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.

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place (8 Viewers)

CBS Snapshot of early primary states.

CBS News first asked which candidates voters are considering supporting — and told them they could pick as many or as few as they liked. (As with many decisions people make, early in the process they'll narrow their options before settling on one.) 

Biden gets the most consideration, from a majority 55% of Democrats. Warren (49%), Harris (45%) and Bernie Sanders (43%) are trailing closely in that regard. 

Pete Buttigieg is being considered by just under a third (32%) across the earliest states. And in keeping with their view that the field is too large, on average the number of candidates voters are considering is actually relatively small — just under four.

Biden is the most effective at translating consideration into a first-choice vote. He leads across the early states in vote preference with 31% of Democratic primary voters, compared to Warren's 17%, Sanders' 16%, and Harris' 10%. Biden converts most of those considering him into picking him as their first choice when pressed, but fewer of those considering Warren or Sanders — roughly a third – pick those candidates as their first choice.
Click to expand...
Joe Biden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%
Elizabeth Warren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%
Bernie Sanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
Kamala Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%
Pete Buttigieg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
Beto O’Rourke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Cory Booker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Amy Klobuchar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%
Andrew Yang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Julian Castro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%
Kirsten Gillibrand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

 
timschochet said:
I hate to be blunt about this but I strongly suspect its 100% white. 
Click to expand...
Peteyjudge is a verrrry white guy and that's all some folk need to know to assume he won't care about them. I am not from an oppressed or emerging class, but i had given up on the process as much as any Nazi or wore-out person of color. I watch a late nite show and see a guy who cares about me, who cares about everybody, wants everybody to care about everybody and everybody to get the care they need and makes me believe he can have an effect on that. I pay attention, start shouting him up, here & elsewhere, and now i'll be working for him for the first time i done politics in 35 years.

Folks called him out for not having policies, he didnt right off go "well, here - thisthis&this, i'm your policy #####" He said "i want you to know my values before i tell you my plans". And he took #### and folks backed off him when they say momentum is everything but, months later, just before he has to debate competitors on poicy, vvvvroomp, out comes policy that's knockin the naysayers out.

To sum it up, if you don't like da Bootyjudge, you aint paid attention. I get it if you havent, maybe even when you wont, but i know he'll be our next President because i know what will happen when you do. nufced

 
Bucky86 said:
More internal polling from the Trump campaign:

Trump v Biden:

Trump down by 7 in Iowa

Trump down by 8 in North Carolina

Trump down by 17 in Virginia

Trump down by 1 in Ohio

Trump down by 6 in Georgia

Trump down by 14 in Minnesota

Trump down by 15 in Maine
Click to expand...
2015 polls:

  • Iowa (August 7): Clinton +3 (Final result: Trump +9.5)
  • North Carolina (July 2): Clinton +3 (Final result: Trump +3.6)
  • Virginia (July 15): Clinton +10 (Final result: Clinton +5.4)
  • Ohio (August 7): Clinton +5 (Final result: Trump +8.1)
  • Georgia (October 15): Trump +9 (Final result: Trump +5.1)
  • Minnesota (July 30): Clinton +5 (Final result: Clinton +1.5)
  • Maine: no head-to-head polls in 2015 (but a multi-candidate poll in October showed a stronger preference to Sanders or Clinton) (Final result: Clinton +2.9)
The takeaway for me is that the leading candidate lost ground in every poll (by an average of 7.4 points). Also, Trump at -1 in Ohio is very good news for him. He won't lose Ohio or Georgia.

 
NYT interactive piece: 

18 Questions.
21 Democrats.
Here’s What They Said.
We tracked down the 2020 Democrats and asked them the same set of questions.

THE QUESTIONS
1. In an ideal world, would anyone own handguns?
2. Would your focus be improving the Affordable Care Act or replacing it with single payer?
3. Do you think it’s possible for the next president to stop climate change?
4. Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights?
5. Who is your hero, and why?
6. Would there be American troops in Afghanistan at the end of your first term?
7. How many hours of sleep do you get a night?
8. Do you think illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States?
9. Where would you go on your first international trip as president?
10. Describe the last time you were embarrassed. Why?
11. Do you think President Trump has committed crimes in office?
12. Do you support or oppose the death penalty?
13. Should tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google be broken up?
14. Are you open to expanding the size of the Supreme Court?
15. When did your family first arrive in the United States, and how?
16. What is your comfort food on the campaign trail?
17. What do you do to relax?
18. Does anyone deserve to have a billion dollars?

