It's time to consider who will make the best president, not who you think can best beat Trump

[mtnsnake]

because it's obvious by now that just about any single one of our candidates will handily beat Trump in 2020 despite any bullshit polls that the media is spinning otherwise.

The reason we have a record number of candidates is because everyone knows 2020 will be like taking candy from a baby, an idiot baby at that. All they have to do is win the Democratic nomination and the presidency is theirs unless they make some drastic mistake along the way. My fairy godmother could beat Trump in 2020 if she had any money left.

I'm not suggesting we get overconfident about it, but let's face it, once the American people see the kind of quality we have in our Democratic candidates, there won't be a single fence sitter out there who would ever consider voting for a dumbass liar like Trump a second time. Sure, the die hard repubs will vote for the asshole again, but most of the independents and fence sitting voters who got fooled the first time won't be fooled again. Trump is toast, and everyone around him knows it.

[abqtommy]

1. So our only concern will be the inherent corruption

that the reTHUGS bring to any of their political endeavors...

[Larrybanal]

90. lets not forget

the total idiocy of the american voter

[Voltaire2]

2. I agree.

Every election cycle we get sold the centrist bullshit that we can’t run candidates that are committed to enacting real substantive reform, that instead we have to run yet another center-right caretaker candidate, a candidate who will magically pull in mythical moderate Republican voters.

Every election cycle the center that this candidate is supposed to occupy is even further to the right, dragged there by a Republican Party unconstrained by any need for moderation.

There is no center.

[mtnsnake]

4. Awesome post. You nailed the gist of it.

[Gothmog]

57. According to this study trump could win

There are posters who believe that we can nominate the most liberal/socialist nominee as possible and that candidate will easily win because everyone hates trump. It is their position that this is a historic opportunity to nominate someone would otherwise not be electable. This theory is wrong in that most POTUS are re-elected if the economy is good. Here is a scary study that shows this

Link to tweet

There are good reasons to doubt this study

Link to tweet

I do not believe that trump is assured of winning. If we want to win, Democrats need to nominate a strong nominee who is NOT too far out of the mainstream

[JudyM]

21. Sadly, painfully true.

[Demsrule86]

42. Have you look at the Senate lately...rightwing majorities...these are statewide races...there

is no appetite for a candidate perceived to be of the left (will be called socialist) right now and if you run someone like that we lose...reality bites but losing is worse. I have never understood how you can look at the Senate and think a candidate who is not a centrist wins...won't happen and let's hope the majority of Democrats get this.

[Turin_C3PO]

45. There was just an article posted on DU the other day

that says the American public is more liberal now than anytime in the past 50 years. I am for Biden, because I think he has the best shot at winning but I think a more liberal candidate could also win the general election. It’s certainly within the realm of possibility.

[empedocles]

52. . . . and legislation gets passed from the center majority

[marylandblue]

62. The center is a moving target.

[Demsrule86]

88. So it seems...but not with the GOP in control of the Senate.

[Gothmog]

54. Economic models point to a Trump blowout in 2020.

I have seen similar studies. It is not a given that trump is beatable in 2020. If the economy is in good shape, then there are models and studies that show that trump can win. Obama left trump with a great economy and trump may not screw up the Obama economy before 2020 and get re-elected.

Link to tweet

I am not counting on the Obama economy faltering and so I am worried. We have to defeat trump

Trump could prove these models wrong by being the biggest asshole in history. Again, historically presidents tend to be re-elected if the economy is in good shape at the time of the re-election and even trump may not e able to screw up the Obama recovery

We need to work even harder to defeat trump

[riverine]

60. Democrats don't want far left candidates.

That is why they lose in the primaries.

[LiberalLovinLug]

89. +1000

You dare to speak the truth.

I would also say that many who rush to support the old guard well known 'moderate' candidate thinking its the sure bet might have to re-think that assumption. For one, as with Hillary, the GOP would have years, decades of dirt they've gathered to throw at them. Two, there is an underestimation of the swelling support for candidates that that are preaching action on progressive policies, and not the same old excuses and 'third way' paralysis about how hard is or how long it will take, and we have to compromise and compromise more until its so watered down its almost meaningless, and until Mitch and the GOP, in their perch above, are generous enough to endorse a bill.

