What's new
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.

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place (6 Viewers)

I think it's fair as a benchmark against itself though. Actually when I looked that up in the link Widbill provided I actually suspected the strong approve/disapprove numbers would look different, but actually Trump is doing pretty well there too. - I just keep pointing out that modeling off of Obama 2012 is not necessarily a good thing, Obama lost EVs and percentage in 2012. Trump has to improve on his own 2016.
Can I ask you why your initial lean was this way? Media coverage? This forum? 

 
Wow. You guys really need to expand your news sources. Turn off talk radio and stop reading Breitbart. 
That is completely out of the realm of possibilities for you?  Why is she out doing events constantly?  Why is she still sending tweets like this one 15 mins ago-

When the Trump administration threatened to pull out of the Iran deal and impose more sanctions last year, it was clear that we'd lose our leverage and Iran would be free to do what it wanted. Predictably, Iran is now exceeding enrichment limits the deal once imposed.

 
That is completely out of the realm of possibilities for you?  Why is she out doing events constantly?  Why is she still sending tweets like this one 15 mins ago-
Completely and absolutely out of the realm of possibility that Hillary will run again. There is no law that she had to retire from public life after she lost the 2016 election or refrain from making statements on Twitter. She can still help Democratic candidates and raise money which is why is in demand and is doing events.

 
That is completely out of the realm of possibilities for you?  Why is she out doing events constantly?  Why is she still sending tweets like this one 15 mins ago-
Probably because she was instrumental in securing a deal that would have protected us from a nuclear Iran for decades, and Trump destroyed it, and she’s pissed off about that? I certainly am. 

 
Biden’s lead still looks very sizable in any poll I have seen and Harris is a distant 4th.  
Not according to Quinnipiac:

https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/kamala-harris-surges-to-second-in-new-quinnipiac-poll-63386181929

Kamala Harris surges to second in new Quinnipiac University poll

Senator Kamala Harris surges to second place in new Quinnipiac University poll after the first Democratic presidential debate. Joy and her panel talk about the prospects for the 2020 Democratic nominee and the results of the new poll.

 
Can I ask you why your initial lean was this way? Media coverage? This forum? 
Yep, but let me explain what I was looking for first:

Obama

23% Strongly Approve

41% Strongly Disapprove

******

Trump:

35% Strongly Approve

42% Strongly Disapprove

******

Obama's total on these is 54% (strong one way or another), Trump's is 77%.

That's really what I was interested in. I don't really buy into Ras and I don't really think horse race politics (following who will do better in a given race as a marker for how to treat them), but I did have the impression - just from following news events about Trump - that people felt very strongly about him on both sides.

So even though I didn't mention it I do think I found what I expected there. - What I also thought might be the case - maybe from this forum, and it's a different issue - is that those who support him would not be so much in the Strong Approve number and that there would be more in the Strong Disapprove number. That was not the case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There’s basically 2 Democratic races going on right now: One is between Warren and Bernie. Warren is winning. The other is between Biden and Harris. Biden is ahead but Harris is gaining. All of the other candidates are on the outside looking in. Of them, Buttigieg has the best shot at the moment of getting into the contest- but he’s not in it now. 

I expect the winner of Biden vs Harris to be the eventual nominee. I give Warren about a 25% shot though. I give Bernie almost no shot. I think he’s done. 

 
Not according to Quinnipiac:

https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/kamala-harris-surges-to-second-in-new-quinnipiac-poll-63386181929

Kamala Harris surges to second in new Quinnipiac University poll

Senator Kamala Harris surges to second place in new Quinnipiac University poll after the first Democratic presidential debate. Joy and her panel talk about the prospects for the 2020 Democratic nominee and the results of the new poll.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/

I looked at 538 and their most recent polls.  Biden still looks solid.  

 
As I've been saying for months, here is the key to Harris: look at South Carolina, look at black votes in South Carolina, look at black votes in other southern states. Up to the debate, all of those numbers have been SOLID for Biden: anywhere from 45-55% and nobody else close. If that stays roughly the same, Biden will be the nominee no matter what else happens. If those numbers for Biden start to go down, and Harris starts to rise, she's got a real shot.

Keep in mind: Harris does not need to win South Carolina. But she needs to prevent Biden from winning there decisively. She needs to at least come close.

 
I'm terrible with political predictions, so here are some more! I predict:

1. Warren will win Iowa.

2. Warren will win New Hampshire.

3. Either Biden or Harris wins South Carolina. if one of them does so decisively, that will be the candidate.

 
As I've been saying for months, here is the key to Harris: look at South Carolina, look at black votes in South Carolina, look at black votes in other southern states. Up to the debate, all of those numbers have been SOLID for Biden: anywhere from 45-55% and nobody else close. If that stays roughly the same, Biden will be the nominee no matter what else happens. If those numbers for Biden start to go down, and Harris starts to rise, she's got a real shot.

Keep in mind: Harris does not need to win South Carolina. But she needs to prevent Biden from winning there decisively. She needs to at least come close.
It won't. Recall that in 2008 Obama got a lukewarm reception from African Americans early in the polls until they saw that he was a legitimate candidate after winning in Iowa. I think black voters are being equally cautious and pragmatic about Harris at this time.

 
As I've been saying for months, here is the key to Harris: look at South Carolina, look at black votes in South Carolina, look at black votes in other southern states. Up to the debate, all of those numbers have been SOLID for Biden: anywhere from 45-55% and nobody else close. If that stays roughly the same, Biden will be the nominee no matter what else happens. If those numbers for Biden start to go down, and Harris starts to rise, she's got a real shot.

