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)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
Yeah, I don't know exactly how to handle this. If the people who were cheated want cstu gone, he'll be gone. If they'd rather handle this some other way, I'm open to suggestions. But let's do this elsewhere. The thread in the FFA seems right. If someone can bump it, I'll move it over here.
Quinnipiac National Poll:
Biden 24%
Buttigieg 16%
Warren 14%
Sanders 13%
Klobuchar 3%
Harris 3%
Bloomberg 3%
Booker/Castro/Yand/Bennet 2%
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3650
Biden 24%
Buttigieg 16%
Warren 14%
Sanders 13%
Klobuchar 3%
Harris 3%
Bloomberg 3%
Booker/Castro/Yand/Bennet 2%
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3650
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Copying the detail in here to look at trend:
Buttigieg looks to be siphoning from Warren, Biden support is like a slow leak, Sanders looks capped, Harris debate bump had little staying power and Klobuchar can win this if we can put the election off for a couple of years.
Buttigieg looks to be siphoning from Warren, Biden support is like a slow leak, Sanders looks capped, Harris debate bump had little staying power and Klobuchar can win this if we can put the election off for a couple of years.
Code:
DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS..........................................
Nov 26 Oct 24 Oct 14 Oct 08 Sep 25 Aug 28 Aug 06 Jul 29 Jul 02
2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019
Biden 24 21 27 26 25 32 32 34 22
Sanders 13 15 11 16 16 15 14 11 13
Harris 3 5 4 3 3 7 7 12 20
Warren 14 28 30 29 27 19 21 15 14
Booker 2 1 2 2 - 1 2 1 3
Klobuchar 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Castro 2 1 1 1 2 - 1 - 1
Gabbard 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1
Delaney - - - - - - - - -
Buttigieg 16 10 8 4 7 5 5 6 4
Yang 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 1
Williamson - - - - - 1 - 1 -
Bennet 2 - 1 1 1 1 - - -
Bullock - - - - - 1 - - -
Sestak - - - - - - - - -
Steyer - 1 2 - - - - - na
Patrick - na na na na na na na na
Bloomberg 3 na na na na na na na na
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Could be an outlier. The Warren drop is pretty extreme, also.
Betting markets are buying the Pete hype (or, perhaps more accurately, the Warren doom). He's now in second place at 17.9%, behind only Biden at 21.7%, as Warren has fallen sharply to 15.9%. (Numbers current as of the time of this post at electionbettingodds.com.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Which statement is more correct?
A) People never change their minds about politics.
B) Man, people sure change their minds a lot about politics!
The case for the latter statement: Two-thirds of battleground state voters who chose Trump in 2016 but selected Democrats in the midterms say they will return to the president next year.
It reminds me of how Clinton won in 1992, the Democrats got smeared in 1994, but then Clinton won again in 1996. George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings in recorded history a quarter of the way through his first term, and among the lowest approval ratings ever late in his second term. Obama won in 2008, the Democrats got smeared in 2010, but then Obama won again in 2012.
People do change their minds.
The upshot is that we anti-Trump folks shouldn't be too optimistic based on the 2018 midterms. Maybe they don't mean much about 2020.
A) People never change their minds about politics.
B) Man, people sure change their minds a lot about politics!
The case for the latter statement: Two-thirds of battleground state voters who chose Trump in 2016 but selected Democrats in the midterms say they will return to the president next year.
It reminds me of how Clinton won in 1992, the Democrats got smeared in 1994, but then Clinton won again in 1996. George W. Bush had the highest approval ratings in recorded history a quarter of the way through his first term, and among the lowest approval ratings ever late in his second term. Obama won in 2008, the Democrats got smeared in 2010, but then Obama won again in 2012.
People do change their minds.
The upshot is that we anti-Trump folks shouldn't be too optimistic based on the 2018 midterms. Maybe they don't mean much about 2020.
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
And water is wet.
I have been seeing the same thing on predictit- specifically the bottom dropping out on Warren more than a Buttigieg surge in the Dem nominee market.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Feel like I've seen analysis before where the odds are ridiculously stacked in favor of the incumbent, but can't remember where.
krista4
Footballguy
What do you think accounts for the Warren drop? I have some theories (including her increasingly seeming disingenuous, and rolling out ideas that are quite far left) but admittedly don't stay as well-versed as many of you.
