AAABatteries
Footballguy
Great point - also, while he’s attempted to fulfill some of his campaign promises, his main legislation that he’s help pass is the tax cut for the rich which isn’t going to gain him much and probably lose him votes.
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
While technically correct, I think practically extremely unlikely.Maurile Tremblay said:
But - that outcome depends on the candidates themselves. It would take Trump -> Extremely Popular 3rd Party -> Extremely Unpopular Democrat
Additionally, I think the Extremely Popular 3rd Party would have to lean left in the binary left-right world for this scenario to play out. Any Extremely Popular candidate from the right, would eat more heavily into Trump's support. And, if you have an Extremely Popular 3rd Party candidate from the left - they would likely have beaten an Extremely Unpopular Democratic candidate - in an open primary season. And, then the 3rd Party would still have to decide to run, knowing he/she was likely going to increase the chances of a Trump win.
I don't think either scenario presents itself in this election cycle. I think there are a number of qualified candidates this year for the Dems - compared to last cycle. I think a popular candidate will present him/herself during the cycle and will be chosen by the Dems. I don't think any of the candidates would run as a 3rd-party candidate - this cycle. (In part, because I think the "fringe" voices in the party are already being heard, and some of their concerns are already being adopted within the party - so less incentive to continue to run on those issues).
If you’re going to get somewhere around 30%-35% of the vote no matter how many opponents you have, you definitely want to be in a three-way race rather than a two-way race. (A four-way race would be even better.)
Another interesting 3rd party scenario - would be if a candidate was able to effectively target blocs of voters in specific states to actually win a few states. Lets say someone like Kasich comes in and really connects with mid-west voters - enough to win a 3-way contest in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. But, Kasich does poorly in the deep south and western GOP strongholds, and Trump wins those states.
And, lets say that leaves everyone short of the 270 needed to win.
That would throw things to the House - where its likely that Trump could win the election....
In the event that the decision goes to the House - each state is entitled to 1 vote, and may choose among the top-3 Electoral vote-getters. Trump, Kasich-like, Democrat.
Based on the current make-up of the House* - if we assume that each individual will vote along party lines - then Trump has enough support to win the election:
26 states have more GOP reps than DEMs
22 states have more DEM reps than GOP
2 states have an even distribution: Michigan and Pennsylvania
*I am not sure the dynamics would change, even if Dems pick up more seats in 2020 - those seats would be likely in states that already lean Dem, but
And, lets say that leaves everyone short of the 270 needed to win.
That would throw things to the House - where its likely that Trump could win the election....
In the event that the decision goes to the House - each state is entitled to 1 vote, and may choose among the top-3 Electoral vote-getters. Trump, Kasich-like, Democrat.
Based on the current make-up of the House* - if we assume that each individual will vote along party lines - then Trump has enough support to win the election:
26 states have more GOP reps than DEMs
22 states have more DEM reps than GOP
2 states have an even distribution: Michigan and Pennsylvania
*I am not sure the dynamics would change, even if Dems pick up more seats in 2020 - those seats would be likely in states that already lean Dem, but
Again - technically correct.
But, if you are getting 30% of the vote, and someone is getting 20% and someone is getting 50% - it does not matter.
From a practical standpoint a 3rd party candidate has no shot at getting 30-35% across the board - they simply don't have the infrastructure to be competitive in 50 states.
Which leads to - 30% of the vote is an overall percentage - if you cluster that 30% in the right areas - you could even win a 2-party race...But, if that 3rd party is eating more from your side of the pie - it hurts you more than it helps.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Well, the only good thing that would come out of that would be the impetus it might give election reform. If the majority of voters in this country start feeling disenfranchised enough, the next powerful generation of voters might not be as supportive of a "unique" system constructed by some fellas 240 years ago and which is considered downright baffling by citizens of other western democracies.Maurile Tremblay said:
krista4
Footballguy
I’m watching her announcement. She’s not my first choice right now, but I have this strange feeling she’s going to be our next President. This is based on virtually no practical reasoning; just a hunch.
ETA: I’m on a plane, and of the eight TVs I can see, six are tuned to this on either Fox or CNN.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Klobuchar is my first choice, Harris is a close second right now.
Edit: and I’m a-okay with her being our next President. I’m definitely getting an Obama vibe from her.
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m pretty much the same though I have to admit I know very little about the Dem candidates at this point, it’s just knee-jerk for me right now. I was very impressed with Klobuchar during the BK hearings but I know nothing otherwise about her, she may not be liberal enough for me.
As of right now I’m not much interested in Biden, Gillibrand, or Gabbard.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Klobuchar is not an ultra-liberal candidate. Which I’m very happy with. I’m not as liberal as many on this board think I am.
