Let’s Look At Potential Democratic Candidates For 2020!

Just 1,436 days until Election Day 2020!

Democrat-Donkey

Donald Trump has not taken the oath of office yet, but that hasn’t stopped speculation from beginning about Democrats who might challenge him in 2020. While this likely is maddening to most sane people, the reality is that someone seeking to undertake the monumental task of running for President of the United States has to start giving serious thought to that effort long before they actually launch a campaign. This is doubly true when one is seeking to challenge an incumbent President running for re-election given the fact that, since 1900, incumbent Presidents who were a candidate in the candidate for re-election on the General Election ballot only lost four times (1912, 1932, 1976, 1980, and 1992). That’s just five elections of the nineteen where an incumbent was on the ballot. In other words, a candidate challenging an incumbent has about a 1 in four chance of defeating them, and to do so, they’re going to need a strong, well-prepared, and well-financed campaign that makes few mistakes, as well as a campaign that gives voters a reason to change leaders after just four years.  A good deal of this is due simply to the logistical realities of campaigning for President in the United States and the importance of laying the groundwork for winning your party’s nomination early. Because of this, we’re likely to start hearing stories starting early next year about Democrats who spend a lot of time in states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, where the whole process begins, as well as those who put together SuperPACs and other political organizations

This time around, for the first time since 2004, it will be Democrats who will be seeking to unseat an incumbent President, and unlike 2008 or 2016, they’ll be doing so without any obvious candidates or potential candidates. As a result, the speculators are already trying to posit who might fill the field that we should see developing by sometime in 2018. Among the first pundits to hit the ground running on speculation about 2020 is The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza who writes at the paper’s political blog The Fix. In a post yesterday, for example, Cillizza drew up a list of potential candidates that ranges from the plausible to the absurd. That list includes:

  • New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who has been mentioned as a potential Presidential or Vice-Presidential pick for years now;
  • New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has been close to Hillary Clinton for years and is rumored to already be feeling out many of Clinton’s top donors about the viability of a run four years from now;
  • California Senator-Elect Kamala Harris, who won the election to succeed Barbara Boxer in the Senate three weeks ago and has previously served as Attorney General of California and District Attorney for San Francisco;
  • Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, whose popularity in a swing state is likely to appeal to some Democratic donors hoping to win back white working class voters that drifted to the Republicans in this election;
  • Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has a record not very different from Gillibrand’s but lacks her access to high-dollar donors; and,
  • First Lady Michelle Obama

With the exception of Mrs. Obama, these all seem like plausible candidates should they choose to take the plunge. Booker, for example, has often been compared favorably to President Obama in terms of his charisma and his ability to draw large crowds outside of his home base of New Jersey. He also has access to high-dollar donors on Wall Street and elsewhere in the financial industry that are likely to be just as important in 2020 as they have been in the past. He also has the advantage of being perhaps the best known of the candidates on Cillizza’s list outside of the First Lady, although it’s worth noting that few people outside the inner circles of the Democratic Party knew who Barack Obama was at this point in the 2008 election cycle. Gillebrand, Harris, and Klobuchar are women, which could help win the support of Democrats who may feel that Clinton lost in 2016 because of her gender. Hickenlooper, meanwhile, seems like the Martin O’Malley of this list, a Governor that few people have ever heard of from a state with a relatively small amount of electoral votes who is likely to get lost in the stampede of candidates. Michelle Obama, on the other hand, probably doesn’t belong on this list at all. At no point during the eight years that her husband has been President has Mrs. Obama expressed any interest at all in a political career, and it’s been widely rumored that she’s never really liked living in Washington to begin with. Michelle Obama may indeed find an interesting way to impact politics in the future, but it’s unlikely to be as a candidate.

Cillizza expands the list in a second post today to include:

  • Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who is among the Senators with the strongest support among the party’s so-called “progressive” wing and is, well, from Ohio;
  • Montana Governor Steve Bullock, a Democrat who won victory in a state that typically goes Republican in Presidential elections;
  • HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who was reportedly on the Vice-Presidential short list for 2016;
  • Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s running mate;
  • Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton confidant;
  • Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, who was among the first Democrats to switch their allegiance from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign;
  • Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who has made a mark in the Senate with his outspokenness on the issue of gun control; and,
  • California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, who has been a leading voice on LGBTQ rights issues; and,
  • former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who has been close to President Obama these past eight years.

