[WeekendCasanova]

(11-09-2016 10:40 PM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  

Kamala Harris would get demolished by Trump head to head. She's a dyed in the wool San Francisco liberal who's already done a great job playing identity politics in CA. Granted, she's now won two statewide elections in California, so I could see why the Demsnwould look ok to her.

But I'm talking Reagan-Mondale level of beatdown. And I'd love to see it.

I completely disagree.

It's easy to look at Donald trump with rose-colored glasses, but the fact is, most people didn't vote for him - the voted against Hillary.

A more leftist-leaning, powerful, less-corrupt and less-vindictive Liberal in Harris, or (before his loss), Russ Feingold, would clobber trump.

I've said before; a normal Liberal defeats trump. It just so happens that the Hillary, and her weaknesses were perfectly countered by trumps strengths.

Look to Harris in 2020.

[LeoneVolpe]

If President Trump can have a very productive first-term and people realize he isn't the boogeyman the mainstream media made him out to be, I don't think it'll matter who the dems try and come up with. I think President Trump can claim a second term.

Besides, wasn't Kamala Harris' sister mentioned in the Podesta e-mails? I can't remember if she was a guest at a "pizza party" or if it had something to do with #spiritcooking. Either way, it's probably not the best thing for a potential candidate to be even loosely associated with. Of course, it's not like the libtards have any problem with promoting degenerates, so maybe they will go that route?

[WeekendCasanova]

(11-10-2016 04:18 AM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  

If President Trump can have a very productive first-term and people realize he isn't the boogeyman the mainstream media made him out to be, I don't think it'll matter who the dems try and come up with. I think President Trump can claim a second term.

That's a big if.

Trump won, because he was running against Hillary. A turnip could beat Hillary.

Quote:

Besides, wasn't Kamala Harris' sister mentioned in the Podesta e-mails? I can't remember if she was a guest at a "pizza party" or if it had something to do with #spiritcooking. Either way, it's probably not the best thing for a potential candidate to be even loosely associated with. Of course, it's not like the libtards have any problem with promoting degenerates, so maybe they will go that route?

This is the exact reason, or one of the reasons, why Trump won, as well. People are sick of these media spin techniques, lies, and distortions.

A candidate's relative should have zero relevance to their character, and perception. It's unfortunately not so, but the Liberals LOVE using this technique (ala Eric Trump).

Again, we won't know until 2020, but I thoroughly believe that barring a mediocre-good Presidency(and with Trump who knows what will happen), Trump will be ousted by a more leftist candidate - by a landslide.

[CynicalContrarian]

So... we're all discounting Joe Biden?

[The Beast1]

Plot twist: there won't be any democratic party. As soon as Trump puts a special prosecutor on the case it'll come to head that the collusion was so anti american that every major leader within the party will be arrested.

The base will go to the green party and the 1000nd year Trumpenreich will continue on unabated!

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

The best argument against this Kamala Harris woman is that she endorsed Hillary Clinton. If you're knowingly endorsing a bank-controlled warmonger, odds are that you're one too.

[Vicious]

It's not going to be anyone whose name we are familiar with now and likely not a woman. By 2020 the rejection of the political elite will be clear even for the most echo chamber isolated party loyalist (and that goes for the whole western world).

Parties will have to produce relatable candidates with actual work experience outside sitting on committees.

[Latinopan]

Democrats played the identify politics to much, first we have to look at what Hillary had that not other candidate have within the party.

-Massive name recognition, this was bad for Hillary because people were tired of the Clintons and Bushes,

-Total control of the DNC, no other candidate ever had the DNC so invested into electing one candidate like this, Tulsi Gabbard was vice- secretaryof the DNC and resigned when he supported Sanders. Whoever run in 2020 need first to have the DNC fixed.

-Total devotion of the media establishment, I don't see the media being able to pull anther candidate so hard and at the same time lose, Hillary and the media were running like the internet did not exist.


There is more but this sis a good part.

Democrat party future depends entirely on demographic change, if they were not able to pull it out this time then is over for them as we know it.

Once any path to legalization is blocked, any illegal is deported, and the American citizen is back working then democrat for the first time will have t do something to work to get votes.