Many Democratic voters are sick of that. Its time for a fighter. And a new approach from the appeasement first strategy. Candidates that push for big ideas. Even if is shocks the conservative corporate media. So that even if they HAVE to compromise at some point, the compromise will be somewhere in the middle rather than favouring the right, (and big donors of a number of politicians on both sides).

[MarcA]

91. The more we give in to the increasingly rightward moving center

the more difficult it will be to have a choice to stop oligarchy.

[shanny]

102. Bingo.

[left-of-center2012]

3. "just about any single one of our candidates will handily beat Trump"

Even the ones at 0% to 2% in the polls?

[caraher]

5. No

But the half dozen or so with any real shot at the nomination should whip Trump, if we unify and if the election is remotely honest and fair.

[mtnsnake]

13. That is certain. nt

[Irishxs]

69. Never assume.

[mtnsnake]

7. Please quote the entire phrase next time. I said "just about any single one of our candidates....."

[left-of-center2012]

12. Don't worry. Be happy.

edited to make you smile.

[mtnsnake]

14. haha, thank you for the edit. :)

[Gothmog]

64. Opinion: If the economy keeps its momentum, 2020 will be Trump's to lose

If trump does not destroy the Obama recovery, then 2020 will be a very close election. I reject the concept that we can afford to nominate a weak/far left nominee. trump will beat a far left candidate easily if the economy remains strong

Link to tweet

One wonders whether, at some point, the economic boom will be so huge that it will drive opinions on its own. Once Democrats settle on a nominee, voters will have to make a choice: Do they stick with the guy they’ve got, warts and all, who has contributed to such good times? Or are they willing to take the risk that the next president, even if he or she is a better person, will screw things up with a new agenda?

One election model from Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, suggests the economy will be the winning factor. His “time for change” model has a solid track record in predicting the outcome and direction of presidential races, and data he published last month show that, so long as the economy continues to grow at a 2 percent clip, Trump should be a favorite for reelection even if his job approval rating is as poor as it is now.

Indeed, it’s even better than that for Trump. The model calculates an average gain of 2.5 electoral votes for every one-point Trump shaves off of his net job disapproval. According to the model, even if gross domestic product growth slumps to 1 percent, Trump could win the minimum 270 electoral votes he needs for reelection by lowering his net job disapproval rating to 7 percent. Right now, that number is around 10 percent.

Media attention is focused on the Mueller report and other congressional investigations. But if the economy keeps its momentum, even that or Trump’s failure to trumpet his success might not prevent him from winning a second term.

[msongs]

6. president hillary agrees with you nt

[mtnsnake]

11. Very good comeback, but I said the ones who got fooled the first time won't be fooled again.

As the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

In 2020, the people who got fooled in 2016 will not forget who fucked them over.

[LibFarmer]

32. Please clarify which people fucked whom over?

My simpleton mind knows that Hillary go fucked over big time.

[mtnsnake]

36. Trump fucked over most of the people who voted for him in 2016.

They might have been fooled once, but they won't be fooled a second time. Sorry if that wasn't clear before.

[TexasBushwhacker]

59. But we don't know how much Russian interference

influenced the election in 2016 and how much of a factor it will be in 2020.

[marylandblue]

61. How did they get fucked over? They wanted an asshole for President and they got one.

Promise kept. Keep the Asshole Again.

[JI7]

8. this is the real reason Biden is leading

[DrToast]

9. We get it. You don't like Biden.

[mtnsnake]

15. I always have to smile at those oh so original "We get it. You don't like 'whoever'" posts

so thanks for the chuckle, DrToast.

[DrToast]

18. Okay, I'll play along

Why do you think that people aren't choosing who to support because they think they'll be the best President?

