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 (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
I suppose but as a general rule centrist voters aren’t as passionate. The activists in the two parties are usually on the right or left, and whenever they can unify behind a single candidate, they win.
timschochet
Footballguy
Biden back tied for first place in Iowa. Warren in 4th place.
BUT- and this is interesting- a 9 point jump for Amy Klobuchar. Now at 11%.
BUT- and this is interesting- a 9 point jump for Amy Klobuchar. Now at 11%.
Chickenwang
Footballguy
Wasn't Clinton leading ?
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
I've seen a lot of second choice polls where a ton of Warren supporters have Pete as their second choice. It would definitely be enough to vault Bernie to first though like you said. It would be interesting to see where Bernie voters would go if he dropped out. I guess I would go to Warren but I really wouldn't be thrilled about it.
Strangely a lot of Biden voters have Bernie as their second choice... clearly not policy driven voters
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I think he was fairly liberal, I didn't agree with a lot of his policies, the big one being the way he implemented healthcare.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
What did you dislike about how healthcare was implemented? Because I think you and I might view the beginning of the Obama presidency very differently.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Sounds like a condition some old person would have in a commercial where the meds to remedy might result in anal leakage
the moops
Footballguy
It was just dropped in, implemented very poorly, I got lucky that my insurance was in place before it started, because when I switched jobs, I paid a lot more for less coverage, and it all just seemed thrown together.
joffer
Footballguy
and showing said old person helping their grandchild fly a kite with a rainbow in the backdrop
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I'm still puzzling over why states control much of the primary processes instead of the parties but a look into the history of it -- the courts took an active interest in states' control because the Texas Democratic Party tried to prevent black people from joining it in 1923 -- sheds a little light. Still, you'd think that the party should have more leeway in setting its own primary dates and rules as long as those rules were inclusive and fair.
Yeah, old guy still mumbling under his breath about our dumb primary systems. I hate them like I hate Selection Committees.
Yeah, old guy still mumbling under his breath about our dumb primary systems. I hate them like I hate Selection Committees.
timschochet
Footballguy
If one of her staff suggest this term...fire them.IvanKaramazov said:
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
Looks like the push back against Pete emanating from the Dem side is working. Unfortunate.timschochet said:
the moops
Footballguy
Or it is just one poll. Or as we get closer to the actual primary date people's choices change. Or Klobuchar has upped her game in Iowa. Or yes, some democrat opponents are no longer handling Pete with kid gloves
MAC_32
Footballguy
I think she has always been the best candidate given our current environment. Her problem is she's boring. But boring is better than bad and as the weeks go by bad seems to be the word most used to describe the other candidates.
All I hope is that this is not just another phase with her heading towards a brief peak then sliding back down the polls.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don't know where this thing is headed, but I'm a believer in fundamentals when it comes to elections and I think Klobuchar could be absolute unstoppable in the midwest as either nominee or as the VP ticketmate.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I would obviously vote for Klobuchar if she's the nominee but for whatever reason I just can't see what other people see in her. Something about her really rubs me the wrong way. I thought Yang was the best by far in the debate last night, I don't expect him to win but I really hope that a Democrat does win and gives him a prominent role in the administration.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
Klobuchar is level-headed, not big on rhetoric or divisiveness, experienced and one of the most productive senators in terms of legislation and sponsored many more bills than any other member of Congress running. Also, as she kept reming us, she's from an area of the country impt. to the election
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/amy_klobuchar/412242/report-card/2017
https://www.axios.com/klobuchar-most-productive-member-of-congress-running-for-president-fe0c536b-5189-46ba-b1cf-a6047b794a35.html
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/amy_klobuchar/412242/report-card/2017
https://www.axios.com/klobuchar-most-productive-member-of-congress-running-for-president-fe0c536b-5189-46ba-b1cf-a6047b794a35.html
ren hoek
Footballguy
Didn't Klobuchar throw staplers at people? I really think 'civility' and 'restoring norms' and especially 'boring' are a failing appeal to voters. I think they look at Biden, Klobs, and to a lesser extent Buttigieg and see the same centrist blob that got us Trump.
The truth is that Trump ushered in a new era of politics, that is more 'in your face' and visceral. On some level, in a perverse way perhaps, I think people enjoy the fight. Trump is a once in a lifetime spectacle, and even with all the bs going on, I think it's going to be really hard to unseat that without a compelling vision for this country. The 'respectable' centrists had their shot in 2016, and for many decades before that. This is where it got us. Time to yield back to something different. Or, if they just want to shove another centrist down the country's throat, another 4 years of Trump.
