Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Kansas Democratic Party announced some changes to previous primary format for 2020.  Dumping the caucus in favor of a voting primary using Ranked Choice Voting.  Voters can rank up five choices. 

I got Bloomberg by two points over anyone else, and I'm questioning my entire existence.

2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

What's the difference between the two threads, though?  I get that there's different discussions because of different posts but they have the same theme. Let's say I want to discuss Candidate A doing or saying something ... where do I do that?

There has to be a difference or the OP never would have started this thread after mine had been in existence for eight months and then continued it when people pointed out it seemed redundant. And as far as where to post, if Kamala Harris makes a statement about her possible candidacy you want to discuss, should it go in her thread, the Democratic primaries thread or a 2020 Presidential election thread? (and a couple other threads might qualify).

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

What's the difference between the two threads, though?  I get that there's different discussions because of different posts but they have the same theme. Let's say I want to discuss Candidate A doing or saying something ... where do I do that?

here please  ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duplicate threads like this happen all the time because some feel the need to create threads months and months prior to them being relevant (for what reason, I am not sure).  Then they fall off into the depths of nowhere because, well, they aren't relevant.  Then the topic surfaces and becomes relevant and people create a thread at that time not thinking someone would have created thread that many months ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

There has to be a difference or the OP never would have started this thread after mine had been in existence for eight months and then continued it when people pointed out it seemed redundant. And as far as where to post, if Kamala Harris makes a statement about her possible candidacy you want to discuss, should it go in her thread, the Democratic primaries thread or a 2020 Presidential election thread? (and a couple other threads might qualify).

I don't know what was happening with the bolded but that's not really an answer.

It's not a big deal obviously, but it's easier on all of us if two threads that are clearly discussing the exact same subject are combined.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

I don't know what was happening with the bolded but that's not really an answer.

 

3 hours ago, The Commish said:

Duplicate threads like this happen all the time because some feel the need to create threads months and months prior to them being relevant (for what reason, I am not sure).  Then they fall off into the depths of nowhere because, well, they aren't relevant.  Then the topic surfaces and becomes relevant and people create a thread at that time not thinking someone would have created thread that many months ago.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, squistion said:

There has to be a difference or the OP never would have started this thread after mine had been in existence for eight months and then continued it when people pointed out it seemed redundant. 

You are a little passive-aggressive %^&*@! - and this is why I have you on ignore.

I started this thread on November 9 - at 8:17 AM ET - Friday after the mid-terms were over.  It seemed like a good time to turn the page on the 2018 election cycle and look forward to the 2020 cycle.

 

The thread you started back in March 2018 - when the 2018 races were relevant, not the 2020 race - had been buried due to inactivity.  Prior to my starting this thread, the most recent activity was September 10, 2018 - or 2 months before I started this thread. 

I am not going to apologize for not searching back two months worth of posts for a dormant thread, that had no prior relevance.

 

And then - after I started this thread - YOU bumped your old thread - at 12:31 PM ET on November 9, 2018.  

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/765378-2020-presidential-election-thread/?do=findComment&comment=21498813

 

Now, explain to me how that is any different than what I posted in here?  

 

####### %^&*@!.

  • Love 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

You are a little passive-aggressive %^&*@! - and this is why I have you on ignore.

I started this thread on November 9 - at 8:17 AM ET - Friday after the mid-terms were over.  It seemed like a good time to turn the page on the 2018 election cycle and look forward to the 2020 cycle.

 

The thread you started back in March 2018 - when the 2018 races were relevant, not the 2020 race - had been buried due to inactivity.  Prior to my starting this thread, the most recent activity was September 10, 2018 - or 2 months before I started this thread. 

I am not going to apologize for not searching back two months worth of posts for a dormant thread, that had no prior relevance.

 

And then - after I started this thread - YOU bumped your old thread - at 12:31 PM ET on November 9, 2018.  

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/765378-2020-presidential-election-thread/?do=findComment&comment=21498813

 

Now, explain to me how that is any different than what I posted in here?  

 

####### %^&*@!.

