Trying again here since Jeff deleted the hypothetical Hillary vs. Trump 2020 thread for whatever reason.

HRC is not going to run in 2020, but that won't stop Trump from behaving as if she is.

But if she did, I think she would win. She's not stupid - the tactical errors that contributed to her loss in 2016 would be addressed. And I think enough voters have buyer's remorse about helping elect Trump that she doesn't have to worry as much about butthurt Bernie and idiot 3rd-party voters undermining her support.

In fact, I think just about anybody would beat Trump in 2020. Even putting aside his manifest unsuitability for the job, he really has next to nothing in terms of actual accomplishments he can run on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sherrod Brown or Steve Bullock of Montana. Stacey Abrams as VP.

No Sherrod, don’t know who Steve Bullock is.

Current governor of Montana since 2013.

Anonymous wrote:Sherrod Brown or Steve Bullock of Montana. Stacey Abrams as VP.

No Sherrod, don’t know who Steve Bullock is.

I wish Warner would run. Centrist, southern (sort of) and foreign policy experience

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden and Bloomberg may be old, but they certainly don't look or sound like it. Biden has the across the board appeal that we need. Bloomberg is a centrist, he has a record of good governance, and he has a certain gravitas. I'd be fine with either one as the candidate. Both are honorable men who would defer to the VP if their faculties declined. I'd love to have a female VP, and Klobuchar would be a good choice. For better or worse, this is not the time for a far left centrist or, sadly, a person of color, if we want to win.

Bloomberg is not going to connect with the base of the party. People wouldn’t be energized enough to show up in key states. I think someone like Stacy Abrams would be great with a likeable Midwest guy who isn’t pro-trade. A ticket that connects with middle America AND people of color ] is key. The Clinton campaign took the latter for granted and folks in key states stayed home with Trump on the ballot.

I think Beto O'Rourke could do this. He brought out people of color (Latinos and African-Americans) which Bernie Sanders failed to do, while energizing young voters like Sanders but also being able to win over moderates. Even though he lost Texas, the election was very close in deep red Texas. He could easily win a lot of swing states with this grassroots campaigning.

Just hope the Dems don't go with another boring candidate and lose again.

+1 young, likeable and no baggage. He’s the anti-Hillary (and the anti-trump)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden and Bloomberg may be old, but they certainly don't look or sound like it. Biden has the across the board appeal that we need. Bloomberg is a centrist, he has a record of good governance, and he has a certain gravitas. I'd be fine with either one as the candidate. Both are honorable men who would defer to the VP if their faculties declined. I'd love to have a female VP, and Klobuchar would be a good choice. For better or worse, this is not the time for a far left centrist or, sadly, a person of color, if we want to win.

Bloomberg is not going to connect with the base of the party. People wouldn’t be energized enough to show up in key states. I think someone like Stacy Abrams would be great with a likeable Midwest guy who isn’t pro-trade. A ticket that connects with middle America AND people of color ] is key. The Clinton campaign took the latter for granted and folks in key states stayed home with Trump on the ballot.

I think Beto O'Rourke could do this. He brought out people of color (Latinos and African-Americans) which Bernie Sanders failed to do, while energizing young voters like Sanders but also being able to win over moderates. Even though he lost Texas, the election was very close in deep red Texas. He could easily win a lot of swing states with this grassroots campaigning.

Just hope the Dems don't go with another boring candidate and lose again.

Anonymous wrote:Biden and Bloomberg may be old, but they certainly don't look or sound like it. Biden has the across the board appeal that we need. Bloomberg is a centrist, he has a record of good governance, and he has a certain gravitas. I'd be fine with either one as the candidate. Both are honorable men who would defer to the VP if their faculties declined. I'd love to have a female VP, and Klobuchar would be a good choice. For better or worse, this is not the time for a far left centrist or, sadly, a person of color, if we want to win.

Bloomberg is not going to connect with the base of the party. People wouldn’t be energized enough to show up in key states. I think someone like Stacy Abrams would be great with a likeable Midwest guy who isn’t pro-trade. A ticket that connects with middle America AND people of color is key. The Clinton campaign took the latter for granted and folks in key states stayed home with Trump on the ballot.

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with Michelle?

If she hadn’t made it clear before they left the WH, her book has. She’s over it.

Sherrod Brown or Steve Bullock of Montana. Stacey Abrams as VP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of them can beat Trump. Trump is historically unpopular. Unless he pulls some miracle turn-around, he is going to get his clock cleaned.