Keep in mind: Harris does not need to win South Carolina. But she needs to prevent Biden from winning there decisively. She needs to at least come close.
South Carolina was essentially game over for Bernie in 2016.  The primary slogged on and it was back and forth in some states but it was a deficit he was never going to overcome.

 
It won't. Recall that in 2008 Obama got a lukewarm reception from African Americans early in the polls until they saw that he was a legitimate candidate after winning in Iowa. I think black voters are being equally cautious and pragmatic about Harris at this time.
Absolutely correct. But- I wouldn't carry this analogy too far. It all depends. Obama represented a first time ever, that won't be repeated. Black voters in the south tend to be pretty conservative: are they willing to vote for a black woman with as much enthusiasm as they did for a black man? Not sure yet. Plus they love Biden. They don't just like him; they love him.They know him and trust him. That's a big deal.

So I honestly have no idea how this will go.

 
As I've been saying for months, here is the key to Harris: look at South Carolina, look at black votes in South Carolina, look at black votes in other southern states. Up to the debate, all of those numbers have been SOLID for Biden: anywhere from 45-55% and nobody else close. If that stays roughly the same, Biden will be the nominee no matter what else happens. If those numbers for Biden start to go down, and Harris starts to rise, she's got a real shot.

Keep in mind: Harris does not need to win South Carolina. But she needs to prevent Biden from winning there decisively. She needs to at least come close.
Why would you just take for granted that blacks will come out en masse for a Jamaican over Booker.  

 
I asked you first.  You pointed out the black vote going to Harris.  Why?
Lots of reasons. The main one being that she was by far the best in the debates. She has a special charisma which other candidates can't match (particularly not Booker IMO.) She's very likeable. And anyone watching her gets the sense that she would simply slice up Trump in a debate, just destroy him.

 
Lots of reasons. The main one being that she was by far the best in the debates. She has a special charisma which other candidates can't match (particularly not Booker IMO.) She's very likeable. And anyone watching her gets the sense that she would simply slice up Trump in a debate, just destroy him.
She won’t beat Trump in a debate and has way too many skeletons. The GOP PACs will have a field day.  I don’t see the charisma that you see.  I think that may be some Californian homerism.  

 
She won’t beat Trump in a debate and has way too many skeletons. The GOP PACs will have a field day.  I don’t see the charisma that you see.  I think that may be some Californian homerism.  
What is the criteria for determining this?

Because actually being able to logically and factually debate a topic os definitely not a Trump strong suit.  If you count lies and attacks as a win...he can do that.

I don't think there is a front runner for the democrats that Trump can just beat on logic and facts of the issues.  He just isn't that good at it.

 
What is the criteria for determining this?

Because actually being able to logically and factually debate a topic os definitely not a Trump strong suit.  If you count lies and attacks as a win...he can do that.

I don't think there is a front runner for the democrats that Trump can just beat on logic and facts of the issues.  He just isn't that good at it.
Trump is a master communicator.  He knows how to connect and give the voters what they want to hear.  You underestimate him and overestimate why people watch debates.   

 
Trump is a master communicator.  He knows how to connect and give the voters what they want to hear.  You underestimate him and overestimate why people watch debates.   
So more perception of a win for his supporters?  Because that doesn't seem like the criteria for an actual debate on the issues.  Moreover it reads like a description of what people already label him as a con man.

 
So more perception of a win for his supporters?  Because that doesn't seem like the criteria for an actual debate on the issues.  Moreover it reads like a description of what people already label him as a con man.
Trump has his own style that plays well with the voters that lead him to victory.   

 
Why would you just take for granted that blacks will come out en masse for a Jamaican over Booker.  
That will not be an issue for black voters. People on the right will continue to talk about it, as it somehow matters but she will not be looked upon my most AA voters as being less black or as not a real AA because of her Jamaican ancestry.

This is similar to the argument that was raised repeatedly in the Kaepernick thread, that he should not be considered African American or be allowed to speak for AAs because his birth mother was white. However it is a distinction without a difference if you are classified and discriminated against for being perceived as an AA even though your actual racial percentage has 50% or less AA blood.

 
Debate winners are hardly sure-thing election winners.

I don't have any numbers to prove it, but watched enough of them to know there's no consistent correlation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Debate winners are hardly sure-thing election winners.

I don't have any numbers to prove it, but watched enough of them to know there's no consistent correlation.
The debate performances of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Michael Dukakis and Mitt Romney would argue against that premise.

 
Didn’t people claim Hillary beat Trump (not me)?  How did that turn out?
Yes, but he didn't make a major gaffe in the debates like Ford, Dukakis and Romney. Hillary bested him overall IMO but it, like the Access Hollywood video, his mocking of a disabled man and several other incidents that would have ended the candidacy of any one else but didn't faze those who voted for him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lots of reasons. The main one being that she was by far the best in the debates. She has a special charisma which other candidates can't match (particularly not Booker IMO.) She's very likeable. And anyone watching her gets the sense that she would simply slice up Trump in a debate, just destroy him.
It was one debate and let’s face it, Joe Biden was too lazy to prep properly . You loved him while you were waving your Biden pom poms but he was horrendous . Everyone on that stage was protected by the loon on the end. Buttigieg did a good job for who he is and let’s not forget the old dnc dirty tricks on Yang

It was a very good moment in 1 debate but don’t underestimate Biden pooping his pants

 
It was one debate and let’s face it, Joe Biden was too lazy to prep properly . You loved him while you were waving your Biden pom poms but he was horrendous . Everyone on that stage was protected by the loon on the end. Buttigieg did a good job for who he is and let’s not forget the old dnc dirty tricks on Yang

It was a very good moment in 1 debate but don’t underestimate Biden pooping his pants
Agree with all of this.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top