ABOUT THE PROJECT

The New York Times reached out to 22 Democratic presidential candidates to ask them the same set of questions on video. Twenty-one accepted the invitation.

Joseph R. Biden Jr. declined to participate despite repeated requests since late April.

Most of the candidates visited the studio in our New York City office; for a few who could not, we traveled to Iowa, Texas and Washington, D.C. The sessions took place between the beginning of March and early June. During the interviews, we asked candidates to answer each question briefly — with a simple yes or no, or another terse, direct reply — before explaining their views at greater length.

One candidate, Elizabeth Warren, who was the first to be interviewed, returned for a second session after we added a number of questions to our initial list. We did not ask John Hickenlooper when his family first arrived in the United States because we added that question after his interview.

In the case of one question — regarding President Trump’s legal issues — the candidates answered at different points during the completion of the investigation by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, so their answers reflected the facts available to them at the time.

 
Bucky86 said:
More internal polling from the Trump campaign:

Trump v Biden:

Trump down by 7 in Iowa

Trump down by 8 in North Carolina

Trump down by 17 in Virginia

Trump down by 1 in Ohio

Trump down by 6 in Georgia

Trump down by 14 in Minnesota

Trump down by 15 in Maine
Click to expand...
These two are huge. If you assume the Dems are gonna win back Michigan and Pennsylvania, which seems likely IMO, they need to find two more EC votes. I'm skeptical of Wisconsin (very non-college white, very into voter suppression) and Florida (Florida), so the more legitimate options they have to get them over the threshold the better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
These two are huge. If you assume the Dems are gonna win back Michigan and Pennsylvania, which seems likely IMO, they need to find one two more EC votes. I'm skeptical of Wisconsin (very non-college white, very into voter suppression) and Florida (Florida), so the more legitimate options they have to get them over the threshold the better.
Click to expand...
If the Democrats win Pennsylvania, they win the Presidency. 

 
timschochet said:
It will be true for 2020. 
Click to expand...
It might end up being correct, but it also might be correct that if the Dems win California they win the presidency.  That doesn't make Pennsylvania the lynchpin or the "tipping point" state. That's most likely going to be Wisconsin, Arizona, Iowa or North Carolina. I strongly suspect every election expert would agree with that analysis- here's one that does.

 
TobiasFunke said:
It might end up being correct, but it also might be correct that if the Dems win California they win the presidency.  That doesn't make Pennsylvania the lynchpin or the "tipping point" state. That's most likely going to be Wisconsin, Arizona, Iowa or North Carolina. I strongly suspect every election expert would agree with that analysis- here's one that does.
Click to expand...
I think Tim is more right, than wrong on this.  Obviously its not simply winning Pennsylvania, but I think if you win Pennsylvania, you are likely to win similar states - like Michigan and Wisconsin.

And, if you flip those three states - its very difficult for the GOP to win.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think Tim is more right, than wrong on this.  Obviously its not simply winning Pennsylvania, but I think if you win Pennsylvania, you are likely to win similar states - like Michigan and Wisconsin.

And, if you flip those three states - its very difficult for the GOP to win.
Click to expand...
Yeah there's obviously correlation, but the margins are so thin that it is definitely possible to win Pennsylvania without Wisconsin, especially given the slight differences in the demographics.

If the Dems win Pennsylvania by 5 points, that's another story of course. Hard to imagine they don't win Wisconsin in that scenario (I consider Michigan closer to "leans Dem" than a tossup). But if they only win Pennsylvania by a point or so, I think they lose Wisconsin. So they need a backup plan involving states with different demographics, or ideally multiple backup plans.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Yeah there's obviously correlation, but the margins are so thin that it is definitely possible to win Pennsylvania without Wisconsin, especially given the slight differences in the demographics.