Most of these seem like plausible candidates should they choose to run, but some will have an easier tme in the earlier stages of a campaign than others. Sherrod Brown, Julian Castro, Tim Kaine and others who have been in politics will have an easier time of establishing the early stages of a campaign if they chose to run, for example, while candidates like Bullock may find that they are somewhat out of step with the Democratic base on many issues. It should also be noted that Tim Kaine has already ruled out a run for office in 2020, saying that he is instead committed to staying in the Senate and running for re-election in 2018. Gavin Newsom, meanwhile, is seen as the heir apparent to California Governor Jerry Brown and would likely find running for President in 2020, just two years after the next election for California Governor, would be too much of a logistical challenge. Similarly, Patrick has been out of office long enough already that he may be considered as finished by many high-level Democrats.

There are, of course, a number of high-level Democratic names that Cilizza has left off his lists. The most prominent would be Hillary Clinton herself, but it seems unlikely that she will be willing to make the emotional and physical investment necessary for a third run for the White House. Another name is Bernie Sanders, who of course did far better in 2016 than anyone deemed possible when he entered the race. Political lightning like that rarely strikes twice, though, and there have been as many complaints among top Democrats about the damage that Sanders allegedly inflicted on Hillary Clinton as there have been those seeking to praise and encourage him. Another potential candidate not included above is New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, but his potential candidacy for President has been tainted by a series of ethcial scandals and corruption convictions among top-level New York Democrats close to Cuomo as well as the suspicion that he was far more involved in these instances of corruption than prosecutors have been able to prove or willing to allege. Finally, of course, there is Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who many had hoped would run in 2016. If she did run Warren would no doubt be a top contender but whether or not she’d be the best candidate the Democrats can put forward depends a lot on the direction American politics takes in the next four year. A move away from the leftward tilt she represents would most assuredly be bad news for any future plans she may have. It should also be noted that Warren will be 71 in 2020, and that Clinton and Sanders will be 73 and  79 respectively. While President-Elect Trump, should he choose to run for re-election will be 74 himself, this is nonetheless an important factor in trying to figure out if a potential candidate would be able to withstand the rigors of running for President.

So, let the speculation begin!

Please follow and like us:
FILED UNDER: Campaign 2020, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. grumpy realist says:

    AAARRRRGH!!!!

    (pulls hat down around ears, walks toward edge of cliff, grumbling.)

    If there is anything that will send me off into hermithood for the next 15 years, it’s gonna be the American political process.

  2. Stormy Dragon says:

    It should also be noted that Tim Kaine has already ruled out a run for office in 2020, saying that he is instead committed to staying in the Senate and running for re-election in 2018

    All that means is that Tim Kaine is a senator.

  3. Andy says:

    I passed a minivan in my neighborhood with a brand new Bernie 2020 sticker on the back, so it’s a thing.

  4. Gustopher says:

    How about George Clooney?

    We don’t want to elect Presidents, we want to elect spokespeople, and if he is surrounded by the right team, he will do a fine job. From all appearances he has a better temperament than the current President-Elect, and people really connect to him.

    I’m only half-joking on this. Given a choice between someone who is speaking to our fears, and someone who is speaking to our hopes, I think that latter will win.

  5. Gustopher says:

    Also, it is too early to be thinking about Republican candidates in 2020?

  6. michael reynolds says:

    I know we never like to do things sensibly, but it would be great if before we got into who we’re running we figured out just what we are running on.

    We have a potential split within the Democratic Party between those who favor identity politics and those who are thinking along economic class lines. And then there are the people like me who don’t fit easily into either camp.

    Aside from not being racist, misogynist trolls like the Republicans, I’m not sure what it is we think we stand for, or what we imagine the future to be. I brought this up several times before the election, suggesting that you don’t win off attacks alone.

    Of course four years from now we may be able to win the WH on the please-make-it-stop line offering just sanity, competence and a relief from Trumpian corruption. But that won’t move votes in state and local contests. We need a goal, a concept, a plan that goes beyond liberating what few minorities remain un-liberated.

  7. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    Booker… Harris… Obama… McAuliffe… Patrick… Cuomo… Warren…

    Any of those would almost guarantee Trump’s second term.