[YossariansRight]

(11-10-2016 02:39 AM)Sooth Wrote:  

Bruce Jenner for first female president.

It's Republican.

[YossariansRight]

I'll second Cory Booker.

Supposedly he was offered the VP slot, but turned it down to hedge his POTUS prospects for 2020.

[Dantes]

Booker is going to be the next big name for the Dems. I met him a few times. Really cool guy...athlete, charismatic and a player in his own right.

[Easy_C]

It'll be some kind of underprivileged minority that we've never even heard of before. Look for people who are tightly associated with Soros.

[weambulance]

to the idea that anyone but Hillary would've won. That's foolishness. Mr. Trump ran a campaign against Hillary, we have no idea how he would've run against someone else. It's like saying a winning football team would've lost against a different team because the other team runs the ball instead of passing, as if the winning team would not have changed defensive tactics in response. You can't just insert a new opponent and assume one side will stay static.

It's also pointless to say "oh, he only won because people voted against Hillary, not for him" because that applies equally, if not more strongly to the other side. How many people were voting against Literally Hitler? I don't see many people lamenting the fact that Hillary lost. I see loads of people upset that Mr. Trump won. This is true of every presidential election I remember.

We have four years to remove the built-in advantages and cheats the democrats have. Accomplish that, level the playing field, and I think you'll find it is much more difficult for a democrat to win in the future.

I'll worry about the 2020 candidate in about 2018, since so much can happen between then and now it's pointless to think much about it today. Who knows how deep the corruption and rot runs in the Democratic party? There's plenty of investigation left to do into all this stuff revealed by the Podesta emails and whatnot.

[eradicator]

(11-10-2016 04:49 AM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 04:18 AM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  

If President Trump can have a very productive first-term and people realize he isn't the boogeyman the mainstream media made him out to be, I don't think it'll matter who the dems try and come up with. I think President Trump can claim a second term.

That's a big if.

Trump won, because he was running against Hillary. A turnip could beat Hillary.

Not really: look at all of the rust belt states he won. He can sign the keystone pipeline into law(Obama refused to sign it, we still have a republican majority in both the senate and house) to help bring energy jobs back. He will be creating jobs through coal and oil that Obama and Hillary refused to do(they concentrated on "green energy" which does not create jobs).

A second Trump term is going to be hard to stop, all he has to do is say in those rust belt states, "look at all of the jobs I created here as president, my opponent wants to take those jobs away and have us rely on Saudi oil interests and give money to their green energy special interests. You remember how President Obama did exactly that, do you want another Obama?"

How is he going to lose in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin etc?

Quote:

Besides, wasn't Kamala Harris' sister mentioned in the Podesta e-mails? I can't remember if she was a guest at a "pizza party" or if it had something to do with #spiritcooking. Either way, it's probably not the best thing for a potential candidate to be even loosely associated with. Of course, it's not like the libtards have any problem with promoting degenerates, so maybe they will go that route?

This is the exact reason, or one of the reasons, why Trump won, as well. People are sick of these media spin techniques, lies, and distortions.

A candidate's relative should have zero relevance to their character, and perception. It's unfortunately not so, but the Liberals LOVE using this technique (ala Eric Trump).

Again, we won't know until 2020, but I thoroughly believe that barring a mediocre-good Presidency(and with Trump who knows what will happen), Trump will be ousted by a more leftist candidate - by a landslide.
[/quote]

GTFO of here with that talk of a leftist landslide. People care about jobs not about lesbian weddings.

[C-Note]

Michelle Obama will likely run for a rep or senate seat from her home state (Illinois?) in a couple years time. If she gets it I think she'll run for president in 2020.

[Canopus]

Obama has told press numerous times that Michelle absolutely loathes politics and has no interest. It would take a lot of convincing to make her run.

[eradicator]

(11-10-2016 10:29 AM)Canopus Wrote:  

Obama has told press numerous times that Michelle absolutely loathes politics and has no interest. It would take a lot of convincing to make her run.

Yeah, based on everything both of the Obamas have said, they are looking forwards to getting out of the public life. I guess that could change in 4 or 8 or 12 or 16 years. Let's see if she runs for senate.