If the Dems win Pennsylvania by 5 points, that's another story of course. Hard to imagine they don't win Wisconsin in that scenario (I consider Michigan closer to "leans Dem" than a tossup). But if they only win Pennsylvania by a point or so, I think they lose Wisconsin. So they need a backup plan involving states with different demographics, or ideally multiple backup plans.
Click to expand...
Certainly the Dems should also be targeting Iowa, North Carolina, and Florida - at a minimum.  Maybe toss in Arizona and Georgia.

I think Team Trump obviously see Florida as an important, yet not secure, state - hence the launch rally in Orlando.

 
De Blasio decides to make a name for himself:

It’s 2019 & @JoeBiden is longing for the good old days of “civility” typified by James Eastland. Eastland thought my multiracial family should be illegal & that whites were entitled to “the pursuit of dead n*ggers." (1/2)
Click to expand...
Yeah, no

 
Was it 1988 where the Democrats were derided for fielding as many as seven candidates, seven being far too many at the time.  I seem to remember them being derided as the Seven Dwarfs.

 
wikkidpissah said:
that was more a function of Lee Atwater's prominence on the scene than anything else. '76 had double that
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, thank you.  I had forgotten about Atwater.  Now additional memories flood back.  I don't recall 76 having so many though it would make sense, the party had to smell blood in the water.  Was 76 the one where the idea was briefly floated that Ford and Regan could be "co-presidents" rather than President and Vice President?

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Ahhhh, thank you.  I had forgotten about Atwater.  Now additional memories flood back.  I don't recall 76 having so many though it would make sense, the party had to smell blood in the water.  Was 76 the one where the idea was briefly floated that Ford and Regan could be "co-presidents" rather than President and Vice President?
Click to expand...
not a factor. i covered '76, got an ABC national press credential because i worked at a Boston radio station and lived in Salem and one of the throng (Gov Terry Sanford of NC) had a heart attack on the campaign trail in Salem and i was the first "electronic media" (phone-to-studio) on the scene. i had interviewed Carter in NH months before anyone else was campaigning, then we had George Wallace stirring up bussing hate in Boston, Governor Moonbeam (Jerry Brown)'s first national exposure, the favorite was ol-fashioned Machine guy Scoop Jackson, the Governor of PA, Milton Schapp had the best ideas  but had so many poorly-handled charts & graphs onstage with him that he looked like a prop comic, the very best human being i ever met in politics, Gov Fred Harris of OK (who became a professor @ UNM about the time i moved to Albq and let his wife LaDonna - who woulda made a great prez - do the politics. we had lunch twice a yr for years, once w Teddy Kennedy) among others in yet another primary season haunted by the chance of a Kennedy candidacy.

my Atwater story. i became friends w the Carter campaign (got Ham & Jody invites to the fancy parties when Princess Anne came to the Olympic equestrian trials @ Myopia Hunt Club) thru the campaign and remained friends with a Carter operative who they invited to run the '80 Convention. Mark invited me to the convention and i was at a party of Party people in the Carter suite that was @ one point invaded by a hugely-loaded Atwater - not much older than me [mid 20s], towing along a fat guy who may have Roger Ailes - who announced & toasted the Decline and Fall of the Democratic Party before being escorted out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA said:
krista4 said:
Can you sell me on Yang?  I don't mean that as a challenge, but I know virtually nothing about him and respect your views.  He is, however, the only person for whom I've already seen posters/yard signs, so going on that infallible metric, he's likely to win.
Click to expand...
I should take a deeper dive into economics and his politics before placing him in the top tier, but I'm coming around to the idea that we need to implement a plan to deal with looming, widespread automation that will displace huge chunks of the workforce.  It's going to be a massive problem if we don't do something.
Click to expand...
New favorite quote:  "We need to evolve, as fast as possible."

 
Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump have a lot in common.

Both gravitate to extreme positions.  Both have a lot of problems effectively working with the other side.  Both irrationally demonize and lash out at others to try to gain support (Trump with the media and others, Warren with big business).  Both have economically nonsensical ideas that pander to their base (Trump with a stupid Wall, Warren with her stupid student loan forgiveness idea).  Both make huge amounts of people cringe. I could go on.