  8. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @michael reynolds: Three very good paragraphs, and only one of Classic mr. Your future relocation must be agreeing with you.

    In the interest of elevating the dialogue, I’ll ignore that one and instead point out one aspect of your advice:

    We have a potential split within the Democratic Party between those who favor identity politics and those who are thinking along economic class lines.

    Both elements are focused on how to divide people. That is a challenging strategy towards winning elections.

    One element of Trump’s strategy was to unite people. His statements against illegal aliens constructed an “us vs. them” conflict that was open to all Americans in the “us” group. His talks of “bringing jobs back to the US” did the same thing.

    Hillary’s strategy also followed the “us vs. them” model, but cast a lot of voters into the “them” basket.

  9. Pch101 says:

    @Gustopher:

    This George Clooney suggestion is actually a great idea.

    The Dems’ top priorities should be charisma, charisma and charisma. It would also be wise to make sure that the candidate is charismatic and has charisma. Little else matters.

  10. barbintheboonies says:

    Hopefully our country will learn from this year`s election. Maybe the people should demand a change in our system. Money should not be the biggest obstacle in our election process. Our country is rich enough to have their own media outlet where anyone within reason can be heard. We should not put up with this nonsense anymore. Our government should not be beholden to any one but the American people, all of them equally and fairly.

  11. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    Any of those would almost guarantee Trump’s second term.

    Right, because Trump barely won thanks to diminished African-American turnout, but a charismatic African-American candidate won’t motivate them to vote in 2020.

    LOL, have you ever seen Cory Booker or Deval Patrick speak? Yea, nothing inspirational or charismatic there at all. 🙄

    Truthfully, after four years of disasters and unforced errors and gaffes hung around Trump’s neck, we could probably run Adlai Stevenson and win.

    But I’ll take either one of those guys and sleep like a baby.

  12. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Gustopher: I think Cruz will run. Maybe Rubio, too. But to really get a clown car demolition derby going, Trump will have to announce that he’s passing on running for reelection. If does so, “Katy, bar the door!”

  13. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    One element of Trump’s strategy was to unite people. His statements against illegal aliens constructed an “us vs. them

    LOL, can you believe this guy?

    käg-nə-tiv di-sə-nən(t)s

    whew 🙄

  14. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @michael reynolds:

    before we got into who we’re running we figured out just what we are running on.

    Whoever it is will decide that “I’m not Trump” will be enough. Watch for the a big red meat feed on the left fueled by all of the oppose oppose oppose you guys are advocating now.

  15. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @HarvardLaw92: You raise an interesting point. We’re ending eight years of a president who won on good speaking and negligible accomplishments.

    And how goes the packing, anyway?

  16. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable Redundant:

    One element of Trump’s strategy was to unite people.

    Keep telling yourself that.

    Click

  17. An Interested Party says:

    In the past, hasn’t Doug complained about the subject of this post–how people ridiculously talk about the horse race of elections far into the future? Granted, considering who is about to become our president, I can certainly understand why Doug would quickly want to speculate about the 2020 election…

    One element of Trump’s strategy was to unite people.

    Oh that’s just so precious…you obviously have the same trouble with veracity that the president-elect does…

  18. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker:

    all of the oppose oppose oppose you guys are advocating now.

    Nothing of the sort. It actually came up in a conversation involving Schumer and Engel a few days ago that strategic acquiescence needs to be in the toolbag.

    Congressional Republicans are going to overreach – in dramatic style – so it behooves us to support Republican initiatives here and there, in instances where they’re walking out on a plank, because doing so gives us the ability to say “see, we’re working with the Republicans” while also making it clear that the ideas in question are theirs, not ours.

    The next two to four years have to be about Conservatism driving itself off of a cliff – failing in dramatic fashion and being seen to do so. Kansas played out on a national stage.

    Now, granted, part of that will be handed into our laps as the result of these impossible promises they’ve made to an angry constituency. All we have to do there is not get between them and their supporters so that, – when the jobs don’t materialize and the wall doesn’t get built and the Rust Belt still looks like an economic dust bowl – they get blamed for it. Beyond that, however, we also need to give them rope in instances where it costs us little to nothing to do so. They get it.

  19. JKB says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    Don’t forget Hickenlooper. He’s well known outside of Colorado to those who value the 2nd Amendment.