[MKDAWUSS]

Honestly, it's too early to tell. I don't think too many people would have predicted Barack Obama was going to run in 2004, or Donald Trump in 2012.

[Slim Shady]

Michelle won't run till 2024 atleast.

[NilNisiOptimum]

(11-10-2016 03:52 AM)WeekendCasanova Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 10:40 PM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  

Kamala Harris would get demolished by Trump head to head. She's a dyed in the wool San Francisco liberal who's already done a great job playing identity politics in CA. Granted, she's now won two statewide elections in California, so I could see why the Demsnwould look ok to her.

But I'm talking Reagan-Mondale level of beatdown. And I'd love to see it.

I completely disagree.

It's easy to look at Donald trump with rose-colored glasses, but the fact is, most people didn't vote for him - the voted against Hillary.

A more leftist-leaning, powerful, less-corrupt and less-vindictive Liberal in Harris, or (before his loss), Russ Feingold, would clobber trump.

I've said before; a normal Liberal defeats trump. It just so happens that the Hillary, and her weaknesses were perfectly countered by trumps strengths.

Look to Harris in 2020.

Had another thought on Harris. She will be a mixed race Dem in her first term as a US Senator. That sounds awfully familiar, and I doubt it will work again. Again, I'm not saying the Dems won't go to her, as from that wor perspective she hits all the right check boxes. But nationally, she would get beat badly.

[Krivo]

Rahm Emmanuel, the mayor of Chicago

[eradicator]

One Democrat female that I would actually vote for? Ivanka Trump(though I don't know if she wants to run a country), maybe not in 2020 but perhaps 2024

[Bacchus]

One of the big lessons of the election was the power of celebrity. So I don't know if it'll be in 2020, but Beyoncé.

[8ball]

The dem contendor for 2020 will be shaped by resistance to Donald Trump. We will have to see what the Donald will do and which dem will better rally his troops by some fake resistance in order to win over the numales.

They are all positioning themselves for a a 4 year protest in the hopes that whoever resists the racist/mysogonystic president the most is best positioned to take the nomination come 4 years.

They are of course gravely mistaken.

Another thing, i predict the "progressives" which are really fascists, will take over the democratic party and push the fiscally conservative but very social liberals to the right.
You see the democratic coalition is actually deeply unatural coalition of many groups that don't fit, don't have the same political views but they all have a reason or they think they do to vote left. Muslims and feminists are in the same party, think about it. Hispanics and blacks actually don't get a long the way they each do with whites, many gays are deeply fiscally conservative but they are utterly afraid of the repubs out of media fear that gay marriage will be taken away, then there is the government worker or someone that profits from guv contracts or guv funding in some way which in a 4 trillion dollar budget its alot of people.

Here is what will happen in the next 4-8 years, the crazy progressive wing will take over the party and the socially liberal but fiscally conservative wing will vote more and more for republicans once all the media fears of a coming inquisitions are layed to rest. The thing about those progressives is for every voter they might attract they lose two by being a bunch of depressive psycopaths who lash out at any confrontation. This will bolster the Trump presidency as he will dominate the repub establishment more and more he will get more leverage to execute his plan and shape america's foreign policy. Its very easy to do when the opposition is a bunch of highway blocking degenerates. By defunding the epa/dep of education and banning certain non profitable groups(he knows who they are) he drastically reduces the base of the democratic party. The donors will not fund a progressive candidate and although that candidate's trade policy will be appealing to some of trump's base it will be washed by "open border" nonsense and after the wall is build and aliens are deported, those voters will never elect someone that does otherwise.

The democrats have no idea how fucked they are, and there might be some that do, but the donors will not take that risk.

[Latinopan]

The DNC is too fractured right now, they need some purging of people there but they are so used to power they can't let go, I could imagine some big division withing the DNC, there are news about meetings of people going bananas against Donna Brazile.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...nders.html

This election showed money is not everything, Hollywood endorsement means nothing, women won't flock to a female candidate just because they are women too, the way Democrats are used to win is over.


Dancing Pepe celebrating.