The truth is that Trump ushered in a new era of politics, that is more 'in your face' and visceral. On some level, in a perverse way perhaps, I think people enjoy the fight. Trump is a once in a lifetime spectacle, and even with all the bs going on, I think it's going to be really hard to unseat that without a compelling vision for this country. The 'respectable' centrists had their shot in 2016, and for many decades before that. This is where it got us. Time to yield back to something different. Or, if they just want to shove another centrist down the country's throat, another 4 years of Trump.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Little surprised @ the traction Klobuchar is gaining w y'all. Before i threw in w Peteyjudge, she was my darkhorse in this field, but i've found her as canned & self-congratulatory as Kamala Harris. I guess persistence pays off cuz, a coupla months ago, y'all were nodding along when i said that Sen Amy was miffed that nobody found her as wonderful as she did. I saw a half dozen of her responses live last night (hopping over from b-ball) and saw nothing that changed my mind about her.
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis
Footballguy
I think she's great. Prefer her many times more than Hillary. But Pete I still think has a special combination of qualities that puts him over her, imo.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Still awkwardly self-aware, like someone excited to lay a zinger on the peeps, but the shaking (or illusion of same) was not a factor
ren hoek
Footballguy
Pete has some close ties to the national security machine:
The Insider: National Security Mandarins Groomed Pete Buttigieg & Managed His Future
An influential D.C. network of military interventionists placed Mayor Pete on an inside track to power, reports Max Blumenthal.
The Insider: National Security Mandarins Groomed Pete Buttigieg & Managed His Future
An influential D.C. network of military interventionists placed Mayor Pete on an inside track to power, reports Max Blumenthal.
The Truman Show
When Pete Buttigieg made his journey to Somaliland in 2008, he had just earned a fellowship at the Truman Center, a Washington-based think tank that provided a steppingstone for national security-minded whiz kids like him to leadership positions in the Democratic Party.
Buttigieg likely earned the fellowship after answering an ad like the one the Truman Center published on the website of the Harvard Law School Student Government in 2010. Soliciting applicants for its security fellowship, the center declared that it was seeking “exceptionally accomplished and dedicated men and women who share President Truman’s belief in muscular internationalism, and who believe that strong national security and strong liberal values are not antagonistic, but are two sides of the same coin.”
This was not the first time Buttigieg had dipped his toes into Washington’s national security swamp. After graduating from Harvard, he worked at the Cohen Group, a consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen that maintained an extensive client list within the arms industry. (As The Grayzone reported, the Cohen Group has been intimately involved in the Trump administration’s bungling regime change attempt in Venezuela).
But it was Buttigieg’s fellowship at the Truman Center that placed him on the casting couch before the Democratic Party’s foreign policy mandarins.
A Tablet Magazine profile of Truman Center founder Rachel Kleinfeld described her as a “gatekeeper and ringleader” whose network of former fellows spanned Congress and the Obama administration’s National Security Council. Her career trajectory mirrored Buttigieg’s.
She had earned degrees at elite institutions (Yale and Oxford, where Buttigieg pursued his Rhodes scholarship) before accepting a job at a private contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, that performed an array of services for the U.S. military and private spying for intelligence agencies.
Kleinfeld’s boss at the company was James Woolsey, the neoconservative former CIA director who has lobbied aggressively for U.S. military assaults on Iraq and Iran.
According to Tablet, “Woolsey positioned Kleinfeld to work on sensitive government projects the company was pursuing in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, including one that involved working as a researcher for the military’s Defense Science Board, investigating information-sharing between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.”
When Kleinfeld founded her think tank in 2005, she named it for the president who oversaw the detonation of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, threats of another nuclear assault on North Korea and the killing of 20 percent of that country’s population. The Truman doctrine, which called for “containing” the Soviet Union through internal destabilization and relentless pressure on its periphery, was the basis of Washington’s Cold War policy. (Following Kleinfeld’s lead, Buttigieg named one of his two pet dogs Truman).
“We decided there really was a need to create a movement of Democrats to stand up for these ideas and to really start to think about it, very much as a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s,” she told The Forward at the time.
To fill the center’s board of advisers, Kleinfeld assembled a cast of Democratic foreign policy heavyweights whose accomplishments included the devastation of entire countries through regime change wars.
