Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Sinn Fein

Recommended Posts

DMR will not be releasing its final poll because one respondent complained that Mayor Pete’s name was missing from the candidate menu. DMR believed it was a one-off mistake but couldn’t be sure, so they killed the poll. Amazing.

Edited by caustic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2020 at 1:41 PM, ren hoek said:

DNC overhauls debate requirements, opening door for Bloomberg

Why now?  Looks like the DNC desperately wants to make Bloomberg a factor in this. Another centrist to push now that Biden is collapsing.  

These machinations by the DNC are awful, disgusting really, but the hot take here indicates how easy the conspiracy play is - if Bloomberg is left out it’s because they’re protecting Biden, if Bloomberg is let in it’s because Biden is cratering.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Agreed. He's going to have the same problem Hillary had: the more people see you, the less they like you.

We’re talking about Joe Biden right? There isn’t a current person running that is more likable on the campaign trail. He’s the exact opposite of Hillary in this regard. People love him. He’s much more like Bill than Hillary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

These machinations by the DNC are awful, disgusting really, but the hot take here indicates how easy the conspiracy play is - if Bloomberg is left out it’s because they’re protecting Biden, if Bloomberg is let in it’s because Biden is cratering.

This is why there strict rules so early in the process will always backfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ren hoek said:

He’s literally in Iowa headlining an event for Biden making this phone call in a hotel lobby.:lmao:

Quote

DES MOINES, Iowa — Former Secretary of State John Kerry — one of Joe Biden's highest-profile endorsers — was overheard Sunday on the phone at a Des Moines hotel explaining what he would have to do to enter the presidential race amid "the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole."

Sitting in the lobby restaurant of the Renaissance Savery hotel, Kerry was overheard by an NBC News analyst saying "maybe I'm ####### deluding myself here" and explaining that in order to run, he'd have to step down from the board of Bank of America and give up his ability to make paid speeches. Kerry said donors like venture capitalist Doug Hickey would have to "raise a couple of million," adding that such donors "now have the reality of Bernie."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, timschochet said:

We’re talking about Joe Biden right? There isn’t a current person running that is more likable on the campaign trail. He’s the exact opposite of Hillary in this regard. People love him. He’s much more like Bill than Hillary. 

Especially when he :pokey: people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Getzlaf15 said:

NBC reporting this LOL.  They don't want Bernie winning.  Nothing to see here.

Speaking as a right-winger who was horrified at Trump's nomination, Bernie's rise and blowback from party establishmentarians is looking awfully familiar.  Sanders isn't as vile as Trump is, of course, but he's the person Trump would most like to run against.

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

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

We’re talking about Joe Biden right? There isn’t a current person running that is more likable on the campaign trail. He’s the exact opposite of Hillary in this regard. People love him. He’s much more like Bill than Hillary. 

Not even close. His fuse is getting shorter with each campaign stop. I honestly can't remember a single hostile exchange Bill ever had with someone at his rally.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Widbil83 said:

He’s literally in Iowa headlining an event for Biden making this phone call in a hotel lobby.:lmao:

 

 

4 hours ago, ren hoek said:

Board of Bank of America?

We're doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:
Quote

Sitting in the lobby restaurant of the Renaissance Savery hotel, Kerry was overheard by an NBC News analyst saying "maybe I'm f---ing deluding myself here" and explaining that to run, he'd have to step down from the board of Bank of America and give up his ability to make paid speeches. Kerry said donors like venture capitalist Doug Hickey would have to "raise a couple of million," adding that such donors "now have the reality of Bernie."

Fake news I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanders is obviously the best candidate to run against Trump.  The most donors, the biggest support base, diverse appeal to working class and minorities, actually excites a base, a populist.  A decent human being with a long history of consistent messaging.  We already did establishment centrist vs. Trump in 2016- it loses to Trump.  Keep in mind that we are in this boat because decades of establishment politicians like Biden made an 'outsider' tv gameshow host look palatable by comparison. 

I'd be kind of mad in a sense if Sanders got the nomination.  Establishment Dems deserve an L more than anybody, and Sanders might just give them a W anyway.  To me that would absolve the Democratic Party of wasting so much time & energy on the Russia scam, the feeble impeachment attempt over an inconsequential phonecall that ignored Trump's worst crimes, the continued indifference to important kitchen table issues, their hypocritical enabling of Trump's warfare state and regime change policies.  This party is such a sham.  

You can tell from the Super Bowl ad last night that Trump's going to do his 2016 thing where he runs to the Democrats' left on some issues.  He can't do that against Sanders.  He can't co-opt the antiestablishment posture against Sanders.  I don't think people are going to fall for the 'communism' line.  For every boomer that is scared off by this, an independent and adolescent will get off the couch to vote for him based on tangible policy ideas that matter to them.  

