I don't.

Solid points, well made

Seriously though, why not?

Hillary Clinton, arguably the worst possible realistic candidate the D's could have put up against Trump, still beat him in the popular vote and didn't lose the electoral vote by too much. Since then, Trump's approvals amongst his voters has fallen, and this is with a best-case scenario economic situation right now. In addition, people on the other side are much more fired up then before and will undoubtedly come out in bigger numbers. For me, it's actually hard to imagine who Trump could beat. He would have to be riding a super economic upswing to really have a shot.

We thought that about Bush too. There literally couldn't have been a worse President.

But he won.

Don't think anyone thought Bush couldn't win in '04, and '00 is another EC squeaker where he lost the PV. Unless you're claiming that establishes an actual pattern - which I think would be a bit silly - I don't see much to apply. Conceded: Trump might win in '20. I'm disagreeing only with the claim(?) that only Oprah Winfrey can beat him.

That's a fair point but his approval was still in the 48-50% range by election time. I would be shocked to see Donald get above 45%, and much greater chance he stays at 40 or below. Also John Kerry was another establishment elite dweeb like Clinton who was more in that position due to an ability to inspire corporate donors and therefore receive DNC support, not actual voters.

Before the primaries, Carter and Clinton were both fairly unknown nationally. I’m assuming someone we aren’t thinking about will emerge as a contender.

larry david

So if the nominee HAS to be a non-politician celebrity, who would you prefer?

I’m going with George Clooney. We have to keep up with Canada and France in the hunky world leaders race.

Bannon said #metoo could take down Trump. I would go with Rosario Dawson from that movement. She would be like the ultra-boogeyman to the racist and misogynistic crowds.

tyler the creator

**** that ****, Cash Me Ousside Girl or bust.

Book: Bannon worried Oprah could be 'existential threat' to Trump presidency

"The anti-patriarchy movement is going to undo ten thousand years of recorded history," Bannon said, according to the book.

"You watch. The time has come. Women are gonna take charge of society. And they couldn’t juxtapose a better villain than Trump. He is the patriarch. This" — the Golden Globe Awards — "is a definitional moment in the culture. It’ll never be the same going forward.”

good, i'm tired of being in charge all the time. everybody looking to me for what they should do next; me shouting orders as i tightly grip my rifle and brace myself against the crumbling dirt walls of the trench; please calgon, take me away. oprah 2020

**** it, I say we send in Kamala Harris and just watch these bigoted dip****s lose their ****ing minds.

Anyone who's anyone in the Democratic Party will give it a shot. 20+ candidates easily.

I'm hoping Cory Booker makes it out alive. God forbid we get some left populist like Bernie or Warren.

lol exactly

I've thought this too -- Kamala probably leads the field in Trumptard tilt equity, and I don't really see a ton of daylight between the candidates in terms of electability, so she could well be the best choice in maximizing my happiness.

The bolded legit made me laugh for 10 seconds. There is no way Bannon isn't one of the drunkest people on the planet.

Muh economic anxiety

Well Kerry and Clinton were still about the best of the ones who actually ran -- Bernie possibly notwithstanding -- so that's worth remembering.

Meanwhile what concerns me is that less than four months before the election Trump was in the literal doghouse, had insulted a Gold Star family, and basically acted like an ass all over TV, got destroyed in all three debates, and then had the Access Hollywood tape, and STILL managed to turn things around enough to pull out a narrow EC win. The strategy they went with was obvious too -- keep Trump off everything but friendly media, run lots of rallies, and attack HRC at every opportunity. And it worked. That will be their strategy next time too, mark my words. They'll try and get Trump to about the 45% rate by the start of the election year and then fire everything they have at his opponent while keeping him away from anything where he can look bad -- hell they might not even let him have a debate, and hope that his incumbent status, the free media he gets, and the support from his base will be enough to get him through again. And I think that strategy has a real shot.

The other thing that concerns me is that the 'red wall' looks a lot more impervious right now than the 'blue wall'. No way was Trump supposed to win in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania, but he did. Meanwhile there's no way he's ever losing in the R strongholds.

No, I really think the Dems need a powerhouse in 2020. The Reps are holding too many cards. And I still ain't seeing that on their bench anywhere except with Winfrey.

Kirsten Gillibrand Pledges To Stop Accepting Donations From Corporate PACs

This is about as blatant an "I'm running in 2020" move as you can get.

Here's the real key to the 2018 midterms and the 2020 election... Do people like those of us in this thread get off our ass and DO something? I plan on volunteering leading up to both... If everyone who follows politics as closely as us, and feels as strongly as we do, gets out and volunteers in swing districts and swing states, any Democrat without a major scandal should beat Trump easily.

If people who feel as strongly as we do decide that voting is all they need to do, we better run a ticket of Oprah/The Rock.

I'll be volunteering and donating.


Sent from my Nexus 6P using 2+2 Forums