I'm having a lot of difficulty coming to grips with the idea that she might win the nomination.  At first I assumed that I would just vote for her anyway because 1) Trump is absolutely terrible and 2) I am mostly liberal in my political beliefs.  However, I'm now reconsidering.

 I've been thinking about the conservative never-Trumpers and how I respect the stand they took.  I've also been thinking about how Trump took over the Republican party and how that will hurt them for decades.  Are a few politically extreme Supreme Court justices worth that?  I don't think so.

Would a Warren presidency do similar damage to her party?  I think she might.  Perhaps, in the long run, the country would be better off trying to endure four more years of Trump and letting the Democrats try again with a better candidate.  That doesn't mean I'd actually vote for Trump.  I just wouldn't vote for either.  

I think I'm never-Warren.

 
Juxtatarot said:
Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump have a lot in common.

Both gravitate to extreme positions.  Both have a lot of problems effectively working with the other side.  Both irrationally demonize and lash out at others to try to gain support (Trump with the media and others, Warren with big business).  Both have economically nonsensical ideas that pander to their base (Trump with a stupid Wall, Warren with her stupid student loan forgiveness idea).  Both make huge amounts of people cringe. I could go on.

I'm having a lot of difficulty coming to grips with the idea that she might win the nomination.  At first I assumed that I would just vote for her anyway because 1) Trump is absolutely terrible and 2) I am mostly liberal in my political beliefs.  However, I'm now reconsidering.

 I've been thinking about the conservative never-Trumpers and how I respect the stand they took.  I've also been thinking about how Trump took over the Republican party and how that will hurt them for decades.  Are a few politically extreme Supreme Court justices worth that?  I don't think so.

Would a Warren presidency do similar damage to her party?  I think she might.  Perhaps, in the long run, the country would be better off trying to endure four more years of Trump and letting the Democrats try again with a better candidate.  That doesn't mean I'd actually vote for Trump.  I just wouldn't vote for either.  

I think I'm never-Warren.
Click to expand...
This would be an error in judgment. Any of the Dem candidates would be better than four more years of Trump.

 
Juxtatarot said:
I'm having a lot of difficulty coming to grips with the idea that she might win the nomination.  At first I assumed that I would just vote for her anyway because 1) Trump is absolutely terrible and 2) I am mostly liberal in my political beliefs.  However, I'm now reconsidering.
Click to expand...
Same.  I told a friend the other day I'd need to be drunk and dragged to the polls if that happens. Decided not to worry about it til it is not hypothetical. Lots of time left.

 
Free Medicare for everyone. Free college for everyone. Free $1000 a month for life (I do like that). Everyone hits the lotto in fantasyland USA!!!!!!!

 
Sinn Fein said:
With Biden jumping in, I think we are full in the Dem race.  I don't see anyone else significant jumping in - Abrams might be the only significant person left who could make a dent, but I don't think she will jump in.

My gut tells me that this is a two-horse race, with a few outsiders with a real chance of winning.

Best Bets

Kamala Harris
Pete Buttigieg

I think this is where the real race will happen.  I think both are formidable candidates, who each have strengths to play to - and will have the financial strength to go all the way to the convention.  I think Harris is the more traditional candidate - coming from a Congressional background.  As the crowd thins in the primary race, I think she will benefit as the last woman standing, and as a minority, I think that will help in urban areas.  Buttigieg is more than the flavor of the month.  I think he has struck a nerve with voters - and he has the best clarity/authenticity in messaging.  And, that is important.  I think his support will continue to grow as more people see and hear him speak.  He will also have the financing to go all the way.  

I am sure this is a little confounding to some - given that neither are particularly close in the polling to Biden and Sanders - but my instincts say that Harris and Buttigieg have plenty of room to rise as voters get to know them - while Biden and Sanders have really reached their peak.

2nd Tier

Cory Booker
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O'Rourke

The race is so early, but it feels like each of these candidates have some element of electability, but I think they have been overshadowed in the race by Biden and Sanders, and to a lesser extent Harris and Buttigieg.  As the campaign gears up this summer, and into the fall, I'd give a slight edge to Klobuchar and Booker to make some noise in the Senate that helps their campaign - Beto is going to have to figure out a way to pass Buttigieg without the benefit of Congressional hearings - might be a tough ask.  Of this group - I favor them in the order listed.