To me there seem to has been an upsurge in negative "Pete can't get African-Americans" news lately. Not just the crap posted here, but several NYT articles, one in the New Yorker, etc. that dig deeper into caustion rather than just indicating an issue. Frankly they have me worried, and make me start to wonder if "we" have a good (i.e., electable) candidate available.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
Warren decided she wanted to publish plans and bring specific ideas to the marketplace. It's resulted in her spending a lot of time defending wonky details that don't matter all that much in the this stage of the process. She's treating her campaign like it's a job interview. And while there should be merit to that approach, it's a dumb one to take in USA politics.
In 2016 the black vote was like 10% of the electorate and was like 90% for Clinton. The bigger barriers to getting the black vote out will be local/state level ones like voter roll purging and suppression, voting machine allocation, unfounded fraud accusations, and convoluted voter registration/ID laws. You know, the stuff that delivered WI and GA to Trump in 2016. If Buttigeig can spark a big turnout increase in the 18-29 and 30-49 ranges (demos that broke hard for Clinton in 2016 among those who showed up) it won't matter what skin color they are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Warren - I think the drop is primarily a result of the attacks on her Medicare For All plan - she took a few hits at the October debate on that issue, specifically how she will pay for it. I think she was hurt by the initial claims that the middle-class would not pay for it, before later acknowledging that the middle-class probably would pay a little.
I don't think this (Warren drop) is a sexism issue because, as you recall she started the campaign at near zero support following the ancestry issues. So, any support she lost in the last several weeks was also support she had earned over the last several months.
Pete - I think this is simply a function of being a perceived threat. Like Warren, once she became the front-runner, the attacks are more pointed, and come from many directions. Its my opinion that many of the media stories are carefully placed Opposition Research pieces by various campaigns - so they can stay above the fray and still make the points. Pete is now a threat to the three front-runners, and a major obstacle for Klobuchar, Harris, and Booker - those three are backed into a corner right now, and the only way they survive is to come out swinging.
I think this quote from Michael Harriot is good:
"He is not the perfect candidate nor will there be one. But this does not mean the Democratic Party is divided. The entire point of the primary process is for voters to dictate their concerns to the candidates and for candidates to learn from voters. Black America wants their party to emerge victorious but not if we have to offer our votes as a living sacrifice for the sake of “party unity.” What good is a white savior if he doesn’t save us?"
I think we are simply at that vetting stage where people are poking and prodding to see what kind of people/candidates we have. I am not worried about having an electable candidate - because I think they all can be electable in a general election - both because someone like Warren is likely to move back towards the center, and because someone like Pete will prove to be acceptable to a large percentage of the Dem base. And, if someone else emerges as the favorite - it will be because they won over the Dem voters during the primaries.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Bernie Sanders is the strongest candidate for the Dems. Biggest most adamant support base, most individual donors, best support among working class, best pull from Trump, doesn't have a problem connecting with minorities. Can think straight and speak clearly. Economic populism is more timely, winning message than tepid centrism. But nominating him would upset their donors, and the DNC can not have that. I think they would rather lose to Trump again than upset the status quo.
It will be interesting to see how they betray their base this time.
It will be interesting to see how they betray their base this time.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
I honestly believe Wall St made some calls, kind of an internal marketing campaign that a President Warren would be harmful to the American Way of Life as reflected in the Dow Jones Averages. And using the Hillary brush (oh, the stridency!) to do it.
Mayor Pete's black prob is part frontrunner prob, part that his appetite for inclusion makes him vulnerable to appearing the panderer. The smart tactic would be ignoring self-appointed African-American juries and convince a semi-prominent black figure to stump for him. Peteyjudge is soooo white (one of the late-night talkingheads posted a picture of an envelope as his 8x10 glossy) that someone's gonna need to vouch for him to make black outreach not look totally fake.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I think it indicates to me that voting for President and voting for "other stuff" are two completely different considerations for many people. And Bush's ratings fell apart in conjunction with the economy falling apart (to which the policies of his administration were certainly a major contributor).
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I don't think we do. I think a lot of these candidates have some good ideas, some good intentions, but they don't inspire, they don't seem "leaderly." Then there's Joe, who has the persona, but the appearance of competency and coherency has left him. There's really nobody sitting on the sidelines who'd be a better candidate either - except maybe Michelle Obama.
I would guess the scathing article in NYT about Harris’ campaign signals the beginning of the end for her.