[mtnsnake]

19. I do think some people are choosing based upon what you're saying,

but I also know from what has been posted here and from what many voters across the country have been saying right from the start that they are only concerned with who they think will most easily beat Trump, not who they think will make the best president. I happen to think that this idea that the media is dishing out that the 2020 election is going to be a horse race is little more than horse shit.

[DrToast]

20. Here's the way I see it.

Whoever the Democratic nominee is, we can be assured that they will relentlessly be attacked by Trump and the rest of the Republicans. We have no idea what those attacks will be, nor do we know how successful they will be. So while I certainly agree with you that things look bad for Trump at this very moment, we don't know what things will look like after months of attacks by Republicans.

So I believe that electability is a perfectly legitimate factor to consider when choosing a candidate to support. It's not the only factor, but it's certainly one of them.

[mtnsnake]

23. yes, electability is certainly an important factor, no doubt about it.

Most of the 2020 candidates I've seen have given me the impression that they are very electable. Otherwise, I wouldn't have posted what I posted. We really do have a very talented group of Democrats running.

[Kurt V.]

43. +1

[caraher]

16. Is that really it, though?

Without saying a word against Biden, what I don't like is looking at today's polls and saying the candidate with the biggest lead at this point is our best or only hope (which is often the lecture one receives from Biden supporters). Go look at polls from June 2015 and compare to the actual results. In June 2015 head-to-head polling showed Clinton with double-digit leads as high as the low 20s over Trump. Yes, she won the vote, but by nothing close to the margin early polling would suggest and not by enough to enter the Oval Office.

Though maybe the author of the OP has said other things that are indeed anti-Biden; I wouldn't know that offhand. What I do know is that "electability" is weak argument for a candidate, given that nobody really knows what that will look like by November 2020. So we're better off, at this stage, pushing for the best future president.

[melman]

17. June 2015

Speaking of June 2015, it's interesting to look at where the polls were on the other side.
Jeb Bush 22%
Scott Walker 17%
Marco Rubio 14%
Ben Carson 11%
Mike Huckabee 9%
Rand Paul 7%
Rick Perry 5%
Ted Cruz 4%
Chris Christie 4%
Carly Fiorina 2%
Donald Trump 1%
Lindsey Graham 1%
John Kasich 1%
Bobby Jindal 0%
Rick Santorum 0%
George Pataki 0%

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jeb-bush-surges-lead-gop-pack-new-2016-poll


Jeb Bush way out in front and Trump at 1%

[sop]

48. Lesson: Inevitable candidates aren't always inevitable

[Demsrule86]

34. I don't base my opinion that Biden is the only one who can beat Trump on polls...I look

at how Trump won last time and how he will do it again in the electoral college if someone doesn't stop him(MI,WI and PA)...I look at the house and the senate and we could lose the presidency, the house and not take the Senate if we are not careful to nominate someone who can win...Biden has deep ties to the rustbelt he can win. I like Warren, Harris and most of the others but they can't win the rustbelt. Trump is going to be tough to beat. Don't believe for a minute he can't win or that any of our candidates can beat him because it simply isn't true. If you play around with the interactive electoral map, you see that our situation is truly dire and not just next year either...but in 24...we have no path to the presidency or a senate majority if we don't win back the rustbelt and begin a 50 state electoral strategy. If we don't have a big tent, we lose.

[marylandblue]

72. You can't have 3-state strategy and a 50-state strategy at the same time.

They are literally the opposite of each other.

[Demsrule86]

87. It is too late for a fifty state strategy this year...we know Trump is going for an electoral

college win...by taking MI, WI, and PA...in order to stop him, we need to win those three states. Going forward as things stand today, we can't win the presidency without rebuilding the blue wall which is part of appealing to moderate states...we can't count on states like Arizona, Texas or Georgia...not North Carolina either to save our bacon...except for winning NC in 08, we have not won those states in years if ever...and this is not a 2020 problem. The GOP will beat us in 24 if we don't rebuild the blue wall because as it stands today, we have nothing to replace it with...if you look at an interactive map...and take out the three states referenced and then putting only blue states in...we will lose the presidency repeatedly and the Senate makes me want to weep. How do you expect to appoint judges without the Senate? The house is on fire. And going forward the only way to address this is with a 50 state strategy for both Congress and the presidency but first we have to stop Trump and the only way this happens is by winning back the blue wall in 20.