    And from what I’ve read recently, a lot of minorities are buying guns after the election. Is there nothing Trump can’t accomplish? Will those people be willing to risk their right to self defense on the promises of some DemProg?

  20. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    Quite well, thanks for asking. We close on the house in early January, and will be probably be moving in February once everything gets settled there and I’ve wrapped up what immediate business I need to wrap up in NYC.

    I’d say come and visit, but I doubt the pizzeria would let you be away from deliveries for that long.

    Oh well …

  21. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @An Interested Party: I said it, and I gave two examples.

    Your mockery shows not only why your side lost, but why you’ll lose again.

    Hillary called half of Trump voters “deplorables.” That’s about 30 million people she specifically said she didn’t want voting for her.

    Great strategy there. Paid off wonderfully, didn’t it?

  22. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    good speaking and negligible accomplishments.

    Yea, that doubling of the Dow and roughly 262,000 net positive swing in job creation was just unbearable. I’m not sure how we survived it.

    Of course, I can see why someone like yourself might be a little miffed that the recovery passed you by, but beggars can’t be choosers. Hang in there. If you work hard, they may move you up to working the oven!

    Yes, I would like fries with that, thanks. 🙂

  23. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    Hillary called half of Trump voters “deplorables.” That’s about 30 million people she specifically said she didn’t want voting for her.

    You still don’t get it. Republican turnout was DOWN in 2016. Trump depressed Republican turnout, while Clinton depressed African-American turnout more.

    Your working class white voters are about to get the caca kicked out of them by Republican economic policies. We don’t have to depress Republican turnout in 2020. The next four years will do that for us.

    You’re likely to see a charismatic African-American candidate have a field day asking Trump “where are the jobs? You promised jobs, so where are they?”

  24. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Yeah, you’ve convinced me. You’ve got 2020 in the bag, dudes. Just chill out and wait for the rest of the country to catch up with you and realize you were right all along. That loser who lucked into winning the presidency will just fall apart, and everything will just fall right into your hands.

    Do you have the slightest clue how much you sound like conservatives sounded exactly eight years ago?

    Of course, it’s different, because you’re so smart and superior and elite and just so much better, right?

  25. James Pearce says:

    @JKB:

    Don’t forget Hickenlooper.

    Forget Hickenlooper. I’m not sure he has national ambitions and I get the sense he wants to go back to making money and “changing the world” in non-political, commercial ways. Politics is for grifters and showboaters.

    Hick’s neither.

  26. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    @HarvardLaw92: You’re likely to see a charismatic African-American candidate have a field day asking Trump “where are the jobs? You promised jobs, so where are they?”

    You’re counting your poulets before they trappe, dude. You wanna give Trump time to fail?

    And you bring up an interesting dichotomy. The Democrats have charismatic African-Americans. The Republicans have charismatic African-Americans who have actually accomplished things. Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain, Mia Love…

  27. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    Just chill out and wait for the rest of the country to catch up with you and realize you were right all along.

    It’s not about us being right. It’s about Republicans being wrong. They have complete control of the government, and have made promises that Jesus Christ himself couldn’t deliver on. Believe me, Mr. Rust Belter is going to notice that he’s still unemployed, and it’s going to be pretty difficult for him to blame that on us.

    That loser who lucked into winning the presidency will just fall apart

    He’s already falling apart and he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet.

    Of course, it’s different, because you’re so smart and superior and elite and just so much better, right?

    The sad thing there from your perspective is that, yea, realistically I am. Regardless of what happens over the next four years, I can expect to be better off than I am now. Your guys just voted out of spite for someone who’s going to take me to the bank while taking them to the cleaners. I’m not sure what else to call them besides stupid.

  28. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    The Republicans have charismatic African-Americans who have actually accomplished things. Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain, Mia Love…

    LOL, speaking as a Democrat, PLEASE run any one of those folks. Heck, add Alan Keyes to the list. I’ll send checks to any one of them.

  29. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    You’re counting your poulets before they trappe, dude.

    Stick to English. “Trappe” is A hatch. The word you’re looking for is “éclore”

    Google translate at your fingertips and yet you even manage to screw THAT up … 🙄

  30. Jenos The Deplorable says:

    One final observation:

    Trump argued that the greatest threat to Americans were non-Americans.