I had high hopes for her coming out of her announcement rally but it seems all of her senate experience was not enough to put together a strong campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html
I had high hopes for her coming out of her announcement rally but it seems all of her senate experience was not enough to put together a strong campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-2020.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
It’s been said before that how a candidate runs a campaign is a good indication of how they’d manage as President.
ren hoek
Footballguy
"Many advisers to Ms. Harris point to the July Democratic debate, and her weak response to an attack by Representative Tulsi Gabbard, right, as accelerating Ms. Harris’s decline as a candidate."
There was really no coming back once her record was exposed. Black support tanked immediately. Think the same thing could very easily happen to Biden in a general.
the moops
Footballguy
Black voters have alternatives in the Dem primary. Not so much in the general if the alternative is Trump. Perhaps some will stay home, but I doubt many will vote for Trump.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
i'm maxed out or the yr for NYT reads. anybody wanna gist it fuh me?
Kamala was my bet w myself when we didn't know who any of these folks were, but she appeared very much a Willie Brown protege from the start and the "i cornered this market so i can corner that" don't work so well past the Bay, maybe Sacto
ren hoek
Footballguy
What 2016 showed us, is that some will be content to stay at home if the Dem nominee doesn't give them a reason to vote for something. His vague emotional ties to Obama won't last forever.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Alex Thompson @AlxThomp
New Pete ad in Iowa taking aim at Warren and Bernie over college affordability/debt (but not by name), arguing they’d alienate half the country by insisting it be “free even for the kids of millionaires”. H/t @McCormickJohn
New Pete ad in Iowa taking aim at Warren and Bernie over college affordability/debt (but not by name), arguing they’d alienate half the country by insisting it be “free even for the kids of millionaires”. H/t @McCormickJohn
ren hoek
Footballguy
I find Pete's rhetoric on M4A and free college to be extremely disingenuous. It could be that he actually believes people who can't afford it don't want free healthcare & public/state university, which have both risen astronomically in cost over the years.
The more likely explanation is that the billionaires, lobbyists and special interests who support Buttigieg's campaign have a direct financial incentive to back a candidate who argues against the idea of poor people having nice things. The rhetoric is strikingly similar to Hillary Clinton's.
The more likely explanation is that the billionaires, lobbyists and special interests who support Buttigieg's campaign have a direct financial incentive to back a candidate who argues against the idea of poor people having nice things. The rhetoric is strikingly similar to Hillary Clinton's.
sho nuff
Footballguy
To claim he is bashing those things is funny.
Also to just claim he is fake and big business seems more disingenuous that his stance on things. Seems more he is moving where the public is moving. Smaller steps rather than jumping all in in those progressive ideas.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
She was my bet in the spring because she seemed to be the one appealing to both moderates and progressives. Followed by numerous actions causing disingenuous/inauthentic to be popular descriptors and started defending herself to critics like Gabbard simply with "You're wrong".
Also, clearing cookies usually allows me to see NYT. WaPo when I'm over limit. Also use multiple browsers.
ren hoek
Footballguy
What I find disingenuous is the framing of 'not wanting to pay for college for the children of billionaires.' What it implies is that the idea that a random billionaire's kid might get free college is somehow a serious argument against millions of other students getting it as well. Do you think people holding some of the $1.2 Trillion dollar student debt bubble care if a handful of rich people's kids get free college as well- to public/state universities they tend to bypass in favor of private institutions anyway- if it means forgiving their debt? It would largely be funded by progressive taxation against the exceedingly wealthy.
Basically it's the slick McKinsey consultant framing for a half measure, repackaged through populist rhetoric. Subsidizing the system as it is generally just drives up cost, as federal student loan programs have done, and generally adds means-testing to the equation where families making over $100K are lumped in rhetorically with the same 'children of millionaires and billionaires' subset.
