Who should challenge Trump in 2020?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hillary just needed an extra 1 percent of so in Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania.

Take away the email scandal and her cold demeanor and Democrats win easily.
 
One of the key reasons Democrats lost is because they didn't appeal to white, male workers. That ticket would basically guarantee another loss.
 
How about Laura Benanti as a challenger in 2020?
 
One of the key reasons Democrats lost is because they didn't appeal to white, male workers. That ticket would basically guarantee another loss.

It was the NAFTA and Clinton connection.

Trump pushed that angle in the rust belt over and over and over.

It gave him the extra 1 percent of the vote he needed in those areas. That and the FBI letter.
 
One of the key reasons Democrats lost is because they didn't appeal to white, male workers. That ticket would basically guarantee another loss.

Honestly, that's the main reason I think Sanders might have a chance.

I mean, it's still a win for progressiveness if Sanders gets in. He would be the first Jewish American president. A reality of which I'm shocked hasn't happened yet to be honest.

The only thing that could count against him is if he turns out to be as dull as Corbyn or Bill Shorten is
 
Honestly, that's the main reason I think Sanders might have a chance.

My 2 cents on this issue is if Sanders was the Democrat nominee the GOP basically would flood the airwaves with fear talk about being a socialist and I don't think Sanders would have enough money to counteract the narative. My guess is the 50+ vote would be strong(er) for Trump
 
I think Warren has a shot. But we should take a page out of the GOP's book and draft Jon Stewart. He doesn't know all about running the show but I trust his judgment in hiring a good team and executing the job with the best of intentions. He knows BS when he smells it.
 
Its too soon to say. It depends where Trump's presidency is. The Party is not going to waste an up and comer like Booker, Gillibrand, or Harris on a failed campaign against an incumbent. Especially considering how thin our bench is.

If midterms show that the public is responding to Trump positively and it looks like he will get a second term, expect someone like Kaine, Cuomo, O'Malley, or Hickenlooper. Basically, a party elder who wouldn't be viable in a year without an incumbent who will be given a shot just for the sake of having someone challenge the incumbent (think along the lines of Bob Dole).

This may also be the circumstance in which the Democrats let the then 80 year old Bernie Sanders run. Make no mistake, Sanders will NEVER be President. If you thought Trump beat Clinton badly, imagine what he would've done to Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is a man who has, on the record, praised Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (bye bye Latino voters). He is a self-avowed socialist. It may be unfair, but that is still a very dirty word in America. Especially among the type of voters who gave Trump the White House. And none of that speaks to the fact that opposition research on Sanders was never released (and trust me, its out there...his ties to Silicon Valley V.C.s makes Clinton's ties to Wall Street look pure and innocent). Trump would've had a field day. And being as Sanders has no composure, Trump would've destroyed him in the debates. But if its looking like Trump is an unbeatable incumbent, the Party may clear the way to give Sanders the nod just to shut him (and his supporters) up while also dipping their toes in the pool of lite-socialism and seeing how viable it is.

If its looking like there is an outside, albeit unlikely, chance of unseating Trump (let's say he is in a position like Bush in 2004, a fairly strong incumbent but not unbeatable), expect to see someone like Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren or Al Franken. These are the high risk, high reward candidates. Brown is pretty far left (probably the most leftist member of the Democratic Party) but has a very common-man appeal. Plus he is a rust belt Senator who has fought against free trade and has a lot of appeal to Trump voters. Of course, being just shy of socialism could burn him in a big way. Franken is in the same boat. He is slightly less left than Brown but would have a lot of trouble being taken seriously. And Warren...well...its sad to say, but if you thought Clinton got slack for being an "unlikable" woman, imagine the kind of hell Elizabeth Warren will get. Plus, she is pretty far left. The reason I keep coming back to that is that most Americans are uncomfortable when you go too far on either end of the political spectrum. Any of these candidates COULD conceivably beat Trump. But it would be an uphill battle. They will be used if it looks like there is an opportunity, but a small one.

Finally, if Trump is a weak incumbent or decides not to seek a second term, that is when you will see the likes of Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar, Castro and probably some of the other people I already mentioned. In this scenario I like Gillibrand or Booker combined with Sherrod Brown as the running mate.
 
It was the NAFTA and Clinton connection.

Trump pushed that angle in the rust belt over and over and over.

It gave him the extra 1 percent of the vote he needed in those areas. That and the FBI letter.

Nah it was Obamacare and the increasing premiums and mandatory compliance. Millions were facing huge increases or the penalty this year.
If not for that Clinton would have probably won by margins close to Reagan in 84.

This is probably going to cost Trump and the GOP too if he doesn't immediately repeal it of get rid of the mandate/penalty.

2nd on the list is Muslim refugees
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents on this issue is if Sanders was the Democrat nominee the GOP basically would flood the airwaves with fear talk about being a socialist and I don't think Sanders would have enough money to counteract the narative. My guess is the 50+ vote would be strong(er) for Trump

Yeah it's pretty easy to defeat socialists. All you have to do is find a disgruntled staffer who says they weren't paid a fair wage and the whole thing unravels. That's why they rarely win
 
Elizabeth Warren (from the left) or Cory Booker (more like the middle) are probably the best choices for the Democrats.
 