Among the most notable Truman advisors were Madeleine Albright, the author of NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia and president of an influence-peddling operation known as the Albright Stonebridge Group; the late Council on Foreign Relations President Les Gelb, who once proposed dividing Iraq into three federal districts along sectarian lines; former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who oversaw record levels of migrant deportations; and Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former State Department policy planning director who conceived the Responsibility To Protect (R2P) doctrine deployed by the Obama administration to justify NATO’s disastrous intervention in Libya and drum up another one against Syria.
“The Truman Project mobilizes Democrats who serve the conventional interventionist agenda,” journalist Kelly Vlahos wrote. “Beyond that, they are part of a broader orbit of not so dissimilar foot soldiers on the other side of the aisle.”
Buttigieg listed his fellowship at the Truman Center as one of the credentials that qualified him for Indiana State treasurer when he ran for the position in 2010.
Though he lost in a landslide, Buttigieg won election as mayor of South Bend the following year. “Mayor Pete” had not only secured his future in the Democratic Party, he had won a place in its foreign policy pantheon with a seat on the Truman Center’s advisory board.
Balancing Opposition to Endless Wars
This July 11, Buttigieg rolled out his foreign policy platform in a carefully scripted appearance at Indiana University. Introduced by Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman who was a fixture on the House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees, Buttigieg blended a call to “end endless wars” with Cold War bluster directed at designated enemies.
Before an auditorium packed with the national press, he rattled off one of the more paranoid talking points of the Russiagate era, blaming President Vladimir Putin for fueling racism inside the U.S. He then attacked Trump for facilitating peace talks in Korea, slamming the president for exchanging “love letters” with “a brutal dictator,” referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.
More recently, Buttigieg’s campaign pledged to “balance our commitment to end endless wars with the recognition that total isolationism is self-defeating in the long run.” This was the sort of Beltway doublespeak that defined the legacy of Barack Obama, another youthful, self-styled outsider from the Midwest who campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war, only to sign off on more calamitous wars in the Middle East after he entered the White House.
On the presidential campaign trail, “Mayor Pete” has done his best to paper over the instincts he inherited from his benefactors among the national security state. But as the campaign drags on, his interventionist tendencies are increasingly exposed. Having padded his resume in America’s longest and most futile wars, he may be poised to extend them for a new generation to fight.
When Pete Buttigieg made his journey to Somaliland in 2008, he had just earned a fellowship at the Truman Center, a Washington-based think tank that provided a steppingstone for national security-minded whiz kids like him to leadership positions in the Democratic Party.
Buttigieg likely earned the fellowship after answering an ad like the one the Truman Center published on the website of the Harvard Law School Student Government in 2010. Soliciting applicants for its security fellowship, the center declared that it was seeking “exceptionally accomplished and dedicated men and women who share President Truman’s belief in muscular internationalism, and who believe that strong national security and strong liberal values are not antagonistic, but are two sides of the same coin.”
This was not the first time Buttigieg had dipped his toes into Washington’s national security swamp. After graduating from Harvard, he worked at the Cohen Group, a consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen that maintained an extensive client list within the arms industry. (As The Grayzone reported, the Cohen Group has been intimately involved in the Trump administration’s bungling regime change attempt in Venezuela).
But it was Buttigieg’s fellowship at the Truman Center that placed him on the casting couch before the Democratic Party’s foreign policy mandarins.
A Tablet Magazine profile of Truman Center founder Rachel Kleinfeld described her as a “gatekeeper and ringleader” whose network of former fellows spanned Congress and the Obama administration’s National Security Council. Her career trajectory mirrored Buttigieg’s.
She had earned degrees at elite institutions (Yale and Oxford, where Buttigieg pursued his Rhodes scholarship) before accepting a job at a private contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, that performed an array of services for the U.S. military and private spying for intelligence agencies.
Kleinfeld’s boss at the company was James Woolsey, the neoconservative former CIA director who has lobbied aggressively for U.S. military assaults on Iraq and Iran.
According to Tablet, “Woolsey positioned Kleinfeld to work on sensitive government projects the company was pursuing in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, including one that involved working as a researcher for the military’s Defense Science Board, investigating information-sharing between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.”
When Kleinfeld founded her think tank in 2005, she named it for the president who oversaw the detonation of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, threats of another nuclear assault on North Korea and the killing of 20 percent of that country’s population. The Truman doctrine, which called for “containing” the Soviet Union through internal destabilization and relentless pressure on its periphery, was the basis of Washington’s Cold War policy. (Following Kleinfeld’s lead, Buttigieg named one of his two pet dogs Truman).
