Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’d agree higher voter energy can be a sign of crisis.

True. But I was talking about each citizen's involvement with politics. I've always found that the more fervid voters or activists tend to hold more radical and/or more transformative platforms. I'm not sure too much change is what we need. Look at the Democratic challengers for president. There haven't been this many left-wingers running for American president since I can't remember, really. And finding meaning in politics often lionizes an individual struggle, one that decides it wants others to bend to justice, will, or authority. Not a good recipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Encumbrance said:

True. But I was talking about each citizen's involvement with politics. I've always found that the more fervid voters or activists tend to hold more radical and/or more transformative platforms. I'm not sure too much change is what we need. Look at the Democratic challengers for president. There haven't been this many left-wingers running for American president since I can't remember, really. And finding meaning in politics often lionizes an individual struggle, one that decides it wants others to bend to justice, will, or authority. Not a good recipe.

Hm, my norm on this is that politicization of the private sphere is not a good thing.

And actually I’m pretty ok with political apathy for the reasons you state. I *like politics but I wouldn’t consider myself political. I know the people you speak of left or right and I’d agree.

However those people are already baked into the typical strata. These people have formed a layer in all elections.

Just speaking of my hometown and area - a historically *very politically apathetic area - after Katrina people felt themselves in crisis and showed the hell up - because government decisions were going to affect vital events in their lives. A similar process happened in the Duke races for governor and Senate. People who ordinarily wouldn’t turn on the local weather report suddenly stammered out of their slumber and got energized and involved. Similarly in countries where democracy and economic systems are at stake also have higher turnouts. That’s not a direct comp but I think that’s what’s going on here.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hm, my norm on this is that politicization if the private sphere is not a good thing.

And actually I’m pretty ok with political apathy for the reasons you state. I *like politics but I wouldn’t consider myself political. I know the people you speak of left or right and I’d agree.

However those people are already baked into the typical strata. These people have formed a layer in all elections.

Just speaking of my hometown and area - a historically *very politically apathetic area - after Katrina people felt themselves in crisis and showed the hell up. A similar process happened in the Duke races for governor and Senate. People who ordinarily wouldn’t turn on the local weather report suddenly stammered out of their slumber and got energized and involved. Similarly in countries where democracy and economic systems are at stake also have higher turnouts. That’s not a direct comp but I think that’s what’s going on here.

Oh, okay. The second paragraph is really what I was getting at. The first was unspoken, but also implied.

Your last paragraph, though. I'm interested. I'm pretty sure you're talking about Donald Trump as president, but I've come to this conclusion about the presidency. The Founders wrote it so that you couldn't ruin things with one bad election. Elections were distant from personal political passions. They were done through the House that was elected by the people, yet removed. They allowed for the importance of population in the distribution of power. We used to not even have direct election of senators. Those were done through the state legislature. I wonder, if there was that much remove from the populace by design, that maybe they'd foreseen this and that maybe what we should be doing is unwinding the changes that led us to only be able to hold representatives accountable for their elections of other representatives.

I can't see President Trump rising to power in any way, shape, or form given the old federalist structure.

Instead, when he wins, we call for more direct voting. As if that will solve the problem! No, it just moves elections closer to mob passion.

Anyway, I ramble, but an unwinding is in order, not more progression.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Encumbrance said:

Oh, okay. The second paragraph is really what I was getting at. The first was unspoken, but also implied.

Your last paragraph, though. I'm interested. I'm pretty sure you're talking about Donald Trump as president, but I've come to this conclusion about the presidency. The Founders wrote it so that you couldn't ruin things with one bad election. Elections were distant from personal political passions. They were done through the House that was elected by the people, yet removed. They allowed for the importance of population in the distribution of power. We used to not even have direct election of senators. Those were done through the state legislature. I wonder, if there was that much remove from the populace by design, that maybe they'd foreseen this and that maybe what we should be doing is unwinding the changes that led us to only be able to hold representatives accountable for their elections of other representatives.

I can't see President Trump rising to power in any way, shape, or form given the old federalist structure.

Instead, when he wins, we call for more direct voting. As if that will solve the problem! No, it just moves elections closer to mob passion.

Anyway, I ramble, but an unwinding is in order, not more progression.

Good thoughts for sure. The only thing I’ll add since you mentioned the Founders is that both parties have piled more and more power into the singularity of the Presidency, so people feel a greater and greater urgency in the effects of one bad actor. IMO the right thing would be devolve power away from the presidency. 