But Harris isn’t as liberal as many think either. She was a prosecutor. It's not like she’s some bleeding heart.
Yep, that’s why I need to learn more.
(btw I’ve never considered you to be as liberal as myself or a lot of others, I view you as centrist/slightly left of center)
I just thought Klobuchar was impressive, I liked her demeanor and her sensibility. I can also trade some “liberal ness” for competence and integrity. But all things being equal I would support the most “progressive” candidate and that may not be her.
eta I took some political test that was linked here. My top 2 matches were Warren-88% and Bernie-81%. I don’t really want either to be the Dem nom. I want a landslide Dem win and I think both have too much baggage.
Regarding Harris; just got done reading an article about some of her prosecutorial history. I’m thinking you’re right, she may not be liberal enough either. But I want a no questions Dem win.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Better get behind Schultz.
https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-uneasy-potential-howard-schultz-bid-172909284--election.html
https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-uneasy-potential-howard-schultz-bid-172909284--election.html
Jobber
Footballguy
Kamala Harris: "With faith in God, with fidelity to country, and with the fighting spirit I got from my mother, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States."
I think she looked and sounded the part.
Yes - I think it is her nomination to lose.
And, I think the Dem nominee will be the next president.
krista4
Footballguy
Having now watched the speech, I’m even more convinced.
How can anyone think she’s not likable, btw?
Sigh. I guess I know.
I need an optimistic rating for you!
I am interested in seeing more of Klobuchar. I think Bernie will be around - but not a factor. I don't think Gabbard will make it to Iowa - unless nobody else enters the race.
Serious question - what does Gabbard offer to set her apart from some of the more nationally known candidates?
krista4
Footballguy
Dedfin
Footballguy
I doubt Gabbard makes it far but who knows. I think she, besides Bernie is the only actual anti-war candidate. I mean i dont think harris or amy k will start new ones, but its tulsis disregard for convention that makes me think she will actually end the wars, whereas the others will defer to the existing group that insists on us staying for the next 15 years.
That disregard for convention is most appealing to me for the other issues she agrees with thr rest of the group like addressing climate issues. I think the likelihood to make significant changes is really is the major difference between some of the candidates and i think we need them.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I don’t think either will be the nominee but I’m curious what you think Bernie’s baggage isn’t. He’s still the most trusted/respected politician and other than rocking the boat in 2016 and being an excuse for Hillary, Tim and Gunz on why she lost I don’t see too much baggage. I do think he missed his chance by not coming out sooner and I do think he’s too old but outside of that I’m not sure what the problem is unless you disagree on things like tariffs. His larger message still resonates with me and I’m glad he’ll be in the mix even if it’s to remind people of that message.
the moops
Footballguy
Yea, I do wonder if Harris taking the spotlight will have an effect on who else decides to run. Similar thing could happen if Beto announces. If I had to bet, I would guess a Harris/Beto or Beto/Harris ticket is most likely
timschochet
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The Dems see Trump reeling, and what happens? Hillary's buzz team puts her entry on the wire and Schultz talks about running. - Consider some rigging.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
FFS
I sort of hope this happens. They can finally put her and her supporters to rest in proper fashion....at flat out rejection by everyone else.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Yes, that sounds like a winning strategy. Virtually the only candidate more reviled (not that I'm saying it's her fault) than and capable of losing to Donald Trump is ready to run again. I'm sure everyone who didn't vote for her in 2016 have changed their minds about her in the interim.
Dedfin
Footballguy
LOCK HER UP
No seriously. If that's what it takes for her to retire, then just frigging do it.
the moops
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
no worries GB....we've been assured the mere suggestion of her running again was
It's not going to happen!!!!!!!! until it does 
Dedfin
Footballguy
I just won't vote if Hillary runs again. I won't even gaf anymore.no worries GB....we've been assured the mere suggestion of her running again was
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Hillary is not going to run.
She will be bitter, but she is not going to run.
And, while I don't like her - I do think its important to note the role she has played in making it possible for a female candidate to run for president. I think when you look at Harris or Warren or Gabbard or Klobuchar the first thoughts most people have are: "What are their positions on X, Y and Z? Do they align with my views?"
I think most people see candidate first, gender second (or not at all). Hillary took a lot of arrows along the way - some justified, some not - to normalize the idea that a female can be president of the United States. Obviously there have been many female role models along the way - but I think Hillary stood out among women by showing she could play the same game as the men in the rough and tumble world - and not just play, but beat them at their own game.
I hope, in time, people recognize the barriers that she helped break. She will fall short of her personal goal of winning the White House - but she played a key role in opening that door.
She will be bitter, but she is not going to run.