[MasonDreams]

109. Will the big tent ever include those who could vote but don't

We're talking 30 or 40 million people.

[stonecutter357]

10. let's go Joe !

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. After 2016 that is a dangerous assumption.

It's time to consider who will make the best president, not who you think can best beat Trump
because it's obvious by now that just about any single one of our candidates will handily beat Trump in 2020 despite any bullshit polls that the media is spinning otherwise.

[mtnsnake]

25. I think it's way more dangerous to base our choice soley on who we think can best beat Trump

rather than who will best serve this country, period, which is exactly what many folks seem to be doing. Maybe not you, maybe not a lot of people, but definitely it seemed to be the meme before this campaign even started. I'm not blaming anyone for feeling that way, though, considering how badly we need to beat Trump.

[Demsrule86]

30. You will not serve if you don't win...you have to win to do anything period.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. We shouldn't take Trump lightly again.

[mtnsnake]

39. We aren't taking him lightly. That's why we have as many wonderful Democratic candidates as we do.

They are all biting at the bit to destroy Trump.

[TwilightZone]

24. "despite any bullshit polls"

We underestimate his appeal at our own peril. I'm not sure why so many people assume that his support isn't what it appears to be, but underestimating him again is a pretty good way to lose in 2020.

[Skittles]

27. and he still has RUSSIA

[sop]

49. I see a lot of support for Trump, they haven't left him yet and probably never will

Trump followers are either doggedly loyal or unimaginably stupid. Either way, they vote. Starting off with the attitude any Democrat can't lose is a sure way to lose. Turnout is always the most important factor in elections. I will be out registering new voters in areas most likely to vote for a Democrat.

[SouthernProgressive]

26. I think that is the reason people are going with Biden.

Department after department has been wrecked. Our standing our the world stage has been tarnished further. Biden know many of the people who will be essential for repair. He will bring presidential leadership to agencies and world leaders.

[mtnsnake]

28. I can't disagree with you about that.

Biden is very well connected across the globe. Good point.

[emmaverybo]

55. This, his stature and experience on the world stage is an invaluable asset as is his foreign

policy and relations expertise. I believe he will have a sound administrative infrastructure, the best advisors, and wide popularity across America to help him achieve the liberal goals and tone we need to overcome the extremist Republican agenda and mind-set ascendant in America and Europe.
His opening campaign salvo in which he transcended policy promises to urge us to fight for America’s soul was greatly affecting and I know, having followed his career, that he believes in his message and has the stuff to represent our better angels here and abroad, where decisions are made that impact the whole globe.

[shanny]

103. I'm fine with Biden as SecState.

[Demsrule86]

29. That is not true...few of our candidates can beat Trump...I think Biden is the only one personally.

[Turin_C3PO]

38. I think Biden, O' Rourke and Buttigieg can all beat Trump.

Maybe Warren too.

[Demsrule86]

44. No, lets be realistic. Buittigieg will lose because he lacks experience and probably because he is

gay also...I do not believe based on my daughter who is a Lesbian and seeing how she is treated that this country will elect a gay person...just don't think so...hell some states have made laws that medical people can refuse to treat folks like my daughter and allow her to die. As for O' Rourke , he will not win a presidential race...he is losing the primary. If you can't win a primary...you won't win a presidential race.

[watoos]

31. Warren has shown the most spunk

And is going after Trump.

I really like mayor Pete for the same reasons but how many votes will he lose from bigots? Warren and mayor Pete would do one heck of a debate.

Biden has a lot of baggage to overcome, but he is capable.

[LibFarmer]

33. The usual cry from candidates behind in the polls

especially if their being behind is making the extreme and radical wings to cringe.

[BlueWI]

46. Polls are not votes.

Otherwise, why have a primary?

And there's definitely precedent for winning campaigns that weren't the primary front runners before Iowa (such as the last 3 Democratic presidents).