It would be very easy to depress black turnout for Biden.  Warren would get trashed for her history of telling lies and co-opting the Native American identity.  It's Sanders or Trump.  🤷‍♂️

Edited by ren hoek
'donators'
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decided to take a fresh ISideWith online quiz ahead of primary season, to see which candidates I should support.  I scored very libertarian, as always.

The results came out as a 3-way tie between Sanders, Pete, and Warren, with Yang a very slight smidge behind.  Seeing Sanders, Yang, and Pete up there doesn't surprise me, because they tend to be my 3 favorites of the race.  I was a bit surprised to see Warren up there, since I find her to be generally unlikeable, but goes to show that a general unpalatability (is that a word?) doesn't necessarily mean she wouldn't be a good candidate for me.  Still my least favorite of the 4, though.  Bloomberg and Biden finished as the lowest two of my Democratic candidates, but still far outpaced Trump.

I doubt Yang makes it too much farther, unfortunately, so I'll likely be throwing my hat in the Sanders or Pete camp down the road.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Steve Tasker said:

Decided to take a fresh ISideWith online quiz ahead of primary season, to see which candidates I should support.  I scored very libertarian, as always.

The results came out as a 3-way tie between Sanders, Pete, and Warren, with Yang a very slight smidge behind.  Seeing Sanders, Yang, and Pete up there doesn't surprise me, because they tend to be my 3 favorites of the race.  I was a bit surprised to see Warren up there, since I find her to be generally unlikeable, but goes to show that a general unpalatability (is that a word?) doesn't necessarily mean she wouldn't be a good candidate for me.  Still my least favorite of the 4, though.  Bloomberg and Biden finished as the lowest two of my Democratic candidates, but still far outpaced Trump.

I doubt Yang makes it too much farther, unfortunately, so I'll likely be throwing my hat in the Sanders or Pete camp down the road.

I took it as well, and while I do lean conservative on a few issues, all of the ones I sided with are democrats. Granted, nobody got above 70%, and the highest one was a guy named Tom Steyer(I don't know who that is either), but it was odd to see for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Sanders is obviously the best candidate to run against Trump.  The most donators, the biggest support base, diverse appeal to working class and minorities, actually excites a base, a populist.  A decent human being with a long history of consistent messaging.  We already did establishment centrist vs. Trump in 2016- it loses to Trump.  Keep in mind that we are in this boat because decades of establishment politicians like Biden made an 'outsider' tv gameshow host look palatable by comparison. 

I'd be kind of mad in a sense if Sanders got the nomination.  Establishment Dems deserve an L more than anybody, and Sanders might just give them a W anyway.  To me that would absolve the Democratic Party of wasting so much time & energy on the Russia scam, the feeble impeachment attempt over an inconsequential phonecall that ignored Trump's worst crimes, the continued indifference to important kitchen table issues, their hypocritical enabling of Trump's warfare state and regime change policies.  This party is such a sham.  

You can tell from the Super Bowl ad last night that Trump's going to do his 2016 thing where he runs to the Democrats' left on some issues.  He can't do that against Sanders.  He can't co-opt the antiestablishment posture against Sanders.  I don't think people are going to fall for the 'communism' line.  For every boomer that is scared off by this, an independent and adolescent will get off the couch to vote for him based on tangible policy ideas that matter to them.  

It would be very easy to depress black turnout for Biden.  Warren would get trashed for her history of telling lies and co-opting the Native American identity.  It's Sanders or Trump.  🤷‍♂️

That's the sticking point.  

 

I KNOW my older, Boomer aged Biden supporters will go to the polls on election day.  They've been doing forever.  I don't have that same confidence that the younger/millenial Bernie supporting types will do that.  They are passionate and type loudly......but I don't know if I trust them to get their feet into the precinct on Election Day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find it now but earlier I saw a poll on twitter reporting that 42% of Bernie supporters in Iowa would vote for a non-Democrat if he didn't get the nomination (Yang had even a higher number, IIRC). Now that could be third party or that could be Trump, that part was left unspecified. But I urge those bros to think more clearly about this and understand that getting Donald Trump out of the White House is the best thing that Democrats can do for the nation this fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I can't find it now but earlier I saw a poll on twitter reporting that 42% of Bernie supporters in Iowa would vote for a non-Democrat if he didn't get the nomination (Yang had even a higher number, IIRC). Now that could be third party or that could be Trump, that part was left unspecified. But I urge those bros to think more clearly about this and understand that getting Donald Trump out of the White House is the best thing that Democrats can do for the nation this fall.