Also in general ‘protecting our democracy means voting Bad Guys out’ as if that’s the only mechanism has always been fraught with peril for me. This has usually come up in past discussions about abuses of executive power and delegation of Congressional authority for supposedly benign purposes. That inevitably leads where it leads, which I agree is antithetical to our founding spirit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2019 at 6:30 PM, jamny said:

I was actually going to mention him. As a NY'er, I'd have to overlook a few things to consider him but I'd keep an open mind to it.

Forget "as a New Yorker." As a conservative I'd have massive problems with No Labels's "Mayor Mike." No thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Biden has expanded his lead again.

- Biden has added +7, now it’s 29 Biden, 15 Sanders, 14 Warren.

 

Quote

Aside from Biden's increase, the only statistically meaningful change in the candidate standings is a 12-point decline in support for California Sen. Kamala Harris, who stood at 17% support in the June poll but now has the backing of 5% of potential Democratic voters. That's similar to the level of support she had in the spring before a surge following her initial debate performance.

I'm enjoying Harris's decline back to also-ran status.  Even by the standards of politicians, she took bull#### artistry to brave new heights.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

 

I'm enjoying Harris's decline back to also-ran status.  Even by the standards of politicians, she took bull#### artistry to brave new heights.

Id like to see that keep going and it end her shot at VP even if Biden holds on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'll be honest, I've only read about their positions.  I've watched very little of them speaking outside of the last debates.  What is causing Harris' slide?

She got a bump in the polls because she took an intellectually dishonest cheap shot at Joe Biden over busing, of all things.  Her polling has slowly returned to equilibrium.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

She got a bump in the polls because she took an intellectually dishonest cheap shot at Joe Biden over busing, of all things.  Her polling has slowly returned to equilibrium.

That was the first debate right?  That bump lasted this long?  That's sort of surprising to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

She got a bump in the polls because she took an intellectually dishonest cheap shot at Joe Biden over busing, of all things.  Her polling has slowly returned to equilibrium.

But didn't she look strong while doing it? /s

Edited by adonis
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Id like to see that keep going and it end her shot at VP even if Biden holds on.

 

I don't think Biden's VP choice will come from the current candidates for the nomination.  He will pick someone who can deliver votes in a swing state.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously not a scientific poll, but interesting nonetheless - Iowa State Fair Count Your Kernel vote

 

Democrats:

  • Joe Biden: 8,143 (25%)
  • Pete Buttigieg: 5,892 (18%)
  • Elizabeth Warren: 5,064 (15%)
  • Kamala Harris: 3,700 (11%)
  • Bernie Sanders: 2,675 (8%)
  • Cory Booker: 1,219 (4%)
  • Tulsi Gabbard: 1,153 (3%)
  • Tom Steyer: 1,078 (3%)
  • Amy Klobuchar: 905 (3%)
  • Andrew Yang: 745 (2%)
  • Beto O'Rourke: 550 (2%)
  • Steve Bullock: 300 (1%)
  • John Delaney: 277 (1%)
  • Kirsten Gillibrand: 270 (1%)
  • Julián Castro: 264 (1%)
  • Marianne Williamson: 240 (1%)
  • Michael Bennet: 129 (0%)
  • Jay Inslee: 120 (0%)
  • John Hickenlooper: 115 (0%)
  • Tim Ryan: 70 (0%)
  • Joe Sestak: 69 (0%)
  • Wayne Messam: 66 (0%)
  • Bill de Blasio: 61 (0%)
  • Seth Moulton: 60 (0%)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Obviously not a scientific poll, but interesting nonetheless - Iowa State Fair Count Your Kernel vote

 

Democrats:

  • Joe Biden: 8,143 (25%)
  • Pete Buttigieg: 5,892 (18%)
  • Elizabeth Warren: 5,064 (15%)
  • Kamala Harris: 3,700 (11%)
  • Bernie Sanders: 2,675 (8%)
  • Cory Booker: 1,219 (4%)
  • Tulsi Gabbard: 1,153 (3%)
  • Tom Steyer: 1,078 (3%)
  • Amy Klobuchar: 905 (3%)
  • Andrew Yang: 745 (2%)
  • Beto O'Rourke: 550 (2%)
  • Steve Bullock: 300 (1%)
  • John Delaney: 277 (1%)
  • Kirsten Gillibrand: 270 (1%)
  • Julián Castro: 264 (1%)
  • Marianne Williamson: 240 (1%)
  • Michael Bennet: 129 (0%)
  • Jay Inslee: 120 (0%)
  • John Hickenlooper: 115 (0%)
  • Tim Ryan: 70 (0%)
  • Joe Sestak: 69 (0%)
  • Wayne Messam: 66 (0%)
  • Bill de Blasio: 61 (0%)
  • Seth Moulton: 60 (0%)