Quite a few Biden supporters want to declare victory already, even though Biden and Hickenlooper are tied right now in the delegate count.

[mopinko]

37. what we need is the candidate who can most clean up this mess.

i think a big part of ew's appeal as that she seems like she would be great at that part of the job.

if he isnt a blob of bloody hamburger before 11/20, we have a problem. but i think we will.

[bearsfootball516]

40. I hate to disagree, but I have to.

We flip Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and we reach 270. Blue collar working swing voters like Biden, but I imagine they'd be much, much more hesitant to vote for Kamala or Elizabeth, even though they'd be a more progressive choice.

Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer Kamala or Elizabeth to be president. But Joe gives us our best shot at flipping the states that need to be flipped to win the White House.

[Kurt V.]

47. once the normal ppl start paying attention in those states biden won't fair well. his statements

about china will be used against him. imo

[DUMendo]

41. It's gotta be Harris,,,

Kamala is my choice. She understands the troubles in America today and she fully supports my people. She also wants America to be safe and will eliminate internet sales of guns and those big gun show loopholes. She supports immigrants and will make sure they have every chance to prosper. I honestly think that it's time a woman takes charge and she has the knowledge and experience to sit in that office.

[Idonetoldem]

50. Best Candidate

Great points, I agree. That is exactly why I was hoping to see Maxine Waters run. Of course she didn't so I'm going with Yang, it just feels right.

[PatrickforO]

58. You know, I saw Yang on Bill Maher, and he was great.

We have a bunch of really good candidates.

[Kaleva]

65. +1

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. If Trump isn't defeated it won't matter which Democrat might be the best president,

whatever that means.

[Gothmog]

53. I strongly disagree-trump can easily win if we put up a weak candidate

Link to tweet

And that’s why, as Axios reports, they are planning to hold on to the minority of voters who support the president while working overtime to launch a scorched-Earth campaign against the eventual Democratic nominee.

“The GOP]is going to make whoever the nominee is radioactive well before they get the nomination,” one former Trump campaign aide explained. “That’s Trump’s strategy. Stay at 45-46 percent [in the polls] and just make the other guy radioactive.”

Given Trump’s own unpopularity, the campaign reasons, the only way to get him back into the White House will be to convince swing voters that the Democratic nominee will pack the Supreme Court, end the Electoral College, and grant reparations to black Americans.

Throughout his first term, Trump has consistently posted lower approval ratings than any of his predecessors. FiveThirtyEight’s average of public opinion polls at the moment gives Trump an approval rating of just under 42 percent with a disapproval rating of 53 percent.

[mtnsnake]

67. Who said anything about putting up a weak candidate? I sure didn't.

I never implied that we should put up a weak candidate, nor did I imply that we have weak candidates. I said "just about any single one of our candidates will handily beat Trump in 2020" and I meant it, but I sure am not suggesting that we should nominate someone if we think they are weak. Just saying most of our candidates are so qualified and impressive that they could handily beat the idiot in the WH after what's gone on during his one and only term.

[Gothmog]

73. We have a number of candidates who trump can beat

I know that some believe that we can put up a far left wing candidate and beat trump. For example, I believe that trump would win 45+ states if sanders is our nominee

Most POTUS are re-elected unless the economy is strong. That is what numerous studies show. I am not sure that all or even most of our potential nominees can beat trump if the economy remains strong. I fear that trump can beat many of our potential nominees.

I strongly believe that electability is the most important issue

[Progressive dog]

56. Trump started out as a joke in 2015

but with the help of the Russians, Fox News, the cyber-attacks on the election, and the electoral college system, Trump won. Trump is not toast.

[Gothmog]

63. Washngton Post-It's easy to see how Trump can win reelection

From Larry Sabato https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-economy-got-nixon-reagan-and-bush-reelected-it-could-do-it-for-trump-too/2019/04/23/b8920d34-65e6-11e9-a1b6-b29b90efa879_story.html?utm_term=.a35b315730d2

Ultimately, Trump may turn out to be at the mercy of conventional factors. In 2016, academic predictive models based on fundamentals such as the state of the economy suggested that Trump, or any other Republican candidate, was in position to win the election or come very close. This time, such models (once they become operative next year) could make Trump the early favorite despite his poor approval ratings.