    Hillary argued that the greatest threat to Americans were fellow Americans.

    How’d that work out for her?

  31. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    How’d that work out for her?

    For her personally? Not so well.

    For us as a party, Christmas in November. Middle America is about to find out that the greatest threat to their well-being has R’s after their names.

    Luckily, we remembered to buy popcorn.

  32. An Interested Party says:

    Your mockery shows not only why your side lost, but why you’ll lose again.

    Calm yourself…I was only mocking you, not everyone who voted for Trump…but you continue to believe that he will somehow be so unbeatable in 2020…as others have mentioned, he may not even last that long as president…and if his actions since the election have shown anything, it is that he probably will not have a successful term in office…

    The Republicans have charismatic African-Americans who have actually accomplished things. Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain…

    How incredibly impressive…should Trump fail (as he probably will), I’m sure that one or all of these three (an idiot outside of his profession as a neurosurgeon, a bellicose jackass who seems to traffic in conspiracy theories, and a businessman who is clueless as a politician) will be able to swoop in and repair the damage…

  33. Hal_10000 says:

    Let’s Look At Potential Democratic Candidates For 2020!

    Have you no decency, sir? Have you at long last no decency? 🙂

    Way too early to know who will be running. One I will throw a vote against is Harris. She has a long history of overlooking police and prosecutor misconduct. And right before the election she pulled the stunt of charging the CEO of backpage with pimping under a legal theory she’d already been told was garbage. A person like that shouldn’t be in power.

  34. michael reynolds says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Your guys just voted out of spite for someone who’s going to take me to the bank while taking them to the cleaners. I’m not sure what else to call them besides stupid.

    You could add ingrates. My only concern is that it took them about 30 years to figure out that they had some, ahem, economic issues, so I’m not sure 4 years will be enough for reality to percolate up through the sludge and reach their consciousness. Four years from now the con man will be telling them they’re all just about to be rich and they’re just dumb enough to buy it.

    I suspect this will end up being 8 years. We don’t have a message aside from, ‘we’re not that moron,’ and I don’t think that will be enough. The white identity aspect of this plus the molasses slow processing speed of his voters, plus as always the disorganization of Democrats, will mean, I think, that it will take about six years for things to be so obviously, catastrophically awful that even the Trump voters will see it.

    I’ve learned through years of disappointment that the glaringly obvious takes far longer to be processed by the public than is easy to imagine. Double all time estimates. It took people about 5 years to figure out that Nixon was a paranoid crook, and people were smarter then.

  35. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    That’s fine. Whether by innate personality or a product of the job, I tend to go for the long play more often than not.

    Kansas voted Brownback into office again despite Kansas circling the drain.

    Now they’re in a situation where Dems picked up 12 seats in the Kansas House this year, and saw 14 more incumbent far-righters get beaten in their primaries by moderate Republicans.

    In one of the most Republican (R+12) states in the nation.

    I’m fine with Dems not necessarily gaining control if it means that we get to see far-righter members of Congress get replaced with moderate Republicans. We need a functioning conservative voice in governance – I’m not that picky about whether we get it by replacing them with Dems or by Republicans replacing them with moderates. The war here isn’t against conservatism – it’s against far-right insanity.

  36. Gustopher says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Dude, pizza delivery boys are doing the good lord’s work out here in the land of legal pot, and it’s hard work for crappy pay everywhere.

    Janos may be an idiot, but f he really is delivering pizzas, he is contributing something worthwhile to the world (particularly if it is in a Free State). Mock him for his idiot beliefs, but not for his job delivering happiness.

  37. Gustopher says:

    @HarvardLaw92: it’s only Christmas in November for those wealthy enough to weather any storm, and only then if they are confident Trump won’t trigger WW3 when he loses a twitter fight with some 14 year old claiming to be ISIS.

    A lot of good people are going to get hurt. Many of the most vulnerable.

    Sure, Trump voters will also get hurt, and that’s fun, but most of the people who voted didn’t want this. Trump is a disaster that was rejected by the American people, and which they are getting anyway.

  38. Pch101 says:

    Trump received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, plus he proved to be the best thing to ever happen to the Libertarian party.