:lmao: He's sandwiched in between political titans like "Wayne Messam" and "Seth Moulton."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep thinking that Trump is unlikely to win reelection. People are sick of him, and 2018 seems telling.

The betting markets, which know more than I do, keep saying that Trump is a slight favorite.

I struggle to see what the betting markets are seeing.

This article makes a decent case, though: Trump Could Win Again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I keep thinking that Trump is unlikely to win reelection. People are sick of him, and 2018 seems telling.

The betting markets, which know more than I do, keep saying that Trump is a slight favorite.

I struggle to see what the betting markets are seeing.

This article makes a decent case, though: Trump Could Win Again.

He could win because of the electoral college. Matt Taibbi just wrote an article predicting the Democrats will blow it, that could happen too. 

But I think the reason for the betting pool odds is that there’s not a single candidate on the other side. When there is, if the odds still favor Trump I will start to get worried. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I keep thinking that Trump is unlikely to win reelection. People are sick of him, and 2018 seems telling.

The betting markets, which know more than I do, keep saying that Trump is a slight favorite.

I struggle to see what the betting markets are seeing.

This article makes a decent case, though: Trump Could Win Again.

Slight favorite?  More like prohibitive favorite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:
42 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I keep thinking that Trump is unlikely to win reelection. People are sick of him, and 2018 seems telling.

The betting markets, which know more than I do, keep saying that Trump is a slight favorite.

I struggle to see what the betting markets are seeing.

This article makes a decent case, though: Trump Could Win Again.

Slight favorite?  More like prohibitive favorite.

"Prohibitive" means "restrictive" or "forbidding". HTH

(Actually it's also a synonym for "preposterous", so if that's what you were going for then I'll allow it. ;))

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, [scooter] said:

"Prohibitive" means "restrictive" or "forbidding". HTH

(Actually it's also a synonym for "preposterous", so if that's what you were going for then I'll allow it. ;))

Actually there are multiple meanings to the word, depending on context.

The prohibitive favorite is the person/team/racehorse that is so likely to win that others are discouraged from competing. If the cost of something is prohibitive, it is too expensive for most people: 2. (of costs) too She is the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mister CIA said:

Outslee?

ETA: Need a Babe Ruth t-ball emoji.

Full disclosure: I ETA'd after Krista lol'd.

:lmao: with or without edit.  Well done.

Email from the Inslee campaign:

 

Krista,

As a close ally in a noble cause, I want to share a tough decision with you:

I know you agree that our mission to defeat climate change must continue to be central to our national discussion -- and must be the top priority for our next president. But I've concluded that my role in that effort will not be as a candidate to be the next president of the United States.

On Monday, our campaign hit one of two critical DNC thresholds to qualify for the next debate -- 130,000 grassroots donors. Reaching that challenging milestone proves the strong support that defeating climate change has amongst the grassroots of our party. However, at the same time we reached this threshold, it became clear that we would not meet the DNC's polling threshold, thus we would not have been invited to the fall debates. As a result, I don't believe we can compete for the attention and exposure needed to have a reasonable shot at the nomination.

As disappointing as this is, it is only right to recognize what we have accomplished and how far we have come together. As a governor, I came into this race with zero federal dollars, a small state-based email list, and limited name recognition, yet together we hit a target that half of the field has not hit -- the DNC's grassroots supporter metric.

The tremendous grassroots outpouring of 130,000 individual donors, from every state in the nation, is a testament to the movement that we've built together. Not only did we hit this high bar set by the DNC, but more importantly, together, we changed and shaped the entire national dialogue around climate change.

In recent presidential cycles, climate change got little attention from the candidates, the DNC, or the media. We vowed to change that in a big way and succeeded. Many of the campaigns started with little attention to climate, but since our campaign began, we've seen almost every serious candidate put out a climate plan; we've seen climate come up in both debates; and we now have two networks hosting nationally-televised climate forums in September. Most importantly, we have introduced a detailed and comprehensive policy blueprint for bold climate action and transformation to a clean energy economy. We will fight to ensure this gold standard of climate action is adopted and executed by our party and our next president.