He is the guy who started a thread on State of the Union Address with a twitter post that already was being talked about in three threads.  Clearly just wanted it to be his thread.  Just ignore him and his constant repost of twitter posts which really should be the goal of all posters here.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

He is the guy who started a thread on State of the Union Address with a twitter post that already was being talked about in three threads.  Clearly just wanted it to be his thread.  Just ignore him and his constant repost of twitter posts which really should be the goal of all posters here.  

I guess you are new here but we have had a separate State of the Union Address thread every year for as long as I can remember, going back to at least the beginning of Obama's first term. It usually starts a few days or a week before the actual scheduled address but sometimes before that if there is something newsworthy about it and Pelosi withdrawing Trump's invitation to appear in front of Congress would definitely qualify as news.

And the thread was actually started with an ABC News story about Pelosi's letter and while there was also a tweet, the tweet was a screen capture of the actual letter for those who just wanted to read that instead of the entire ABC article.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, squistion said:

I guess you are new here but we have had a separate State of the Union Address thread every year for as long as I can remember, going back to at least the beginning of Obama's first term. It usually starts a few days or a week before the actual scheduled address but sometimes before that if there is something newsworthy about it and Pelosi withdrawing Trump's invitation to appear in front of Congress would definitely qualify as news.

And the thread was actually started with an ABC News story about Pelosi's letter and while there was also a tweet, the tweet was a screen capture of the actual letter for those who just wanted to read that instead of the entire ABC article.

 

I have been here for much longer then you and I just don't feel the need to troll every thread up with constant twitter posts.  

Edited by Redwes25
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2018 at 4:55 PM, Sinn Fein said:

Politico's list of players in the Dem race

 

Lots of names, not sure how many are legitimate:

Senators - leading contenders

Booker - I think he'll run

Sherrod Brown - strategic candidate - carries Ohio

Gillibrand - don't think she has the backing of the machine, or independent voices - she will not be a factor

Tim Kaine - don't think he can go it alone, might be a VP candidate again

Klobuchar - gaining some early buzz, we'll see if its sustainable - should do well in Iowa.

Merkley - Oregon senator - I don't know much (anything?) about him - seems like a long-shot, at best

Kamala Harris - she'll run.  Lets see how she does in the mid-west.

Bernie - He'll run.  He won't be a factor.

Mark Warner - might have a better chance than Kaine - former Governor also

Warren - I think she dip her toes, but she won't last long - her window was last election cycle.

 

House Members - bigger step up, imo

Delaney (maryland) - meh - he is running, but hard to see him generating any enthusiasm.

Gabbard (Hawaii) - a progressive favorite, but a bit out of her depth imo

Joe Kennedy (Massachusetts) - has the name - but needs a moment

Seth Moulton (Massachusetts) - military background - I know nothing else

Beto O'Rourke (Texas) - he'll run, but needs to get in the national spotlight to work against Harris and Booker.

Tim Ryan (ohio) - anti-Pelosi - will need to fundraise like a madman

Eric Swalwell (California) - born in Iowa - not sure that is enough to get a good start

 

Governors - dark horses

Steve Bullock - Montana

Andrew Cuomo - New York

John Hickenlooper - Colorado

Jay Inslee - Washington

Terry McAuliffe - Virginia - too much a part of the machine...

Martin O'Malley - same as it ever was

Deval Patrick - Massachusetts 

 

Mayors 

Bloomberg - NYC

Pete Buttigieg - South Bend - young, openly gay - no chance

Eric Garcetti - Los Angeles - too much California to win in the rustbelt imo

 

Update - Bolded are running

A few are still considering.  Big names like Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke, Booker can afford to wait to jump in.

 

As always, fundraising will be the key thing to watch - both in how much people can raise via grassroots like Bernie, and how much Big Donor money commits now versus later.

 

An interesting side note when it comes to endorsements -  I wonder who will chase, and who will get, an endorsement from AOC....it will be interesting to see how that courtship plays out, and whether it helps/hurts the candidate vis-a-vis endorsements from the establishment Dems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 11:53 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't know much about Gillibrand, but I will give her lots of credit for being credible and consistent on #MeToo.  We need more like her on both sides of the aisle.