Sell Now

Warren - 71 at election
Sanders - 79 at election
Biden - 77 at election (78 less than a month later)

Sanders and Biden are the current front-runners - by a fairly comfortable margin in most polls.  But that comes with virtually 100% name recognition.  They are setting the early pace, but will tire by the time they finish the backstretch.

Sanders is virtually locked in with 20% of the vote - his base is extremely loyal, and he'll pick up a few votes beyond that.  

He can't win the Democratic nomination unless he gets 50% of the delegates, and he is not going to get 50% of the delegates - not with a field this big.  So, he is out on his feet right now, and nobody has the heart to tell him.  Nor should they - Sanders is a good man, with good ideas, and his voice is important to the process.  Just look at where many of the Dems in the race are today as a result of Sanders in 2016.

Biden is a sentimental choice - but he is also an easy target for Trump, and he is an easy target for the other Dem candidates for many of the positions he has taken over the years.  And, with both Biden and Sanders - I think the younger candidates will really drive home the generational-gap, and the need for new leadership.  I feel very strongly that message will stick by the time the primaries roll around, and voters will be moving towards a younger candidate of their choice.

Warren - it is a real shame she chose to sit out in 2016.  I imagine there was some pressure from Clinton/Party loyalists, but Warren's best chance to win the nomination was in 2016.  She should still be a strong voice for Bank reform and consumer protections in the Senate.

Everyone else is just in the race to make a name for themselves, I don't think we will see anyone else get close to the nomination.
Click to expand...
I think I underestimated how hard Warren would work on the campaign, so I would amend this to put her in the same tier as Harris and Buttigieg.  Nothing else has really changed. 

 
Juxtatarot said:
Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump have a lot in common.
Click to expand...
There are some similarities, but they pale in comparison to the numerous large differences.

For example, I don’t see Warren launching a full-scale attack on the independent judiciary, the free press, the intelligence community, and the rule of law.

Also, a quick glance at their respective twitter feeds does not indicate that, you know, they’re basically the same person.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot said:
Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump have a lot in common.

Both gravitate to extreme positions.  Both have a lot of problems effectively working with the other side.  Both irrationally demonize and lash out at others to try to gain support (Trump with the media and others, Warren with big business).  Both have economically nonsensical ideas that pander to their base (Trump with a stupid Wall, Warren with her stupid student loan forgiveness idea).  Both make huge amounts of people cringe. I could go on.

I'm having a lot of difficulty coming to grips with the idea that she might win the nomination.  At first I assumed that I would just vote for her anyway because 1) Trump is absolutely terrible and 2) I am mostly liberal in my political beliefs.  However, I'm now reconsidering.

 I've been thinking about the conservative never-Trumpers and how I respect the stand they took.  I've also been thinking about how Trump took over the Republican party and how that will hurt them for decades.  Are a few politically extreme Supreme Court justices worth that?  I don't think so.

Would a Warren presidency do similar damage to her party?  I think she might.  Perhaps, in the long run, the country would be better off trying to endure four more years of Trump and letting the Democrats try again with a better candidate.  That doesn't mean I'd actually vote for Trump.  I just wouldn't vote for either.  

I think I'm never-Warren.
Click to expand...
Ralph Nader is a closer analogy. She started out an advocate and there are no advocates who work closely with govt who don't develop a mountain of outrage over the tyranny of advantage at the base of the political barter system. Eventually, both concluded there was only one way to beat City Hall and that was to run City Hall. Their respective nerdish policy fetishisms and personal styles have & always will betray them, but change is easier with those types around even if they'll seldom be rewarded with real power for their efforts.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I think I underestimated how hard Warren would work on the campaign, so I would amend this to put her in the same tier as Harris and Buttigieg.  Nothing else has really changed. 
Click to expand...
You way overestimated Beto. Not bad otherwise considering the assessment was made in April.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
305
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
OP/ED: J6 Committee's Liz Cheney Embodies The Worst Character Traits Of Donald Trump (6/24/22 18:05 PST)
Replies
26
Views
804
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top