Is this it? 42% is Yang #. Sanders has a very high "It Depends".
https://twitter.com/amjoyshow/status/1223647822614007808

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me there are effectively two races tonight: Bernie vs Warren; Biden vs Buttigieg and Klobuchar (with Bloomberg anxiously awaiting the outcome of the latter.$ 

 

I think Bernie’s going to win tonight. I think he’s going to win big, and I think after tonight Warren is going to be effectively eliminated. 

The second contest is more problematic. Biden needs to come in 2nd. If he comes in  3rd  he is Hillary in 2008, hanging on a thread and it doesn’t look good. Buttigieg needs to come in 2nd or I think he’s done. Klobuchar needs to come in a close 3rd to survive, though unless she comes in 2nd I still don’t see a path for her. Bloomberg needs any outcome that has Biden in trouble.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

It seems to me there are effectively two races tonight: Bernie vs Warren; Biden vs Buttigieg and Klobuchar (with Bloomberg anxiously awaiting the outcome of the latter.$ 

 

I think Bernie’s going to win tonight. I think he’s going to win big, and I think after tonight Warren is going to be effectively eliminated. 

The second contest is more problematic. Biden needs to come in 2nd. If he comes in  3rd  he is Hillary in 2008, hanging on a thread and it doesn’t look good. Buttigieg needs to come in 2nd or I think he’s done. Klobuchar needs to come in a close 3rd to survive, though unless she comes in 2nd I still don’t see a path for her. Bloomberg needs any outcome that has Biden in trouble.

The fact that we even have this process to discuss fills me with anger. There are a million ways to do this thing better. And by better, I mean for the voting citizen, not the corporate horse race media or the election industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

You weren't necessarily off when you add in the "It depends". The question is whether there are just one or two they would vote for vs wouldn't vote for.

Which is a pretty good argument for approval voting. Because our first past the post systems have the partial result of awarding the same vote to your second and third choices, who may be perfectly acceptable candidates, as it does to the candidate you wouldn't elect to town dogcatcher. Everybody except the first choice takes a goose egg and that ain't right.

Edited by roadkill1292
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nine months away today, right? Time enough to conceive and deliver a baby so time enough to discuss other election crap besides the horse race.

How would you supporters of lesser known candidates like Andrew Yang like to see the selection process modified? We'll have some defenders of the status quo -- hiya, Tim! -- concluding that raising the most money implies that you are the most qualified candidate but what that really demonstrates is that you're the best at raising money. Those two things may overlap but they don't necessarily have to (if they correlated better we wouldn't have so many idiots in Congress). Are primaries even any good at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Which is a pretty good argument for approval voting. Because our first past the post systems have the partial result of awarding the same vote to your second and third choices, who may be perfectly acceptable candidates, as it does to the candidate you wouldn't elect to town dogcatcher. Everybody except the first choice takes a goose egg and that ain't right.

I'd much prefer ranked choice to approval voting, but either would be much better than the current system.

I would hugely prefer Buttigieg (and multiple others) to Biden, but I may end up voting for Biden in the primary because my preference for Biden over Sanders matters more than my preference for Buttigieg over Biden, given that Buttigieg is a less realistic hope to win the primary. But it's a bit self-fulfilling. One of the reasons Buttigieg is a less realistic hope is because we don't have ranked-choice (or even approval) voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

Nine months away today, right? Time enough to conceive and deliver a baby so time enough to discuss other election crap besides the horse race.

How would you supporters of lesser known candidates like Andrew Yang like to see the selection process modified? We'll have some defenders of the status quo -- hiya, Tim! -- concluding that raising the most money implies that you are the most qualified candidate but what that really demonstrates is that you're the best at raising money. Those two things may overlap but they don't necessarily have to (if they correlated better we wouldn't have so many idiots in Congress). Are primaries even any good at all?

I am not a defender of the status quo. I have a lot of problems with it. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, roadkill1292 said:

Well shut my mouth and call me Sally.

Well Sally the biggest problem is not necessarily always a money thing, though I think any reasonable person, even somebody who agreed with the Citizens United decision in principle, would have to be appalled at the way it’s being manipulated. But I think even bigger that that problem are the antiquated, strange rules that in no way contribute to a democratic result. 

The most important change I would make is to toss out the order of states. No more Iowa first, New Hampshire second. Instead I would have a random order determined a few years prior each time around- one year it’s Rhode Island, one year Hawaii, one year California. And so on. 

And speaking of California we have the biggest population, therefore we should have a big influence. Usually we have none. This time around we have a little more because we moved up our date to Super Tuesday. But we managed to dissipate our influence by making our results proportional. I say make California winner take all. That’s the only way to make our state what it should be based on our population and economy: the most influential state in the union, the big prize. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Well Sally the biggest problem is not necessarily always a money thing, though I think any reasonable person, even somebody who agreed with the Citizens United decision in principle, would have to be appalled at the way it’s being manipulated. But I think even bigger that that problem are the antiquated, strange rules that in no way contribute to a democratic result. 