    You’d have to be fairly pathetic and lack basic arithmetic skills to brag about that sort of performance. And if you have the audacity to use those results to claim a mandate, then please enjoy your premium membership status in the Double-Digit IQ Club.

  39. Gustopher says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Hang in there. If you work hard, they may move you up to working the oven!

    Oh, wait, was that a concentration camp reference? Nice… but I don’t think Janos has the guts. He’s more of a fellow traveler.

    He’s comfortable hanging out with neo-Nazis (definitely to the point of not considering their support of a candidate to be disqualifying of that candidate), but he’s not one to be directly involved in any final solution. He’s one of the Good Germans. He’s not racist at all, and would be shocked, shocked to discover any mistreatment of people in the internment camps. He might even be surprised if Trump’s policies lead to internment camps.

  40. Eric Florack says:

    @Pch101: only one problem with that. In real life the guys got the Charisma of an impacted wisdom tooth

  41. Guarneri says:

    Well. This discussion is certainly illuminating.

    I must say, though, that the predictions from the left are chuckle inducing. You have done so well recently that n the predictions game………

  42. C. Clavin says:

    So much for the First Amendment under President Trump, along with his Republican Congress, and his Republican SCOTUS.
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

  43. C. Clavin says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    One element of Trump’s strategy was to unite people.

    Yes…he united all the know-nothing white idiots like you.
    Record few African-Americans; record few Hispanics; record few Asians.
    But he did get you and the KKK vote.
    Admittedly there is a shocking number of know-nothing idiots like you. But certainly not a majority…which a true uniter should have done by definition.
    What a maroon you are.

  44. Guarneri says:

    With such incisive analysis and clarity of thought like yours, Clavin, the Democrats might wrest power yet this century……

  45. Davebo says:

    @Jenos The Deplorable:

    Of course, it’s different, because you’re so smart and superior and elite and just so much better, right?

    You have to admit you do set a pretty low bar. But live the dream! Extra pepperoni please.

  46. Davebo says:

    @Pch101:

    Trump received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, plus he proved to be the best thing to ever happen to the Libertarian party.

    Which just goes to show how truly pathetic the Libertarian party is. If getting 3.3% of the vote is the best thing that every happened to a party it’s a pretty dull party. And FWIW, still under the 4% I predicted!

  47. C. Clavin says:

    @Guarneri:
    You Trumpists are gloating…talk to me in 4 years when this country is devastated.
    For years you have gotten everything you’ve predicted wrong. Everything. Dead. Wrong.
    But good for you. You white supremacists managed to win the electoral college. Do you understand what a pyrrhic victory is?

  48. MBunge says:

    @Pch101: Trump received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney

    Trump got more votes than Romney.

    Mike

  49. Guarneri says:

    @C. Clavin: @C. Clavin:

    Boo-hoo. You know, you could always take up residence with Reynolds in New Zealand.

  50. MBunge says:

    I’ve thought about making the following point, but didn’t because it is so blunt that none of you would actually learn anything from it. But given how much some of you are embracing mockery based on social and economic status…

    Donald Trump is richer than you.
    Donald Trump is more famous than you.
    Donald Trump is more successful than you.
    Donald Trump is more important than you.
    Donald Trump is more powerful than you.
    Donald Trump has accomplished more in business and politics than you.
    Donald Trump has made more love to more beautiful women than you.
    And the gap isn’t small. Donald Trump is exponentially your superior in those and most other things.
    He’s the President-Elect of the United States. You are a bunch of nobodies commenting on someone else’s blog.

    But by all means, keep thinking you know better. That worked out so well for you.

    Mike

  51. Davebo says:

    @MBunge:

    Wow. You like’s you some Trump Mike! I’ve heard his shit doesn’t stink and his cum tastes like honey but can you confirm that?

  52. C. Clavin says:

    @MBunge:

    Donald Trump is more successful than you.

    Um…this is kind of the basis of your point; everything else grows from this.
    And it’s just dead wrong.
    Trump was born rounding third base with a silver spoon in his mouth. He started with his daddy’s fortune. Frankly he hasn’t done very well with it. He would have done better if he simply followed Warren Buffets advice and stuck his money in an S&P 500 stock fund.
    I, on the other hand, come from nothing. Today I am in the 96th percentile of income and have tens of millions of dollars in building projects on my desk at any one time. I have been successful, and won awards, in two very different careers. I have never put a business in bankruptcy. I have never not paid my debts.
    Trump is a con man. And you, sir, have been conned.