What we accomplished together is a testament to the power of a small group of people of strong conviction committed to making a big difference. I am confident our work will resonate throughout the remaining months of the campaign.

Before I decided to run, Trudi and I -- my wife of nearly 47 years -- decided in our final days we wanted to be able to tell our three grandchildren, Brody, Zoe, and Chase, that we had done everything in our power to defeat this crisis.

It is because of you and hundreds of thousands of others in this movement that we can now say that we have enjoyed one of life's greatest gifts -- to make a difference on a big issue. After more than two decades in this fight against climate change, today I am more hopeful than ever that we can achieve a critical mass to solve this crisis, because of the incredible grassroots movement we're building together.

As we turn to the future, I will have more to say about what comes next for me in the days ahead. I can assure you that I will continue to lead, to demand bold action, and to do everything in my power to ensure the fight to defeat climate change stays at the top of the national agenda.

But for now, I want to once again thank everyone who helped in this effort. We have so much to be proud of. Make no mistake, we also have a lot more work to do.

So early to bed, early to rise, work like hell, and organize. Together we will continue the fight to defeat the climate crisis.

Very truly yours,

Jay

P.S. Trudi and I love you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, krista4 said:

:lmao: with or without edit.  Well done.

Email from the Inslee campaign:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Krista,

As a close ally in a noble cause, I want to share a tough decision with you:

I know you agree that our mission to defeat climate change must continue to be central to our national discussion -- and must be the top priority for our next president. But I've concluded that my role in that effort will not be as a candidate to be the next president of the United States.

On Monday, our campaign hit one of two critical DNC thresholds to qualify for the next debate -- 130,000 grassroots donors. Reaching that challenging milestone proves the strong support that defeating climate change has amongst the grassroots of our party. However, at the same time we reached this threshold, it became clear that we would not meet the DNC's polling threshold, thus we would not have been invited to the fall debates. As a result, I don't believe we can compete for the attention and exposure needed to have a reasonable shot at the nomination.

As disappointing as this is, it is only right to recognize what we have accomplished and how far we have come together. As a governor, I came into this race with zero federal dollars, a small state-based email list, and limited name recognition, yet together we hit a target that half of the field has not hit -- the DNC's grassroots supporter metric.

The tremendous grassroots outpouring of 130,000 individual donors, from every state in the nation, is a testament to the movement that we've built together. Not only did we hit this high bar set by the DNC, but more importantly, together, we changed and shaped the entire national dialogue around climate change.

In recent presidential cycles, climate change got little attention from the candidates, the DNC, or the media. We vowed to change that in a big way and succeeded. Many of the campaigns started with little attention to climate, but since our campaign began, we've seen almost every serious candidate put out a climate plan; we've seen climate come up in both debates; and we now have two networks hosting nationally-televised climate forums in September. Most importantly, we have introduced a detailed and comprehensive policy blueprint for bold climate action and transformation to a clean energy economy. We will fight to ensure this gold standard of climate action is adopted and executed by our party and our next president.

What we accomplished together is a testament to the power of a small group of people of strong conviction committed to making a big difference. I am confident our work will resonate throughout the remaining months of the campaign.

Before I decided to run, Trudi and I -- my wife of nearly 47 years -- decided in our final days we wanted to be able to tell our three grandchildren, Brody, Zoe, and Chase, that we had done everything in our power to defeat this crisis.

It is because of you and hundreds of thousands of others in this movement that we can now say that we have enjoyed one of life's greatest gifts -- to make a difference on a big issue. After more than two decades in this fight against climate change, today I am more hopeful than ever that we can achieve a critical mass to solve this crisis, because of the incredible grassroots movement we're building together.

As we turn to the future, I will have more to say about what comes next for me in the days ahead. I can assure you that I will continue to lead, to demand bold action, and to do everything in my power to ensure the fight to defeat climate change stays at the top of the national agenda.

But for now, I want to once again thank everyone who helped in this effort. We have so much to be proud of. Make no mistake, we also have a lot more work to do.

So early to bed, early to rise, work like hell, and organize. Together we will continue the fight to defeat the climate crisis.

Very truly yours,

Jay

P.S. Trudi and I love you.