Credit the powers of incumbency and a strong economy, the state of which may matter more to Trump’s odds than nearly anything else. Incumbency and the economy, among other matters, ended up being more than enough for Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Despite Trump’s unprecedented outlandishness, that same combination might work for him, too.

[marylandblue]

66. This is really a false choice on a misguided foundation.

The misguided foundation - assuming your enemy is easy to beat. Never assume that. If you underestimate your opponent you are more likely to lose than if you overestimate him.

The false choice - Why wouldn't the best President also be the one most likely to beat Trump? It always seems come down to this. People telling you to vote not for who you like best, but to become a long-distance mindreader and vote for the person who a bunch of strangers will like best. I was never good at that. Who in 2015 thought Trump would get more than 1% ? I know I didn't. I'm not any smarter now than I was then.

[mtnsnake]

68. You can overestimate Trump to your heart's content, so go ahead and play it safe.

IMO, this group of Democratic candidates will go down in history as one of the most capable groups to ever run for the office. They are that impressive. Of course, some of them don't fit the bill, but the greater majority does. If you don't have as much faith in most of our candidates as I do that they could whip Trump's sorry ass, that's your prerogative.

[marylandblue]

71. Sure, and it's your prerogative to underestimate someone

who was underestimated in the past and is still being underestimated by many people today.

Trump is not an idiot, he literally only plays one on TV. Don't fall for the act again.

[FloridaBlues]

70. My vote goes to person who can do it on day one who doesn't need a learning curve to get us

Out of this trump mess.

[Gothmog]

74. A majority of Americans think that trump will br re-elected

Link to tweet

[McCamy Taylor]

75. This will not be a cakewalk. Not with the Russian mob backing Trump.

The party needs to find a candidate with platinum plated Teflon to deflect the kompromat that the Kremlin will throw his or her way.

[beachbum bob]

76. unless a candidate can win, it doesn't matter about who makes the best....

[Honeycombe8]

77. I disagree that any of the candidates will beat Trump handily.

That's the sort of thinking that led to some voters not voting in 2016 ("we have it in the bag&quot .

We STILL don't know who is most likely to beat Trump.

It's not about policies and plans. It's about beating Trump, first and foremost. That means: charisma, enthusiasm. A reason to go vote in bad weather...because you love the person so much, and he/she has a good chance of beating Trump.

[lark]

78. Taking candy from a baby - how unrealistic.

You think Russia and Russian Repugs and probably MBS & Israel as well won't be stealing the election for drumpf just like they did last time ony 10x more so? I expect rat fucking extraordinaire along with vote hacking and voter hacking as well. FL will run matching signature checks which throw out everyone's ballot who's gotten sick or old since they first signed the voter cards, probably do Cross Check and remove tons of Hispanics for no reason other than being non-white. This will be the battle of our lives and they know it and are all in on stealing our country via the next election.

No one thought drumpf could possibly win last time and he got the title by stealing it from the person who had 3 million (plus all the ones they stole from FL, WI. MI & PA) more votes. This will be a huge fight and one I will personally take on and hope you will as well. We need every single person to overcome the planned interference and cheating.

[mtnsnake]

79. What's more unrealistic is thinking that Joe Biden is the only 2020 candidate who can beat Trump

I'll be taking on the fight for our candidate no matter who our candidate turns out to be. I hope you will do the same.

[lark]

80. !00%

I chose Joe because I think he's got the best chance against drumpf and because I like him. I also really like Liz, Mayor Pete, & Kamala and to pick the top 5 I'd add Amy. That's just who I like best for the task prior to learning more about a lot of them. I know next to nothing about the Westerners and look forward to hearing from them. I think the debates will be must see tv and am very excited for them.

