Schiff on This Week on ABC today for seemingly the 900th time since Trump was elected. He turned up the wonk factor, even for him. Dems do not want him to run unless they can suddenly get the electorate to vote like they did roughly 40 years ago.

what about this guy?

http://uproxx.com/news/john-kerry-ru...for-president/

guy seems dumb as hell. no wonder eric garland likes him

Joe Kennedy FTW! https://twitter.com/RepJoeKennedy

http://twitter.com/HouseDemocrats/st...87932154368001
“We are bombarded with one false choice after another: coal miners or single moms, rural communities or inner cities, the coast or the heartland...So here is the answer that Democrats offer tonight: we choose both.

TWO NAMES worth thinking about

Why not Hakeem Jeffries - he seems to have a good record though I can't say I haven't followed his career very much. Too similar to Obama? Not another New Yorker?

win or lose this november, Beto O'Rourke is also an interesting option.

Jeffries is NY-08 right? If I'm thinking of the right guy, I don't think he has the profile for it yet.

O'Rourke would be a horrible candidate for Dems if he wins... You don't turn a Texas Senate seat blue to give it back in a special election a third of the way through the term... especially in an election that any halfway decent candidate wins in a historic landslide, as long as the Republic is still standing.

O'Rourke isn't a bad long-term candidate, though. If he wins in '18 and loses in '24, and the Dems hold the White House he's a mandatory Cabinet appointee I think to keep him alive for '28. If the Dems lose 2020 somehow and we still have a Republic, he's there to run in 2024.

ok if oprah isn't running. my first thought is that joe kennedy could be an excellent vice presidential nominee to balance out a ticket like for example with kamala harris. harris/kennedy 20/20 sounds very much like a real ticket to me.

You could not be more wrong.

beyond terrible ... worse than horrible, it's horrific !

A first thought that should not have seen the light of day.

The Democrats are so ****** if the party insiders think like you do.

somehow ?

Try likely lose in 2020

If the irrational thinking I see around here is not an abberation ...

The Democrats are ****** in 20/20 !

That describes 99% of my posts.

My thinking is the kennedy name would help balance and add heft to specifically a kamala harris ticket. I don't see joe kennedy as a presidential candidate right now but could see him in a number of prominent roles including vp on the right ticket. its a lot less difficult to be vp than president . pence, cheney, biden, quayle.

julia louis dreyfus

Kennedy has been an advocate for the middle class and the poor his whole life. He has walked the walk his whole life. He's the real deal. Just because he's the grandson of Robert Kennedy shouldn't disqualify him from President.

I'd please like the Democrats to take the next few years off from running a name from a wealthy, elite political dynasty. If you want to not connect with swing voters in the states that threw the election to Trump, sure I guess throw the kid out there. He speaks in empty platitudes while avoiding concrete policy proposals, and his stance is more often just "look how bad that guy is!". This is straight of the Clinton playbook that managed to lose a presidential election to Donald ****ing Trump.

That's not even going into the fact Joe Kennedy is one of the worst democrats in Congress on marijuana - let's perhaps try to find someone who can connect with young voters. And by worse, I mean his marijuana policy would be consistent with a 1990 Republican. He's also voted against recent single-payer resolutions and is a big fan of the surveillance state (the latter, admittedly, people do not care about).

Dems Pick Anti-Marijuana Kennedy For Trump State Of The Union Response/

Dems cant have some stupid purity test for candidates. Everyone must believe all these things exactly or they cant be the candidate. If we want to win, take power from Trump we have to change that part of our party.

Obama deported more people from the U.S. during his administration than any other president. Does that mean I still didn't support him?

There has to be someone better than JFK3 on the bench. I think he can win, but I don't want to gamble on another DNC superPAC establishment doofus.

Seems okay but not much national exposure and corporate lawyer isn't a great sell in today's America.

Given the current crop of candidates, what do we think Trump's "break even" approval rating is--the one where if he attains it (and he runs) he's a favorite to win in 2020?

It looks like he was around 45 right after the election, this seems like a good estimate to me. Thoughts?

It depends on the approval rating of the other guy. Biden had same policies as Hillary but would have crushed Trump.

Correct--this is why I said "given the current field".

Give me a break. It's not a "stupid purity test" to want a candidate who supports something that is both broadly popular and good policy. Whining about purity tests is just code for "we're gonna give you another ****ty centrist corporate whore of a candidate and you're gonna have to vote for them or else."

In a vacuum, I think it's higher, because I expect turnout to be higher among D/I, and lower among R... But the problem is that if Trump is still in office at that point, the amount of voter suppression they may be able to manage - and the amount of influence Russia will have, may have a more significant impact than the increased turnout.

So in those circumstances, I could even see him winning with sub-40% approval.

I did a little research and found that Truman actually won (in a very close one, of course) with sub-40% approval. Carter and GHWB were also high 30s though, and they got got.