And, while I don't like her - I do think its important to note the role she has played in making it possible for a female candidate to run for president. I think when you look at Harris or Warren or Gabbard or Klobuchar the first thoughts most people have are: "What are their positions on X, Y and Z? Do they align with my views?"
I think most people see candidate first, gender second (or not at all). Hillary took a lot of arrows along the way - some justified, some not - to normalize the idea that a female can be president of the United States. Obviously there have been many female role models along the way - but I think Hillary stood out among women by showing she could play the same game as the men in the rough and tumble world - and not just play, but beat them at their own game.
I hope, in time, people recognize the barriers that she helped break. She will fall short of her personal goal of winning the White House - but she played a key role in opening that door.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
That would be very gracious of President-Elect Michele Obama crediting the ol' Hilldawg for her pioneering efforts during her inauguration speech in January 2029.
I agree, I just think the “socialist” label will become a massive rallying point for the right. Maybe “ baggage” was wrong term for Sanders.
Interesting Graphic/Theory in WaPo
Basically it looks at Dem candidates and how they performed in 2018 elections, relative to the level of support Clinton received in 2016.
Klobuchor is big winner, while Warren under-performed
Basically it looks at Dem candidates and how they performed in 2018 elections, relative to the level of support Clinton received in 2016.
Klobuchor is big winner, while Warren under-performed
The Commish
Footballguy
It will be a rallying point like "the left" has become anyone that opposes Trump and it will apply to every single one of the Democratic candidates. It doesn't matter which one comes out on top.Ranethe said:
The 2020 field may be crowded — but maybe not as crowded as we originally thought
And it raises the question: Is the ultimate Democratic field going to be smaller than everyone anticipated? More like 12 to 15 candidates instead of the 20 to 30 folks have talked about?
Right now, we have seven candidates who have declared or who have filed paperwork, and it already feels a bit, well, crowded. Part of that is due to Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., announcing early, and staking claims to their lanes.
And part of it is due to the fact that Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke have the name ID, potential resources and ability to wait on a decision, thus freezing the rest of the field.
If you’re not in early, and if you’re not Biden, Sanders, O’Rourke or a billionaire like Mike Bloomberg, it becomes harder and harder to differentiate yourself and your candidacy.
To quote Yogi Berra, “It’s getting late early.”
And it raises the question: Is the ultimate Democratic field going to be smaller than everyone anticipated? More like 12 to 15 candidates instead of the 20 to 30 folks have talked about?
Right now, we have seven candidates who have declared or who have filed paperwork, and it already feels a bit, well, crowded. Part of that is due to Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., announcing early, and staking claims to their lanes.
And part of it is due to the fact that Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke have the name ID, potential resources and ability to wait on a decision, thus freezing the rest of the field.
If you’re not in early, and if you’re not Biden, Sanders, O’Rourke or a billionaire like Mike Bloomberg, it becomes harder and harder to differentiate yourself and your candidacy.
To quote Yogi Berra, “It’s getting late early.”
Those who have filed paperwork or announced presidential bids (7)
- Sen. Kamala Harris (who announced on Jan. 21)
- Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (who announced her exploratory committee on Jan. 15)
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (who announced her exploratory committee on Dec. 31)
- Former San Antonio Mayor and HUD Secretary Julian Castro (who formally announced his decision on Jan. 12)
- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (who announced her decision to run on Jan. 11)
- Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney (who announced his presidential bid back on July 28, 2017!!!!)
- South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (who announced his exploratory committee on Jan. 23)
- Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
- Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas
- Former VP Joe Biden
- Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.
- Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio
- Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
- Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
- Montana Gov. Steve Bullock
- Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
- Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe
- Former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu
- Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.
- Outgoing Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
- Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.
- Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.
Of the declared candidates - I think Harris is the only serious contender - so I am not sure I agree that anyone one considering a bid would be scared off at this point.
I think if Sanders, Booker, O'Rourke declare as expected then you start to see the real field get crowded, and any fringe candidates that want to get in will find fund raising more difficult. I'd still expect to hear from Brown and maybe Klobuchor - but with the later she may be trying to figure out where she fits into the picture here.
I don't think Biden will run. I certainly don't think Clinton will run.
I think if Sanders, Booker, O'Rourke declare as expected then you start to see the real field get crowded, and any fringe candidates that want to get in will find fund raising more difficult. I'd still expect to hear from Brown and maybe Klobuchor - but with the later she may be trying to figure out where she fits into the picture here.
I don't think Biden will run. I certainly don't think Clinton will run.
Chickenwang
Footballguy
Dems making it east. 4 more years!
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
What a waste of Booker's donor's money. Far as I can see, this dude is the biggest corporate/pharma shill in the race so far. Almost everybody knows it. Guy has no chance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