Elizabeth Warren (from the left) or Cory Booker (more like the middle) are probably the best choices for the Democrats.

Warren will face many of the same challenges that Clinton did. She is not a terribly warm person or very outgoing, seemingly more introverted by nature. When a man is like that, it's fine. But when a woman is like that...well...consider how many people relied on the "I just don't trust/like her" line to justify their vote for Trump. Even when rational people would acknowledge that the emails meant nothing, they would still fall back on "I just don't trust/like her." It's unfair, but a double standard still very much exists for women who seek power. When a man seeks power, we embrace a bit of coldness, that's strength. We call reservation/introversion thoughtfulness, when a man behaves that way. When a woman does it, she's a *****. We, as a society, expect women to be quiet, reserved, and submissive but at the same time we expect them to be outgoing, "likable", flirtatious, and maternal. These are often contradicting traits, but none the less, society expects women who seek office to be all of those things. Warren is none of those things. It is sad to admit, but she will never be President for that reason. If this election proves anything, it is that our society still has a way to go in terms of gender equality.
 
Warren energizes the base way more than Hillary could ever hope to.

Hillary is not only dull she's also a Wall Street crony, connected to NAFTA, and is notoriously two faced.

These traits killed her with swing voters and solidified her reputation as dishonest.

Compared to those factors Warren is another Bernie Sanders, a blue collar hero who stands up against Wall Street and has actual integrity.

I have no doubt Warren would do better in the rust belt and among progressives/millennials.
 
I must admit, Warren comes with a very good backstory and sometimes narratives alone win elections.

I mean, that's why everyone who wins xfactor always has a father who never gave up on them but got cancer etc etc
 
I don't see any political figures the Democrats could run who would have a chance unless Trump is a huge disaster. And I think if there ever is a female President, it will be a Republican, or it will be a long time when there are a lot less white people.
 
To be fair though people would have said the same thing about a black president a while ago. And there's a very good chance that Trump could be a disaster and since he lost the popular vote it's not impossible he could become even more unpopular in years to come
 
To be fair though people would have said the same thing about a black president a while ago. And there's a very good chance that Trump could be a disaster and since he lost the popular vote it's not impossible he could become even more unpopular in years to come

Yeah, they did, and that is a tribute to just how incredible a politician and orator Barack Obama is.

I think the Democrats need to really think outside the box.
 
Lol Warren.

Out of choices for women I'd say there are some potentials in: Stephanie Sandlin, Kathleen Kane, Gretchen Whitmer, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris.
 
Lol Warren.

Out of choices for women I'd say there are some potentials in: Stephanie Sandlin, Kathleen Kane, Gretchen Whitmer, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris.

Why dismiss Warren?

If Democrats ran an anti-Wall Street candidate they might've won.

Not necessary someone like Bernie (too much baggage).

But Warren could've unified the progressives, blue collar workers, and DNC supporters where Hillary failed to.
 
Lol Warren.

Out of choices for women I'd say there are some potentials in: Stephanie Sandlin, Kathleen Kane, Gretchen Whitmer, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris.

Kamala is very cool but I think she might be a bit too inexperienced right now. Sure that worked for Trump but I think we're starting to see how it sounds good in theory but when you put that in action it doesn't work well.

I regret not putting Gabbard on the poll actually. Just forgot to. Will have to look at the others
 
Why dismiss Warren?

If Democrats ran an anti-Wall Street candidate they might've won.

Not necessary someone like Bernie (too much baggage).

But Warren could've unified the progressives, blue collar workers, and DNC supporters where Hillary failed to.

The Democrats lost because they dismissed Rust Belt styled voters, not because of ideas. If someone like Warren ran an Obama/Clinton type campaign thinking that blacks, Latinos, Millennials, and single women would be enough, they would have lost as well. Campaigns are won by strategy, plain and simple.
 
The Democrats lost because they dismissed Rust Belt styled voters, not because of ideas. If someone like Warren ran an Obama/Clinton type campaign thinking that blacks, Latinos, Millennials, and single women would be enough, they would have lost as well. Campaigns are won by strategy, plain and simple.

But Clinton's history with NAFTA, Wall Street and emails doomed her.

Without that baggage and populist credibility Warren could easily get the 1 percent bump needed in key swing states.
 
But Clinton's history with NAFTA, Wall Street and emails doomed her.

Without that baggage and populist credibility Warren could easily get the 1 percent bump needed in key swing states.

NAFTA, Wall Street, and emails didn't doom Hillary. They didn't help her, but your entire argument completely ignores what happened to the Democratic Party at the state and local level, particularly in states such as Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. You need state and local party apparatuses for basic things such as GOTV efforts and then Democrats have been obliterated over the past eight years on that front. No Democrat could have overcome the destruction that happened to the party under the watch of Obama, Wasserman-Schultz, Pelosi, and Reid. The demographics they chased and packing Democratic support in cities while ignoring the rest of the country doomed them. Meanwhile Trump was able to ride on the party machines that Walker, Kasich, Preibus, and others built for victory in the Rust Belt.

Bernie supporters also live in a fantasy world where Bernie is a much better candidate than the awful one he is in real life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,507
Messages
21,742,715
Members
45,572
Latest member
vortep88
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"