The most important change I would make is to toss out the order of states. No more Iowa first, New Hampshire second. Instead I would have a random order determined a few years prior each time around- one year it’s Rhode Island, one year Hawaii, one year California. And so on. 

And speaking of California we have the biggest population, therefore we should have a big influence. Usually we have none. This time around we have a little more because we moved up our date to Super Tuesday. But we managed to dissipate our influence by making our results proportional. I say make California winner take all. That’s the only way to make our state what it should be based on our population and economy: the most influential state in the union, the big prize. 

I'm going to disagree with that last paragraph, since Florida is 3rd largest, and we wield some influence as well. Honestly, if they redo the electoral college to reflect the new state populations, that would change things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, Tim, but still not creative nor logical enough. Plus a disconcerting grab for power from a state which will one day have its fair share, which is a little scary for the rest of us (but not as scary as conservatives make it out to be).

March primary -- Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming. Approval voting, bottom 20% of vote getters are eliminated.

April primary -- Arkansas, DC, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah (guessed the criteria yet?). 25% of the remaining candidates are eliminated.

May primary -- Alabama, Connecticut, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee. A third of who's left are cut.

June -- Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minneapolis, Missouri, Virginia, Washington, Wiscons. Half of the survivors are eliminated.

July -- California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas.

Now we have a pretty accurate picture of who Democratic voters actually want or can live with. Have a quick convention for the people who need those kinds of things and get it done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Judicial Watch: Eight Iowa Counties Have Total Registration Rates Larger than Eligible Voter Population – at Least 18,658 Extra Names on Iowa Voting Rolls

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that eight Iowa counties have more voter registrations than their eligible voting-age population. According to Judicial Watch’s analysis of data released by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in 2019 and the most recent U.S. Census Bureau’s five-year American Community Survey, eight Iowa counties are on the list of 378 counties nationwide that have more voter registrations than citizens living there who are old enough to vote, i.e., counties where registration rates exceed 100%. These 378 counties combined had about 2.5 million registrations over the 100%-registered mark. In Iowa, there are at least 18,658 “extra names” on the voting rolls in the eight counties at issue.

Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), Judicial Watch sent notice-of-violation letters to 19 large counties in five states (California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado) that it intends to sue unless the jurisdictions take steps to comply with the law and remove ineligible voter registrations. Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act requires jurisdictions to take reasonable efforts to remove ineligible registrations from its rolls.

The chart below details the eight Iowa counties’ registration rate percentages:

Reg Rate    Total Population

Dallas County  114.8  80,864

Johnson County  107.9  144,425

Lyon County  102.5  11,745

Madison County  102.5  15,720

Poweshiek County  102.1  18,428

Dickinson County  100.9  17,000

Scott County  100.8  171,493

Warren County  100.5  48,630

In addition to the eight listed above, Polk County, Iowa’s largest, has an unusually high registration rate of 95.9% of total eligible citizen voting-age population. 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-eight-iowa-counties-have-total-registration-rates-larger-than-eligible-voter-population-at-least-18658-extra-names-on-iowa-voting-rolls-2/

 

Sounds like Iowa needs to do some house cleaning.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just anecdotally, CNN just showed a satellite caucus of 135 people (presumably snowbirds)

- 3 people left after 1st round when their candidate wasn't viable. It wasn't clear if others with unviable candidates realigned

- Final Round numbers ----   Amy 42%, Pete 33%   Joe 25%........ not projectible, but I enjoyed it

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Are you saying these numbers are made up?

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2020/02/03/election-2020-iowa-caucus-problems/4618371002/

that's the Republican Secretary of State

Edited by joffer
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, timschochet said:

It seems to me there are effectively two races tonight: Bernie vs Warren; Biden vs Buttigieg and Klobuchar (with Bloomberg anxiously awaiting the outcome of the latter.$ 

 

I think Bernie’s going to win tonight. I think he’s going to win big, and I think after tonight Warren is going to be effectively eliminated. 

The second contest is more problematic. Biden needs to come in 2nd. If he comes in  3rd  he is Hillary in 2008, hanging on a thread and it doesn’t look good. Buttigieg needs to come in 2nd or I think he’s done. Klobuchar needs to come in a close 3rd to survive, though unless she comes in 2nd I still don’t see a path for her. Bloomberg needs any outcome that has Biden in trouble.

This seems like a pretty good projection. I think Pete or Warren finish top 3, and I’m betting one of them finishes ahead of Biden.

I think some people forget Pete has a lot of the Obama people working for him, and they really know there stuff when it comes to caucusing. I’m sure the people who speak for Pete at their precinct are extremely well trained (which is huge). So it’s easy to show up thinking you are going to support one candidate, and end up supporting another.

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...