I am a FL Democratic party volunteer and have been since I retired. I'm not working for any candidate right now, having major health issues and surgery in a month which has a long period of recovery and therapy involved. By the time the general gets here, I will be full speed ahead and will work my tail off for the Democratic candidate - whoever she or he is. Anyone would be better than drumpf - even Gillibrand or Gabbard who are dead last on my personal list. So yeah, don't worry, I'm all in for Democrats and so is my entire immediate family, thankfully.

[mtnsnake]

81. All good reasons for sure.

This might be the hardest primary ever to choose from. Biden is setting the bar for sure, and rightfully so, and we have a bunch of folks trailing behind that are all very good. It's going to be one of those problems deciding who to support, but I guess that's one of those problems that's a good problem, if there is such a thing. As long as everyone unites with the kind of spirit you're referring to, I think we'll be able to kick Trump's ass as long as we're careful and don't make any drastic mistakes. I, too, and looking forward to hearing more from some of the lesser known candidates because every time I hear a "new" one, I'm blown away by how good they are.

[lark]

82. Yeah, Mayor Pete for one has taken me totally by surprise.

He's so thoughtful and intelligent and just so right on with his positions. I love forward to more pleasant surprises

[mtnsnake]

84. I didn't think he'd have a chance, but the more I hear him, the more I think he could win

not just the Primary but also in the general election. My favorites right now, which will probably change after the debates start, are Buttigieg, Warren, Swalwell, Harris, Klobuchar, Biden, and O'Rourke. I think Bullock and Bennett are real good, too. I like Sanders, but I wish he'd drop out of it this time. One of the only ones who I think could easily lose to Trump is Gillibrand. I don't trust her at all. With Biden, even though I criticize him more, I think he'd be one of our strongest candidates for the simple reason that he goes right after Trump in much more of a biting fashion than most of the others do. If Biden doesn't win the primary, he'll for sure have a good effect on whoever does win it.

[Gothmog]

92. "Joe Biden is in the President's head

Link to tweet

[MineralMan]

83. No, it's not obvious right now that any of the candidates

will "handily beat Trump in 2020." Not at all.

An estimation of the ability to beat Trump is an important consideration in deciding which candidate to support in the primaries.

Do not underestimate Trump's ability to win in 2020. That could be a fatal mistake, literally.

[mtnsnake]

85. Like I said in my post, I'm not suggesting we get overconfident about it

but as long as our nominee is careful and doesn't make any huge mistakes, the contrast between Trump and our nominee, whomever that might be, will be so great that we should be able to pick up at least a couple, maybe more, of those crucial states that we should have won in 2016 but didn't, such as in the Midwest. Our candidates are so talented that I think 2020 could very well end up being a landslide for Democrats.

[honest.abe]

86. I dont have faith in the system to believe that any of our candidates will "handily beat Trump".

The GOP/Trump/Russia/Faux News are all eager to cheat to win. We need our very very best candidate to overcome the effects of these corrupt crooks.

[Gothmog]

93. Dems can not afford to nominate a weak candidate

Link to tweet

[mtnsnake]

94. JHC. You already said that in post 53, & I already answered you in post 67 that I never

said anything about putting up a weak candidate.

[Gothmog]

95. I disagree with the concept that trump is weak and that most of our candidates can beat trump

The concept that this election is a lock and that the Democratic Party can nominate a far left out of touch candidate is not the real world. If the economy does not falter (and trump is working hard to kill the Obama economy), then this will be a close race.

If the choice is between nominating a very far left progressive candidate or winning, I want to win

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[mtnsnake]

96. I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. LOL

[Gothmog]

97. So do I

We need to win and I really doubt that most of the Democratic candidate in the field can beat trump. trump will be tough to beat and if we put up too liberal of a candidate, we will lose. I had this discussion on another thread and my position has not changed https://www.democraticunderground.com/12874346

[Demsrule86]

98. If we had the most wonderful, pure ...the best and he/she loses...it is a waste of time.

And the idea this election is in the bag isn't over confidence...it is bordering on delusion (not saying you just in general). This will be a hard fought election.

[mtnsnake]

100. Fair enough but I'm sticking to my opinion that just about any of our candidates will beat Trump

and do it handily, barring any fatal mistakes and without Russian intervention. Then again, if there's Russian intervention, it might not matter who we put up.