That hidden prose is brilliant.  Admit it, you wrote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2019 at 12:36 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

I keep thinking that Trump is unlikely to win reelection. People are sick of him, and 2018 seems telling.

The betting markets, which know more than I do, keep saying that Trump is a slight favorite.

I struggle to see what the betting markets are seeing.

This article makes a decent case, though: Trump Could Win Again.

I genuinely believe his odds of reelection are abysmal. Just as the deplorables came out en masse in 2016, I think reasonable people will return fire in 2020... and 2018 mid-terms sure indicated that to be true. And I know a lot of 2016 third party voters like myself will vote for any democratic nomination this time. I think the real question is if the Senate majority will flip. I think that one will be very close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seth Moulton has dropped out.

Quote

 

Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts is dropping out of the presidential race, ending a candidacy that emphasized Mr. Moulton’s centrist politics and military service but gained no traction with Democratic primary voters.

Mr. Moulton, 40, said in an interview that he had no immediate plans to endorse another candidate, but he warmly praised former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Moulton planned to announce the end of his campaign in a formal speech before the Democratic National Committee on Friday.

Mr. Moulton suggested that most of the other Democratic candidates were also laboring in vain at this point, with only a tiny few — Mr. Biden and Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — remaining as real competitors for the nomination. He warned in the interview that if Democrats were to embrace an overly liberal platform, it could make it harder for the party to defeat President Trump.

“I think it’s evident that this is now a three-way race between Biden, Warren and Sanders, and really it’s a debate about how far left the party should go,” Mr. Moulton said.

With Mr. Moulton’s departure, the sprawling Democratic field will shrink to 21 candidates.

He is the fourth Democrat to leave the presidential race this summer, following Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Representative Eric Swalwell of California. Mr. Hickenlooper announced on Thursday that he would run for Senate, while Mr. Inslee and Mr. Swalwell are running for re-election to their current posts.

A combat veteran who served in the Iraq War, Mr. Moulton campaigned on themes of strengthening national defense and promoting public service, and criticizing Mr. Trump for damaging the country’s most vital alliances. In May, he revealed that he struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder after returning from war, and called for new policies to attend to the mental health issues of soldiers and veterans. Stanley McChrystal, the retired general who led American forces in Afghanistan, endorsed Mr. Moulton’s campaign.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a number of ways -- I'm going to cherry-pick just one incident (below) -- it kind of seems like Harris should be running as a Republican.

When Kamala Was a Top Cop: "[Kamala] Harris’s office didn’t merely fight to keep a man in prison after he’d demonstrated his innocence...After losing, it fought to keep the newly released man from being compensated for the decade that he spent wrongfully imprisoned."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

In a number of ways -- I'm going to cherry-pick just one incident (below) -- it kind of seems like Harris should be running as a Republican.

When Kamala Was a Top Cop: "[Kamala] Harris’s office didn’t merely fight to keep a man in prison after he’d demonstrated his innocence...After losing, it fought to keep the newly released man from being compensated for the decade that he spent wrongfully imprisoned."

To be fair, it's tough to get the necessary oxygen in today's GOP unless you're a white male.  You see the backlash towards her from the GOP demographic even though there are many instances where the actions should/would be approved by the GOP under other circumstances.  But while reading about her past before the last debate, I came to a similar conclusion as you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

In a number of ways -- I'm going to cherry-pick just one incident (below) -- it kind of seems like Harris should be running as a Republican.

When Kamala Was a Top Cop: "[Kamala] Harris’s office didn’t merely fight to keep a man in prison after he’d demonstrated his innocence...After losing, it fought to keep the newly released man from being compensated for the decade that he spent wrongfully imprisoned."

Listening to Harris a few years ago before I knew what party she was from I thought she was a Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

In a number of ways -- I'm going to cherry-pick just one incident (below) -- it kind of seems like Harris should be running as a Republican.

When Kamala Was a Top Cop: "[Kamala] Harris’s office didn’t merely fight to keep a man in prison after he’d demonstrated his innocence...After losing, it fought to keep the newly released man from being compensated for the decade that he spent wrongfully imprisoned."

She’s pro-choice. She knows that climate change is an existential emergency. She believes in a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. She’s in favor of Medicare for All at some point in the future. She supports gay rights. She opposes President Trump’s trade and isolationist policies. She supports universal background checks and a ban on assault rifles. 

In 2019, only Democrats support these items. She is a Democrat. 

  • Like 1
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...