 

What does this mean? Oh - because she lead the charge against Al Franken? 

Just want to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Kamela could very well be the nominee. California moving up its primary really helps her. If she can survive Iowa and New Hampshire and then win South Carolina, she could lock it up by Super Tuesday..  

How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?

 

Lets call the main contenders:  Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?

 

Lets call the main contenders:  Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand

 

This is fine question but I’m not going to answer it. My problem is that I’m honestly not sure in my own mind how we should go about defining progressivism, and whether or not there is a consistent scale. 

For instance: based on her stated views I’ve always regarded Harris as rather leftist. Then I heard some progressives attempt to disqualify her because she has taken corporate donations. (I certainly hope that doesn’t become a litmus test.) 

In the past I’ve done as much labeling as anyone else but I’ve decided I won’t do it anymore. I want to hear these guys debate and then decide on how many issues I agree with them on vs disagree and which ones to prioritize. I also want to move away from labels in general, for both political parties. I am open to new innovative ideas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is fine question but I’m not going to answer it. My problem is that I’m honestly not sure in my own mind how we should go about defining progressivism, and whether or not there is a consistent scale. 

For instance: based on her stated views I’ve always regarded Harris as rather leftist. Then I heard some progressives attempt to disqualify her because she has taken corporate donations. (I certainly hope that doesn’t become a litmus test.) 

In the past I’ve done as much labeling as anyone else but I’ve decided I won’t do it anymore. I want to hear these guys debate and then decide on how many issues I agree with them on vs disagree and which ones to prioritize. I also want to move away from labels in general, for both political parties. I am open to new innovative ideas. 

Thats fair - I was not looking to put you on the spot - just a general gauge on where the candidates stood.  I figure you have as much knowledge as anyone here in that regard.

 

I don't feel like i have a strong enough sense of the various backgrounds - and I am sure that its complicated.  Candidates might be progressive in some areas, while more centrist in other areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Harris specifically - its hard to imagine any prosecutor being labeled "leftist" - so I would have assumed she was more centrist.

 

The other reason why I think this is a significant issue - is for the reason stated above - I wonder where/when AOC will weigh in during the primary.  I think the Primary will be essentially a battle for control - and primaries are generally bad places for that to happen.  Activist are motivated to vote in primaries - rank-and-file members are less enthusiastic.  But, that can hurt in the general election, where rank-and-file members are more important to victory. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't explain why I don't think she's left enough, but I do. I'm sure that will change during the campaign but as of now I'd cast a vote for her and be okay with it. Also, this needs to be topped above squistion's thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?

 

Lets call the main contenders:  Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand

 

Sanders - Warren - Booker - Gillibrand - Harris - Biden - O'Rourke - Klobuchar

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?

 

Lets call the main contenders:  Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand

 

Sanders

 

Harris

Klobuchar

 

O'Rourke

 

Warren

 

Gillebrand

Booker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biden

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

This is fine question but I’m not going to answer it. My problem is that I’m honestly not sure in my own mind how we should go about defining progressivism, and whether or not there is a consistent scale. 

For instance: based on her stated views I’ve always regarded Harris as rather leftist. Then I heard some progressives attempt to disqualify her because she has taken corporate donations. (I certainly hope that doesn’t become a litmus test.) 

In the past I’ve done as much labeling as anyone else but I’ve decided I won’t do it anymore. I want to hear these guys debate and then decide on how many issues I agree with them on vs disagree and which ones to prioritize. I also want to move away from labels in general, for both political parties. I am open to new innovative ideas. 

How about making it simple and putting in terms of what the country (electorate) is wanting.  So if the country wants two years of further education, running on two years is "moderate", running on four years is "progressive", running on not expanding it at all is "conservative".  

What these parties stood for in the past is generally irrelevant moving forward.  It's always seemed an antiquated approach to me, but I don't have a problem with change either.  I wish I had a party that shared that position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good image of how 538 sees the Dem contenders

 

Article here:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

 

In a nutshell, it maps the contenders against 5 key constituents:

 

1.  African-American
2.  Hispanic/Asian
3.  Party Loyalists
4.  The Left
5.  Millennials

 

Harris has the biggest footprint - scoring well with African-Americans with no real weak areas.  Booker also rates well.