“We decided there really was a need to create a movement of Democrats to stand up for these ideas and to really start to think about it, very much as a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s,” she told The Forward at the time.
To fill the center’s board of advisers, Kleinfeld assembled a cast of Democratic foreign policy heavyweights whose accomplishments included the devastation of entire countries through regime change wars.
Among the most notable Truman advisors were Madeleine Albright, the author of NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia and president of an influence-peddling operation known as the Albright Stonebridge Group; the late Council on Foreign Relations President Les Gelb, who once proposed dividing Iraq into three federal districts along sectarian lines; former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who oversaw record levels of migrant deportations; and Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former State Department policy planning director who conceived the Responsibility To Protect (R2P) doctrine deployed by the Obama administration to justify NATO’s disastrous intervention in Libya and drum up another one against Syria.
“The Truman Project mobilizes Democrats who serve the conventional interventionist agenda,” journalist Kelly Vlahos wrote. “Beyond that, they are part of a broader orbit of not so dissimilar foot soldiers on the other side of the aisle.”
Buttigieg listed his fellowship at the Truman Center as one of the credentials that qualified him for Indiana State treasurer when he ran for the position in 2010.
Though he lost in a landslide, Buttigieg won election as mayor of South Bend the following year. “Mayor Pete” had not only secured his future in the Democratic Party, he had won a place in its foreign policy pantheon with a seat on the Truman Center’s advisory board.
Balancing Opposition to Endless Wars
This July 11, Buttigieg rolled out his foreign policy platform in a carefully scripted appearance at Indiana University. Introduced by Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman who was a fixture on the House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees, Buttigieg blended a call to “end endless wars” with Cold War bluster directed at designated enemies.
Before an auditorium packed with the national press, he rattled off one of the more paranoid talking points of the Russiagate era, blaming President Vladimir Putin for fueling racism inside the U.S. He then attacked Trump for facilitating peace talks in Korea, slamming the president for exchanging “love letters” with “a brutal dictator,” referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.
More recently, Buttigieg’s campaign pledged to “balance our commitment to end endless wars with the recognition that total isolationism is self-defeating in the long run.” This was the sort of Beltway doublespeak that defined the legacy of Barack Obama, another youthful, self-styled outsider from the Midwest who campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war, only to sign off on more calamitous wars in the Middle East after he entered the White House.
On the presidential campaign trail, “Mayor Pete” has done his best to paper over the instincts he inherited from his benefactors among the national security state. But as the campaign drags on, his interventionist tendencies are increasingly exposed. Having padded his resume in America’s longest and most futile wars, he may be poised to extend them for a new generation to fight.
ren hoek
Footballguy
How the Democratic Party Lost Its Soul
The blowout election of 2014 demonstrates that the Democratic Party is utterly out of touch with ordinary people and their adverse circumstances. Working people have known this for some time now, but this year, the president made the disconnection more obvious. Barack Obama kept telling folks to brighten up: the economy is coming back, he said, and prosperity is just around the corner.
A party truly connected to the people would never have dared to make such a claim. In the real world of voters, human experience trumps macroeconomics and the slowly declining official unemployment rate. An official at the AFL-CIO culled the following insights from what voters said about themselves on Election Day: 54 percent suffered a decline in household income during the past year. Sixty-three percent feel the economy is fundamentally unfair. Fifty-five percent agree strongly (and another 25 percent agree somewhat) that both political parties are too focused on helping Wall Street and not enough on helping ordinary people.
Instead of addressing this reality and proposing remedies, the Democrats ran on a cowardly, uninspiring platform: the Republicans are worse than we are. Undoubtedly, that’s true—but so what? The president and his party have no credible solutions to offer. To get serious about inequality and the deteriorating middle class, Democrats would have to undo a lot of the damage their own party has done to the economy over the past thirty years.
Postelection diagnosis on the left found lots of reasons to rationalize the dismal results and to cheer small victories. Critical analysis focused mainly on the mechanics of this failed election cycle, but the trouble with Democrats goes much deeper than one botched election. It’s systemic, and it started in the Reagan era.
Long ago, the party abandoned its working-class base (of all colors) and steadily distanced itself from the unglamorous conditions that matter most in people’s lives. Traditional party bulwarks like organized labor and racial minorities became second-string players in the hierarchy that influences party policy. But the Dems didn’t just lose touch with the people they claimed to speak for; they betrayed core constituencies and adopted pro-business, pro-finance policies that actively injure working people.