As far as people being delusional, I'd say the ones who might be delusional, or a better word is naive, are the ones who believe in any of these polls that the media or anyone else is throwing out at us.

[MineralMan]

99. We need both.

And we need to think carefully about how we identify who will make the best president for the four years following the Trump administration. There is much to undo that Trump has done. That will be Job 1.

[mtnsnake]

101. Yes, we do

My version of doing both is to 1) pick the person who we think will do the best job as president, followed by 2) making sure that person looks like they can easily beat Trump, which IMO is just about any one of our candidates with the exception of a few of them for sure such as Gillibrand or de Blasio. I would have zero confidence in either one of them, as well as a couple others, too. Most of the others, though? I think they'd easily beat Trump in 2020. In many Trump voting idiots eyes, Trump in 2020 is not going to be that person who fooled so many rust belt workers, nor is he going to be the same candidate who fooled so many people who he made so many empty promises to and never fulfilled any of them.

Others obviously will have a different version of how to go about it. Some will do it the other way around, going about it with my #2 first, followed by my #1.

Others yet will mostly be worried about #2, period, choosing who they think will best be able to beat Trump. That would be many of the folks here on this forum and around the country as well. Nothing wrong with going with the "safe" candidate, although I personally think most of our candidates are safe to got with, with the exception of just a few of them.

[peggysue2]

106. We most certainly do

Because without winning in 2020, all bets are off.

It's going to take a seasoned hand to restore what Trump and his cronies have torn apart, domestically and abroad. And I don't buy into this idea that beating Trump will be a slam-dunk for all (or most) our candidates. As awful as he is, Trump has the advantage of incumbency. Too many Republicans have sold their souls to this crook. They will do everything/anything to hold onto power and avoid accountability.

We need a nominee who can take Trump to the cleaners with a full-throated repudiation at the ballot box. For me, that's Joe Biden.

[quickesst]

104. Why would anyone....

.... come to a democratic message board and undermine the intelligence of Democrats by suggesting they are only capable of focusing on one subject at a time? Personally, I am looking to a candidate who I believe can defeat Trump, and put this country back on the right track. For me, that candidate is Joe Biden.

[mtnsnake]

105. Try telling that to the people

who are only choosing Biden because they feel he's the safest bet at beating Trump. Some of them won't admit it now, but they were sure saying so when Biden first announced his run....and even before that.

I'm not suggesting anything other than that I think just about any of our candidates can beat Trump, period. Thus, I will vote for the candidate who I feel can do the best job for the country, period again. That candidate for me could end up being Joe Biden, although at this point I doubt it because I think there at least 5 others who I think would do a better job and who would also beat handily beat Trump.

[quickesst]

107. I have the confidence....

.... that most democratic voters who favor Biden do so for more reasons than just beating Trump. What people need to understand is that beating Trump is the leading priority for this election. Nothing else will be accomplished if that priority is not successful. This applies to every single candidate in the Democratic field. I have chosen to support Joe Biden. Beating Trump is only one reason. I believe he is the most qualified person to lead this country out of the quagmire it currently finds itself. There are several other candidates who I believe can defeat the orange one, and if I felt one of them could do a better job as president, I would have backed one of them. I have chosen the candidate I support, and I would hope that others respect that decision just as others would want to be respected for their choices.

[MasonDreams]

108. When Obama got elected it was absolutely wonderful

Jesus, Gandhi, MLKjr. & now Barack Hussein Obama is going to bring us some positive change! And, if you will remember with me, for four months we had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and control of the house. My President was and is brilliant, eloquent, and competent.
What happened? The banks got bailed out and the people got foreclosed. Single Payer did not get enacted. Eight more years of expanding War? Don't get me wrong McCain would have started World War 3 by bomb bomb bomb bombing Iran. And I guess moderate Republican romneycare is better than what we had?
We reached across the aisle to shake hands and they ripped our arm off. No more Neville Chamberlain we need Winston Churchill.