Gillibrand has no weak spots - but she has no strengths either.

I was a little surprised with Klobuchar - only rated well with Party Loyalists.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

For the "Left"  looks like 538 rates them as follows:

1. Sanders
2. Warren
Tie Sherrod Brown
4.  Harris
Tie  Gillibrand
6. Castro
7. Booker
Tie Biden

I don't understand what this ranking is based on. Certainly not electability or chances of winning? (I hope?) Or is it just supposed to be from left to right in order?

And where is Klobuchar?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

This is a good image of how 538 sees the Dem contenders

 

Article here:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

 

In a nutshell, it maps the contenders against 5 key constituents:

 

1.  African-American
2.  Hispanic/Asian
3.  Party Loyalists
4.  The Left
5.  Millennials

 

Harris has the biggest footprint - scoring well with African-Americans with no real weak areas.  Booker also rates well.

Gillibrand has no weak spots - but she has no strengths either.

I was a little surprised with Klobuchar - only rated well with Party Loyalists.

 

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't understand what this ranking is based on. Certainly not electability or chances of winning? (I hope?) Or is it just supposed to be from left to right in order?

And where is Klobuchar?

 its in the article I posted above - Klobucher is rated low on the "Left" scale - but very high on the "Party Loyalist" scale

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dedfin said:

Sanders

 

Harris

Klobuchar

 

O'Rourke

 

Warren

 

Gillebrand

Booker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biden

I would have Warren below Sanders and O'Rourke a mile below Biden. O'Rourke refused to support a democrat for house and tacitly supported the republican instead. I don't know that democrat's policies, so maybe if she thought that Hitler did nothing wrong or something where it is reasonable not to support her, but in a bubble that is a 1 strike and you are out offense for the democratic nomination. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/politics/beto-orourke-democrats-president.html

Edited by huthut
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Leroy Hoard said:

I think Harris would do well across the board with Dems. Younger (54) than most of her more fossilized competition.

Isn't the end game to nominate someone that can beat Trump?  Harris isn't that person.  She would get smoked.

Edited by JohnnyU
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

PublicPolicyPolling‏Verified account @ppppolls

FollowFollow @ppppolls

More

Our new national poll finds no matter what Dem you test against Trump, he is stuck at 41-42%

Biden 53 Trump 41

Sanders 51 Trump 41

Harris 48 Trump 41

O'Rourke 47 Trump 41

Warren 48 Trump 42

Booker 47 Trump 42

Gillibrand 47 Trump 42:

The danger in these polls are that individual states matter more than national polls.  I raised that issue in the 2016 cycle, only to be chastised...

 

Having said that, I don't think Trump can win key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania in 2020  (maybe Ohio).  Those are the states that matter.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

The danger in these polls are that individual states matter more than national polls.  I raised that issue in the 2016 cycle, only to be chastised...

 

Having said that, I don't think Trump can win key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania in 2020  (maybe Ohio).  Those are the states that matter.  

Dems only need a slight up bump in those states and that's a big swing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Dems only need a slight up bump in those states and that's a big swing.

Agree - I think it will be very difficult for Trump to hold those states.

But, I also think it underscores the importance of Dems to get the messaging right here - they have to find a way to include working-class whites as part of the winning coalition.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as he pounds away at this wall thing for the next 18 months, the rust belt will look pretty different this next time around.  The ads to those people write themselves.  They are being worked over by the tariffs and the government is shut down so they can't even get the little bit of shielding they were promised to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

The danger in these polls are that individual states matter more than national polls.  I raised that issue in the 2016 cycle, only to be chastised...

 

Having said that, I don't think Trump can win key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania in 2020  (maybe Ohio).  Those are the states that matter.  