Anyone who doesn't admit that is blinded by partisanship or a fool, or both.

The poll numbers are always misleading for a simple reason: the media, which is 80% biased towards liberal Democrats, has been pounding away on Trump 24/7 for a couple years, now. 92% of the articles on Trump have negative spin, according to a recent study. Obama, on the other hand, enjoyed very positive press his entire presidency. No matter how wrong he was, he was lauded, and even got the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments. A better measure would be to take the poll result and divide by 100% - %negative press. The real difference would then be obvious: Trump is far, far more popular than Obama, and for good reason.

Great analysis and frankly no surprise: USA 2016-2018 is doing much better than USA 2014-2016.

+ 1,000,000

Dude there is a reason Obama enjoyed positive reaction from media and Americans. He was very likable, respected the Office, and did a decent job as President.

There’s a reason why Americans and media have negative things to say: he is a terrible
President.

Not very difficult!

Anonymous wrote:I think Beto could do it. He’s smart, likeable and his youth and compassion makes him the anti-Trump. But I think any halfway decent Democrat could beat the train wreck that is our current POTUS.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/beto-orourke-2020-democratic-primary-995353

Sparked by his narrow defeat in a Texas Senate race, Beto O’Rourke is scrambling the 2020 presidential primary field, freezing Democratic donors and potential campaign staffers in place as they await word of his plans.

Even prior to O’Rourke’s meteoric rise, many Democratic fundraisers had approached the large number of 2020 contenders with apprehension, fearful of committing early to one candidate. But the prospect of a presidential bid by O’Rourke, whose charismatic Senate candidacy captured the party’s imagination, has suddenly rewired the race.

Beto is not obama, he’s John Edwards.

An empty suit. Untested, no accomplishments, a back bencher in the house.

He should run the dnc and just raise money - that’s his forte.

I think Beto could do it. He’s smart, likeable and his youth and compassion makes him the anti-Trump. But I think any halfway decent Democrat could beat the train wreck that is our current POTUS.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/beto-orourke-2020-democratic-primary-995353

Sparked by his narrow defeat in a Texas Senate race, Beto O’Rourke is scrambling the 2020 presidential primary field, freezing Democratic donors and potential campaign staffers in place as they await word of his plans.

Even prior to O’Rourke’s meteoric rise, many Democratic fundraisers had approached the large number of 2020 contenders with apprehension, fearful of committing early to one candidate. But the prospect of a presidential bid by O’Rourke, whose charismatic Senate candidacy captured the party’s imagination, has suddenly rewired the race.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of them can beat Trump. Trump is historically unpopular. Unless he pulls some miracle turn-around, he is going to get his clock cleaned.

Anyone who doesn't admit that is blinded by partisanship or a fool, or both.

The poll numbers are always misleading for a simple reason: the media, which is 80% biased towards liberal Democrats, has been pounding away on Trump 24/7 for a couple years, now. 92% of the articles on Trump have negative spin, according to a recent study. Obama, on the other hand, enjoyed very positive press his entire presidency. No matter how wrong he was, he was lauded, and even got the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments. A better measure would be to take the poll result and divide by 100% - %negative press. The real difference would then be obvious: Trump is far, far more popular than Obama, and for good reason.

Links to that recent study on the “negative spin” toward Trump, and one that shows Obama got positive press his entire presidency? TIA!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tim Kaine. LOL.

Tim Kaine is no joke. Unlike the current 25th amendment POTUS.

It'd be very fun to watch a Kaine vs Trump debate, but I'm afraid K's head would literally explode.

He completely lost me with his performance vs. Pence.

I love that Tim Kaine is my senator. I would be horrified if he were POTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of them can beat Trump. Trump is historically unpopular. Unless he pulls some miracle turn-around, he is going to get his clock cleaned.

Anyone who doesn't admit that is blinded by partisanship or a fool, or both.

The poll numbers are always misleading for a simple reason: the media, which is 80% biased towards liberal Democrats, has been pounding away on Trump 24/7 for a couple years, now. 92% of the articles on Trump have negative spin, according to a recent study. Obama, on the other hand, enjoyed very positive press his entire presidency. No matter how wrong he was, he was lauded, and even got the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments. A better measure would be to take the poll result and divide by 100% - %negative press. The real difference would then be obvious: Trump is far, far more popular than Obama, and for good reason.

Great analysis and frankly no surprise: USA 2016-2018 is doing much better than USA 2014-2016.

+ 1,000,000