To be clear, it's also an argument against ALL universal programs. Why should we pay for public parks that billionaires might walk on? Why pay for fire dept. services for the children of billionaires? Why pay for universal K-12 education on the off chance a billionaire's kid might use it? It's really a ridiculous argument. You could use it against literally any universal public service. It's just a disingenuous framing to me. And like "Medicare For All Who Want It" co-opts progressive messaging while preserving the interests of private insurance cos., it just feels like the sort of poll-tested smarm you'd come to expect from a smooth corporate politician.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Not sure what silver lining you found in those articles, they're a pretty bad look. The thing is, he IS attacking M4A now as potentially a bureaucratic nightmare that kicks people off their private insurance. He's very keen to take backwards shots at it like "kicking people off their insurance" and 'people in Washington telling you how to live your lives' (or something to that effect I don't remember exactly). Maybe he's right. But that wasn't his position before. Here is Pete in February 2019:bananafish said:
Here is Pete now, in November 2019:
Let's be real clear here: this rhetoric about "kicking everybody off their private plans" and "my way or the highway" is not where he was in February. It's the sort of defeatist language and framing that boxes Warren/Sanders in to a position that scares away boomers, and a complete departure from the sort of advocacy he was making before. Before, M4A was the "center of gravity," "leaving Americans to the tender mercies of corporations" was wrong, and he appeared to endorse other countries he's been where there are single payer systems. He went from M4A being the forefront of a conscious and sensible policy, to taking backhanded swipes at it like it's the work of centralized, ivory tower bureaucrats. Now, there "has to be some humility in our policy." Now, "leaving Americans to the tender mercies of corporations" is more palatable. That's a flipflop.
It's the sign of a person who won't fight for tangible policies they believe in. It's the sign of a person who will cave the second he faces serious pushback from entrenched power. But worst of all, it's the sign of a politician that slyly changes his positions whichever way the polls and the winds are blowing, but especially wherever the donors are putting their $$$$$. It seems like his first instincts now are to punch left; it's a distinctly different stature than the one he had before.
Last edited by a moderator:
caustic
Footballguy
With such an emphasis on electability in this primary, here’s an interesting new study: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/opinion/sunday/progressive-candidates-conservative-values.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
Moderate and conservative voters become much more likely to support progressive policies if the policies are framed around ‘conservative’ values such as patriotism, freedom, liberty, etc. People seem to like progressive policies but not progressive rhetoric. Framing matters!
Moderate and conservative voters become much more likely to support progressive policies if the policies are framed around ‘conservative’ values such as patriotism, freedom, liberty, etc. People seem to like progressive policies but not progressive rhetoric. Framing matters!
identikit
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Not really...if you listen to all of what he has said...he realizes people aren't as likely to support the big change fast...but incremental. I think he sees where the public will support and congress may support. Its a more pragmatic approach.
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Bloomberg up to 5th place, ahead of Harris, in new Hill/Harris poll. He could have a shot at the debate if he took donations. Though he probably doesn't want it.
https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/dem-pref.jpg
https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/dem-pref.jpg
badmojo1006
Footballguy
I would vote for Bernie even though I am not a fan.
But I am afraid the GOP will hammer him about the heart attack and call him damaged goods. And I agree
badmojo1006
Footballguy
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
She had a bigger fall in Quinnipiac (scroll up near top of page). Some think it is related to push back on her M4All plans. in the Quinnipiac poll, her drop is similar to Buttigieg's rise. In this one, she's down by the amount of Buttigieg+Bloomberg.
I think she has leveled out - but she has been falling pretty steadily since the October Debate when she got hit pretty hard on her Medicare For All, and how to pay for it.
Losing support is never a good thing, but i think the timing will still work out well for her - I think she has time and room to re-gain her supporters over the next couple of months. I think she can bounce back to contend in Iowa and could win New Hampshire - but that should be close.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
She;'s 14% in the Quinnipiac poll earlier on this page. I made the comment about that possibly being an outlier, but now there are two in a week.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
I think it is more than how to pay for it. A lot of people didn't understand that private insurance would go away under M4All. Multiple polls have shown that people are less favorable on it when they know that. A July Kaiser poll showed that 55% of Dems and Dem-leaning Is would prefer to build on Obamacare compared to 39% wanting M4All. As it is talked about more, and other candidates push back, this could hurt Warren and Sanders.
ren hoek
Footballguy
@MaxKennerly
Is this an act? I do not believe Mr. Harvard Rhodes Scholar had to serve as mayor for several years before he realized residential segregation exists. South Bend has been under a desegregation consent decree since 1981. It's still in effect today. He's saying he didn't know that?
South Bend *closed integrated schools* after the consent decree to try to re-segregate. They're still out of compliance today. I'm sorry, but I just can't accept the claim that he didn't know about any of this. This is some sort of weird signaling.
Is this an act? I do not believe Mr. Harvard Rhodes Scholar had to serve as mayor for several years before he realized residential segregation exists. South Bend has been under a desegregation consent decree since 1981. It's still in effect today. He's saying he didn't know that?
South Bend *closed integrated schools* after the consent decree to try to re-segregate. They're still out of compliance today. I'm sorry, but I just can't accept the claim that he didn't know about any of this. This is some sort of weird signaling.
Similar threads