  53. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Davebo:

    Truthfully, we’ve seen this before. Those with nothing align themselves with the successful in some sort of sad attempt to elevate their own situation by association. It’s akin to “my college team is better than your college team” coming from people who never attended the school in question to begin with. I like Harvard because I went to Harvard. They like Alabama because they went to Wal-Mart.

    On the other hand, at least he’s not trying to hide his hero worship behind concern trolling (which fooled exactly nobody) any longer.

  54. James Pearce says:

    @MBunge

    Donald Trump is richer than you.
    Donald Trump is more famous than you.
    Donald Trump is more successful than you.
    Donald Trump is more important than you.
    Donald Trump is more powerful than you.
    Donald Trump has accomplished more in business and politics than you.
    Donald Trump has made more love to more beautiful women than you.

    Yeah, but I have better hair.

    So there.

    (More seriously, though….I get it. I really do. Many folks on the left have been insufferable for quite some time, and the election of Donald Trump has made them even more insufferable. But please don’t respond to utter childishness with more. When Clavin says stuff like, “You white supremacists managed to win the electoral college,” it should be enough to counter that with, you know, actual facts. I grant that this won’t convince everyone, but it should convince the smart ones.)

  55. KM says:

    @Jenos:

    Of course, it’s different, because you’re so smart and superior and elite and just so much better, right?

    Wow, that’s all you have, isn’t it? Freaking resentment. It’s a tune that’s getting old fast. See, as you guys like to proclaim, you WON. The fact that you (and the Orange Huckster) keep harping on on your insecurities instead of how to run the country for the next 4 years just goes to show it’s all about validating fee-fees for some of you. Video after video of childish Trump voters screaming that their vote somehow validates bad behavior reinforces the meme of Trump et al are thin-skinned entitled white-identity whiners. Notice a theme in all of them? Not taking place in dive bars, Dunkin Donuts or Walmart but in Micheals, Starbucks and Delta – places that are a little more expensive. In other words, not the poverty-stricken coal-townie but the fairly affluent suburbanite who’s taking advantage of the townie’s desperation vote to act like an entitled asshat.

    Credit were credit is due: Trump had great success tagging negative labels and memes onto his opponents so expect 4 years of hammering this theme home. Dirty Donald and his Whiny White Entitled Cotillion have nothing in common with poor duped blue collar workers. Those economic voters Trump managed to peel off? They don’t want resentment, they want results. Is whining about how liberals think they’re such smarty pants gonna pay those bills and re-open those factories? They didn’t necessarily vote for Trump so much as bought into his BS, hated that Hillary didn’t lie to them or just plain hated Hillary. They honestly expect new jobs and when those jobs don’t appear…… he’s out on his ass for the next liar charismatic soul that can convince them. If we have a Repub President in 2020, it’s not gonna be Trump since they’ll def have second thoughts by then.

    If you want Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to stay red, you better have more then how meanie-mean libs are horrible to them. They gave you a chance. Don’t choke.

  56. KM says:

    @MBunge :

    Shorter MBunge: Richer people are inherently better! You’re all nothing but peons compared to his Greatness! He deserves your vote and respect by breathing!!

    That’s the message you want to solidify when your base is the poor parts of the country demanding economic change? Somehow I don’t think that’s gonna end well for you….

  57. Rick DeMent says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    while Clinton depressed African-American turnout more.

    When I look at the nobers I don;t see Clinton depressing the black vote, I see here not living up to the increase that a black president brought to the table. Her share of the black vote was pretty much in line with anyone not named Obama.

    Am I missing something here?

  58. Mikey says:

    @MBunge: Donald Trump is a horrible person who will make a horrible President. I don’t give a shit how much richer he is than I am or what he’s cheated and conned himself into achieving. And that includes the Presidency.

    And I’m a pretty handsome guy who could have banged plenty of beautiful women, but I’ve been married to the same one for 25 years and unlike Trump I don’t go around forcing myself on other ones.

  59. grumpy realist says:

    @KM: Don’t forget the Crab Bucket scenario. A lot of these people would be perfectly happy to turn the US of A into a third-world hell-hole just as long as they could drag their neighbors down with them.