I know you weren't necessarily excluding them but I think the playing field is way broader than that. I would add North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Arizona to the list of very possible Dem pickups (Minnesota, Maine and Nevada as possible GOP pickups, although I think they're all less likely unless something changes considerably).  So Trump needs to win most of those Great Lakes states, but even if he does he can still be defeated.  One of many possible paths for the Dems would be to win Florida and either Arizona or North Carolina (or Michigan, the Great Lakes state that seems to be reverting to the status quo the most). On the other hand Trump almost certainly can't win without them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I know you weren't necessarily excluding them but I think the playing field is way broader than that. I would add North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Arizona to the list of very possible Dem pickups (Minnesota, Maine and Nevada as possible GOP pickups, although I think they're all less likely unless something changes considerably).  So Trump needs to win most of those Great Lakes states, but even if he does he can still be defeated.  One of many possible paths for the Dems would be to win Florida and either Arizona or North Carolina (or Michigan, the Great Lakes state that seems to be reverting to the status quo the most). On the other hand Trump almost certainly can't win without them.

:goodposting:

 

And, its one of the reasons I think the Iowa results will be more important than perhaps they might appear at first blush - I think Iowa will be a good indicator of how Mid-Western dems view the candidates - and that will be important in the mid-western states.

That is countered by states like Georgia and North Carolina, which might require more minority support for a Dem to win - so South Carolina will play a role in deciding how african-americans are viewing the candidates.

 

My hope is that a real front runner emerges early into the debate season, and Dems can rally around one candidate, and then choose a strategic running partner...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And, I would add, as Tobias already did - those states are more important to Trump than they are to the Dems - because I don't see Trump winning any new states, so he has to keep what he already won, and given the narrow margins - it will be difficult at his current popularity levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

And, I would add, as Tobias already did - those states are more important to Trump than they are to the Dems - because I don't see Trump winning any new states, so he has to keep what he already won, and given the narrow margins - it will be difficult at his current popularity levels.

Underestimate Trump....again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Underestimate Trump....again.

Hey johnny, what new states do you think he could win in 20w0? Also, do you think he will have a tough primary challenge? Kasich is who i suspect will try.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 3:37 AM, Sinn Fein said:

This is a good image of how 538 sees the Dem contenders

 

Article here:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

 

In a nutshell, it maps the contenders against 5 key constituents:

 

1.  African-American
2.  Hispanic/Asian
3.  Party Loyalists
4.  The Left
5.  Millennials

 

Harris has the biggest footprint - scoring well with African-Americans with no real weak areas.  Booker also rates well.

Gillibrand has no weak spots - but she has no strengths either.

I was a little surprised with Klobuchar - only rated well with Party Loyalists.

Wondering if they should have had a key constituent category for the Women's vote?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still believe that the Democratic nomination is decided by African-Americans. Which is why I think in the end it will come down to Biden, Kamela Harris, and Corey Booker. Currently, Bernie Sanders is leading among black voters but that is mostly due to name recognition. 

If Biden enters the race I think he has to be the favorite especially if Obama endorses him. I’m not sure the Democrats have ever had a kingmaker in modern times the way Obama could be for this election. 

I also think that Hillary should stay away from endorsing anyone, as it will unfortunately be regarded as a negative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mr fancypants said:

Wondering if they should have had a key constituent category for the Women's vote?

From my understanding, “the women vote” is a bit more heterogeneous and less reliable for electoral purposes than other demographics. There’s a big sociological aspect to it which I’m not well read on, but the gist of it is that gender is usually not central to one’s identity in the way that race tends to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

Underestimate Trump....again.

His supporters are really holding out this as their only hope.  Polls are totally fake, despite what we saw in the midterms, and a majority of the country loves Trump despite all recent election and polling saying otherwise.  And here's where Johnny will talk about picking up 2 seats in the Senate...

Also there's a great likilhood that the economy will be worse in 18 months and the deficit will have reached Obama levels of increase.  His only real rallying cry is to strike fear about the brown people down South but that only rings true to his 35% base.

It's like Trump supporters forget he ran against Hillary, who was almost as disliked as he was/is and that many dems either stayed home or voted 3rd party.  I think it's fairly obvious that the dems are now motivated against Trump and won't stay home again.  The party of Trump is already motivated and that just barely won for them in '16 against wholly unmotivated dems.

I give Trump a very low chance of winning against anyone in '20.

Link to post
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...