I laugh when pundits (mostly on the right) say the Dems will have a unity problem in 2020

[scheming daemons]

The single-biggest unifying force in America is Donald Trump.

His mere presence got Democrats to turn out in record-breaking droves for a midterm election - something Democrats have historically not done.


It doesn't matter if we have 1 candidate, 2 candidates, 10 candidates, or a hundred candidates.

In the end, Democrats (and most independents) will vote for a Tree Stump for President if it has a (D) next to it in 2020.

The biggest Presidential vote share by a Democrat in the past 55 years came in 2008, when Obama got 54% of the vote. And that came after one of the closest and most divided and contentious Democratic primaries ever.

But Democrats had a singular unifying entity - the Bush/Cheney administration.

Barring a strong third-party run by someone that splits the anti-Trump vote, the Democratic candidate will win..... whoever he or she may be.

[redstatebluegirl]

1. I thought that in 16 as well, and look what happened to us.

We should not say "never", if one candidates supporters take their toys and go home because their candidate did not win, or the candidate chosen did not pass the "progressive test" then we are in for a rough 2020.

[scheming daemons]

2. Democrats didn't have a unifying factor of a abhorrent Presidency in 2016

[redstatebluegirl]

3. We allowed one of our candidates to split the party, that is what happened.

I don't think hatred of Trump is enough, it might be, but I would rather be safe than sorry. Our party is truly splitting in two pieces, so are independents. We had better hike up our pants and get this done this time.

[Andy823]

5. One thing to remember

46% of registered voters "sat home" and did not vote! That is not going to happen in 2020.

[zipplewrath]

6. How many will?

What are you predicting? I'd bet that number is still in the 40's.

[Awsi Dooger]

8. It would be amazing if 60% voted

I can't remember a percentage like that. It's always in the 50s except 1996 which dropped to 49%.

2016 turnout wasn't bad except the uptick was among whites while we lost some numbers from our key demographics. I'll sign up for 58% turnout right now.

BTW, in reference to the OP, Obama did not receive 54% in 2008. He was a shade below 53% and then a shade above 51% in 2012.

[LiberalLovinLug]

10. I think the number will increase in 2020. But for who?

I think there is a real danger that, along with an increase of fake news sites i hear going up, the new ownership of local stations by the Sinclair group, along with the dominance of Clear Channel's lineup of RW hate radio shows, that there will go out a huge rallying cry that evil Deep State Socialists are out to destroy Donald Trump, their last best great white hope.

I think it will be close even if we can get out more voters for our side.

[zipplewrath]

4. Spot on

I think there could be a trickle down to the senate races too. It could be our best year in many ways. It's just a matter of the distribution. Only so much voting in California does you any good. 2016 had alot of votes that "didn't matter" because it was votes in WI, MI, and PA that were needed.

[ancianita]

7. The public will look at their best option and see that Dems are smarter and more united than ever.

[lame54]

9. We are his anti-base

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Yes, now is the time for vigorous debate on policy & candidates. Unite 2020 late spring. . . . nt