    Which is totally silly because the 1% aren’t going to wait around. They’ll vamoose on their airplanes taking all their toys with them and laugh while they watch the leftovers implode.

  60. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Rick DeMent:

    The expectation was that Clinton could expect substantially the same or nearly the same degree of AA support that Obama enjoyed – particularly when faced with the alternative of a fairly blatant racist. That didn’t happen. AA turnout dropped pretty substantially relative to 2012.

  61. al-Alameda says:

    @MBunge:

    Donald Trump is richer than you.
    Donald Trump is more famous than you.
    Donald Trump is more successful than you.
    Donald Trump is more important than you.
    Donald Trump is more powerful than you.
    Donald Trump has accomplished more in business and politics than you.
    Donald Trump has made more love to more beautiful women than you.
    And the gap isn’t small. Donald Trump is exponentially your superior in those and most other things.
    He’s the President-Elect of the United States. You are a bunch of nobodies commenting on someone else’s blog.

    Yes, Mike, this is the “neener, neener, neener” presidency.
    Also, I would add:
    Donald Trump has more divorces than you
    Donald Trump has more business bankruptcies than you
    Donald Trump has groped more woman than you
    Donald Trump has refused to pay more contractors than you
    Donald Trump has initiated more nuisance lawsuits than you

  62. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @al-Alameda:

    And he still an arriviste who can’t (and never will) get a membership to Metropolitan or B&T

  63. al-Alameda says:

    I suggest that if Democrats want to go with a celebrity businessman who has actually been successful ….

    Mark Cuban

  64. Scott says:

    @MBunge: And yet he is a classless pig and always will be.

  65. An Interested Party says:

    @MBunge: Thanks for letting us know that you quit your regular job to take up a new position as Trump’s personal fluffer…I hope you enjoy it…

  66. DrDaveT says:

    @Pch101:

    This George Clooney suggestion is actually a great idea.

    Agreed. If the American electorate has been dumbed down to the point where presidential elections are mere “reality TV”, then the Dems need to run someone who can win at reality TV and then maybe govern — with an emphasis on winning first. Clooney is a good choice. Mark Cuban would satisfy the wealth fanboys. Hell, how about Will Smith? Oprah Winfrey? Jodie Foster? Matt Damon? Edward Norton? Is Natalie Portman old enough yet?

    Who doesn’t like Matt Damon?

    If America doesn’t want a politician, find a smart, popular non-politician who would surround herself with intelligent, sane, experienced people. And work to restore American education to the point where voters want something sane.

  67. James Pearce says:

    @DrDaveT:

    Who doesn’t like Matt Damon?

    Well, social justice warriors won’t like him after The Great Wall is released in February….

    Maybe you should just go with Beyonce.

  68. Rick DeMent says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    AA turnout dropped pretty substantially relative to 2012.

    Sure but even Obama’s numbers among AA’s dropped from 2008 to 2012 by 2% points. She tied Kerry and she was 2 points off Gore. She beat her husband’s numbers in 1996 by 3 points and 4 points in 1992.

    You and other seem to be making the point that she lost tons of support among AA’s but compared to the presidents who are not Obama, she is right there in the sweet spot. She didn’t help herself of course but she didn’t lose any either compared to Kerry and her Husband.

  69. Neil Hudelson says:

    @Rick DeMent:

    She beat her husband’s numbers in 1996 by 3 points and 4 points in 1992.

    Population growth. As a percentage, i bet she did worse. (That’s not to say I agree with the whole ‘lost the AA vote’ thing.)

  70. Pch101 says:

    @DrDaveT:

    Who doesn’t like Matt Damon?

    Our enemies would shake in their boots if Jason Bourne was leader of the free world. Don’t even THINK about trying to assassinate him.

  71. Pch101 says:

    @Eric Florack:

    Is a guy who liked Ted Cruz really in a position to critique George Clooney’s charisma?

  72. Turgid Jacobian says:

    @James Pearce: Yeah, but I have better hair

    So does Reynolds.

  73. Tyrell says:

    Keyes ?

  74. charon says:

    @Rick DeMent:

    Am I missing something here?

    vote suppression

    @HarvardLaw92:

    @Rick DeMent:

    read some of the comments at my link