Lotta buzz on the internets today about Texas being in play in 2020 thanks to two recent polls:  one showing Trump underwater there (47/50) even with the GOP governor at +30, Cornyn at +17 and Cruz at +11, and another showing him at 41/53 in Texas, which is actually worse than his standing in Wisconsin Michigan and Pennsylvania in the same poll.

Dems would be smart to let the GOP hang themselves on this border wall. String out the fight as long as possible, keep it in the headlines.

 

Not going to happen. Too soon still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Lotta buzz on the internets today about Texas being in play in 2020 thanks to two recent polls:  one showing Trump underwater there (47/50) even with the GOP governor at +30, Cornyn at +17 and Cruz at +11, and another showing him at 41/53 in Texas, which is actually worse than his standing in Wisconsin Michigan and Pennsylvania in the same poll.

Dems would be smart to let the GOP hang themselves on this border wall. String out the fight as long as possible, keep it in the headlines.

 

I think 2018 showed that white collar Republicans are less than impressed with Trumpism (several of the major upsets were in Texas -- Pete Sessions comes to mind). That's the group I know and associate with rather than the rural GOP so largely anecdotal on my part, but this confirms my take that Trump is far from popular. 

I don't know if Texas will really be in play come tipoff but in a wipe out, it would likely go blue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...