The shift away from the people was embraced most dramatically when Bill Clinton’s New Democrats came to power in the 1990s. Clinton double-crossed labor with NAFTA and subsequent trade agreements, which encouraged the great migration of manufacturing jobs to low-wage economies. Clinton’s bank deregulation shifted the economic rewards to finance and set the stage for the calamity that struck in 2008. Wall Street won; working people lost. Clinton presided over the financialization of the Democratic Party. Obama merely inherited his playbook and has governed accordingly, often with the same policy-makers.
“The people,” of course, are still present in the party, but they’re treated mainly as data for election strategies. The voters themselves resemble the supernumeraries in a grand opera: they appear on stage at election time, always lavishly praised by the pols. But they are given no lines to speak or songs to sing.
Instead of actually talking to people, as the old party precinct captains used to do, the campaigns now rely on TV ads to shape public opinion, and polling and focus groups to monitor the views of citizens. The communication is reversed: instead of asking people what they need as a guide to governing, people are asked what the party needs to say (or not say) to harvest votes.
The tattered authenticity of the party matters more now because both the country and the world face dangers and disorders that demand a fundamental reordering of the global economic system. This requires bold action, at a time when neither party is confronting the threatening situation. The Republicans are a wholly owned subsidiary of the business-finance machine; the Democrats are rented.
What we need is a rump formation of dissenters who will break free of the Democratic Party’s confines and set a new agenda that will build the good society rather than feed bloated wealth, disloyal corporations and absurd foreign wars. This is the politics the country needs: purposeful insurrection inside and outside party bounds, and a willingness to disrupt the regular order. And we need it now, to inject reality into the postelection spin war within the party. On one side, the right-wingers will blame the loss on Obama’s unpopularity, claiming his economic policy is too liberal; progressives must counter that the Democrats lost because they had no economic message aside from Obama’s replay of tired Wall Street bromides that misfired so spectacularly.
This is the fight that really matters, and it was coming no matter how bad the Democratic losses were. If the Wall Street/Walmart wing of the party wins—if Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2016—any hope that Democrats will embrace the imperative for fundamental change will be lost. Dems will become the party of the past, defending wrong ideas that failed and losing more elections.
A party truly connected to the people would never have dared to make such a claim. In the real world of voters, human experience trumps macroeconomics and the slowly declining official unemployment rate. An official at the AFL-CIO culled the following insights from what voters said about themselves on Election Day: 54 percent suffered a decline in household income during the past year. Sixty-three percent feel the economy is fundamentally unfair. Fifty-five percent agree strongly (and another 25 percent agree somewhat) that both political parties are too focused on helping Wall Street and not enough on helping ordinary people.
Instead of addressing this reality and proposing remedies, the Democrats ran on a cowardly, uninspiring platform: the Republicans are worse than we are. Undoubtedly, that’s true—but so what? The president and his party have no credible solutions to offer. To get serious about inequality and the deteriorating middle class, Democrats would have to undo a lot of the damage their own party has done to the economy over the past thirty years.
Postelection diagnosis on the left found lots of reasons to rationalize the dismal results and to cheer small victories. Critical analysis focused mainly on the mechanics of this failed election cycle, but the trouble with Democrats goes much deeper than one botched election. It’s systemic, and it started in the Reagan era.
Long ago, the party abandoned its working-class base (of all colors) and steadily distanced itself from the unglamorous conditions that matter most in people’s lives. Traditional party bulwarks like organized labor and racial minorities became second-string players in the hierarchy that influences party policy. But the Dems didn’t just lose touch with the people they claimed to speak for; they betrayed core constituencies and adopted pro-business, pro-finance policies that actively injure working people.
The shift away from the people was embraced most dramatically when Bill Clinton’s New Democrats came to power in the 1990s. Clinton double-crossed labor with NAFTA and subsequent trade agreements, which encouraged the great migration of manufacturing jobs to low-wage economies. Clinton’s bank deregulation shifted the economic rewards to finance and set the stage for the calamity that struck in 2008. Wall Street won; working people lost. Clinton presided over the financialization of the Democratic Party. Obama merely inherited his playbook and has governed accordingly, often with the same policy-makers.
“The people,” of course, are still present in the party, but they’re treated mainly as data for election strategies. The voters themselves resemble the supernumeraries in a grand opera: they appear on stage at election time, always lavishly praised by the pols. But they are given no lines to speak or songs to sing.
Instead of actually talking to people, as the old party precinct captains used to do, the campaigns now rely on TV ads to shape public opinion, and polling and focus groups to monitor the views of citizens. The communication is reversed: instead of asking people what they need as a guide to governing, people are asked what the party needs to say (or not say) to harvest votes.
The tattered authenticity of the party matters more now because both the country and the world face dangers and disorders that demand a fundamental reordering of the global economic system. This requires bold action, at a time when neither party is confronting the threatening situation. The Republicans are a wholly owned subsidiary of the business-finance machine; the Democrats are rented.
What we need is a rump formation of dissenters who will break free of the Democratic Party’s confines and set a new agenda that will build the good society rather than feed bloated wealth, disloyal corporations and absurd foreign wars. This is the politics the country needs: purposeful insurrection inside and outside party bounds, and a willingness to disrupt the regular order. And we need it now, to inject reality into the postelection spin war within the party. On one side, the right-wingers will blame the loss on Obama’s unpopularity, claiming his economic policy is too liberal; progressives must counter that the Democrats lost because they had no economic message aside from Obama’s replay of tired Wall Street bromides that misfired so spectacularly.
This is the fight that really matters, and it was coming no matter how bad the Democratic losses were. If the Wall Street/Walmart wing of the party wins—if Hillary Clinton is the nominee in 2016—any hope that Democrats will embrace the imperative for fundamental change will be lost. Dems will become the party of the past, defending wrong ideas that failed and losing more elections.
timschochet
Footballguy
Klobuchar continues to do well. I would love to see it.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is just an example of the difficulties Fox & the Trump campaign are having transferring the anti-corruption messaging off 2016 to the current batch of Dem candidates.
timschochet
Footballguy
If Trump loses the election it will be because of women. Hillary beat Trump with women by 14 points. Biden currently is winning with women by 24 points. That is the biggest margin since 1964 when LBJ blew out Goldwater.
Biden is way ahead of Trump in every measurable category except one: white men without a college degree. In that one category Trump maintains a whopping 45 point advantage.
Biden is way ahead of Trump in every measurable category except one: white men without a college degree. In that one category Trump maintains a whopping 45 point advantage.
the moops
Footballguy
The message of fear has worked very well on this particular group. And it still seems so damn strange that it is a billionaire from NY who has routinely screwed over the working man who has effectively convinced them of that fear
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
Is it Trump vs the field? Or Trump vs A, B, C, D, etc? Assuming it's the latter then it's at least part because we don't know which letter is going against him.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t think it is.
The key remains the battleground states and Trump is underwater in all of them. So long as it’s Biden, Buttigieg, or Klobuchar, I still think Democrats win fairly easily. If it’s Warren or Sanders it’s a tougher road ahead.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The very existence of "battleground states" this time around is depressing enough.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
That's what I don't get about it. If it were a candidate who came from that demographic....I'd get it. But this guy.....I really don't believe if he weren't running for office....he would poop all over them and not think twice.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Julian Castro never had much of a shot, and he's a bit of a shill but I'll miss his presence in the debates. He was tough on his feet. Guy stood his ground and hit like a truck when he took the gloves off:
https://youtu.be/81Mw051ft4Y
https://youtu.be/81Mw051ft4Y
the moops
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
And really...after the last debate, the candidates have been sort of quiet. Few things here or there that are covered in the threads for Bernie, or Biden or Buttigieg.
Impeachment. Holidays. Iran.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Strange. We are 4 weeks away from one of the most important dates in the election cycle. This topic should be humming. I think if we had two clear candidates fighting it out we would be seeing more activity. The field still is so large. That said, I think the anyone but Trump strategy is dangerous and would like to see more excitement behind some of the candidates. I personally think this is a pretty good menu to chose from.
timschochet
Footballguy
If that becomes my choice I will happily take Bernie.ren hoek said:
But it’s not my choice yet.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Agreed that the large field doesn’t help. And some pretty big other events taking up much of the conversation.
I think several have their candidate as well and hoping the mentality isn't to stay home if the preferred candidate isnt the nominee.
Widbil83
Footballguy
I’m old enough to remember when a guy by the name of Barack Hussein Obama had no problem winning Iowa big. Now all the Democrats in New Hampshire and Iowa are racist it sounds like.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/02/castro-democratic-primary-093079
Similar threads
