Will Trump be re-elected in 2020?

[Captain Obvious]

Yes, I know it's early, so what.

Poll is PUBLIC

[jimmyz]

I don't think the political class will allow him to live that long. An aircraft crash or an IED hidden in a pussy about to be grabbed will do him in.

[Common]

You should have put a dont know option or a shuddup faygit

[Captain Obvious]

You should have put a dont know option

Shu-up, fay-git

:biglaugh:

[Adelaide]

I said no, but I also think there is a chance he won't run again. I think the only reason he would not run again would be if he had a health reason, because he seems like the type that would otherwise refuse to give it up.

[Peter1469]

I don't think he will run again.

[hanger4]

I don't think he'll run again either.

[Mini Me]

I dont think Agent Orange will make it thru this term!

Too many demons chasing him!

https://s26.postimg.org/4bm6w2ca1/frva_Kz_A.gif

[Chris]

Will the Dems have anyone besides Hillary to run against him?

[Adelaide]

Will the Dems have anyone besides Hillary to run against him?


I am hoping to see Caroline Kennedy make a run at it. She isn't just worth her name, she has leadership and political experience.

[Crepitus]

Not gonna makeep it to the end of this term, much less get another.

[Captain Obvious]

makeep?

[Docthehun]

I have my doubts, but you never know. I'd say it will depend on the alternatives, if he even makes that far.

[Common]

Shu-up, fay-git

:biglaugh:

Lol I was close though

[IMPress Polly]

Adelaide wrote:
I am hoping to see Caroline Kennedy make a run at it. She isn't just worth her name, she has leadership and political experience.

I have begun compiling my list of prospective candidates that I would be interested in voting for, should they run. Selecting from those who I commonly see named as potential 2020 candidates, my order of preference goes like this:

1) Kirsten Gillibrand
2) Elizabeth Warren
3) Kamala Harris
4) Cory Booker
5) Bernie Sanders

I consider these to be the progressive options among those who are commonly named as possible 2020 candidates. I'm defining "progressive" here substantially by whether they were co-sponsors of Bernie Sanders' recent Medicare-for-all bill. All of the above were. I think such a vote strongly indicates a certain kind of general persuasion, as that has long been considered to be a fairly advanced left wing position.

Overall, I'm also exercising some bias in preferring that the Democrats nominate a woman. I think that finally electing our first ever female president will encourage more women to run for public offices of all sorts, and, in that sense, would be an accomplishment of some intrinsic value. When our Congress is only 20% female as things presently stand (House: 19%, Senate: 21%), I think that we could stand to see more women run for public office in general. I believe that women bring a different perspective on life that can be valuable.

That said, the only reason why Bernie Sanders isn't higher up this list is because of the age factor. Where the average American male lives 78 years, Sanders would be 79 on the day he assumed office, which to me suggests that he would have a greater than 50% chance of dying in office...i.e. I would essentially be voting for his running mate and I wouldn't know who that was yet during the primaries. (Although I would trust Sanders to pick a running mate I would like.) If I could wave a magic wand and make Sanders ten years younger in 2020 though, he would be higher up this list.

The case of Sanders notwithstanding though, the above list is also ordered in degrees of perceived populism. Kirsten Gillibrand would be my top preference because she is the most principled voice of the resistance among these commonly-named prospective candidates. She has been particularly active and vocal in supporting the movement. With Trump in the White House and the influence of alt-right movement leaders like Steve Bannon growing (as we saw this last week in the Alabama Republican primary contest), I would characterize the alt-right ideology as the primary foe that a Trump opponent must confront head-on in 2020, and with a populism that is so closely tied to the resistance, I believe that Gillibrand is the best-equipped of these candidates to offer a clear and unwavering alternative to the present status quo and direction of our politics.

Elizabeth Warren would make a solid option as well, I believe. However, I observe that her brand of populism, like that of Bernie Sanders, is primarily directed against the ideology of neoconservatism rather than the alt-right worldview. It's a minor difference from Gillibrand's type of populism, but I believe Gillibrand's to be a bit more important at this particular time.

As to Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, they are nice people who seem to be instinctively left-leaning. But they also express more willingness to compromise with the Trump Administration's agenda than the other candidates on this list. They come across to me as somewhat less energetic and exciting prospects. If you really want to mobilize working class voters, you need to run a "high-energy" campaign that captures their frustration with the current state of affairs.

That said, I hadn't thought about Caroline Kennedy as a potential candidate, though now that I Google her name and "2020", I do indeed see a fair number of appreciable results and petitions for her to run, so maybe there is indeed some chance that she will be a candidate! I don't know much about her yet, personally, so I don't feel adequately informed to place her anywhere on such as list as the above as yet. Do you know what sort of political perspective she is reputed to hold, @Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473)? Maybe I'm missing a prospect that should interest me!

Incidentally, is there anyone you're keeping your eye on, @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868)?

Really though, I think that the Democratic nomination in 2020 is very likely to go to either Joe Biden or, if they opt to run as reputed, perhaps a celebrity candidate like Dwayne Johnson or Mark Zuckerberg, as they seem to have become all the rage in the wake of Trump's victory. :rollseyes: I just can't get excited about any of those sorts of options.

[donttread]

Yes, I know it's early, so what.

Poll is PUBLIC

Probabaly, beacuse Americans have recently demonstrated an inability not to relect a president. Sheer apathy and laziness I believe is the cause. I mean for God's sake we reelected Clinton, Bush and Obama , even after the latter two were openly making uneeded war and bankrupting the country. It's been over a quater century since America didn't relect a president . So yes we will likely reelect Trump regarless of his accomplishments, failures or fitness for the job.

[Peter1469]

Probabaly, beacuse Americans have recently demonstrated an inability not to relect a president. Sheer apathy and laziness I believe is the cause. I mean for God's sake we reelected Clinton, Bush and Obama , even after the latter two were openly making uneeded war and bankrupting the country. It's been over a quater century since America didn't relect a president . So yes we will likely reelect Trump regarless of his accomplishments, failures or fitness for the job.
Agreed, but I don't think he will want to run.

[Ransom]

I would like to nominate both Polly and Adelaide for co DNC Chair for the 2020 elections. I cannot think of a better foe. A Gillibrand or Booker, someone who is all about the 'direction of our politics', the identity politic platform. Because I truly believe these identity politics helped crush their Javitz Center dreams.

Note Polly's post above and I'm not picking on here but........wait.....ok, I am picking on her...point of view.

Cause the brands of populism discussed....or the direction of politics, doesn't address issue number one. It just doesn't. It doesn't get....in my opinion, the voters the Democrats lost in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Michigan. Or North Carolina, Florida, or Iowa, or Ohio. I don't believe this gets their blue wall voters back again. I think it would be foolish for the Democrats to take the Polly advice here and run what is essentially an anti-Trump political message......rather than a positive economic message for this country.

I nominate Polly. I think we can beat this.

[donttread]

Agreed, but I don't think he will want to run.

Interesting thought. With the effect power has on most that didn't even cross my mind. But Trump is not a "real" politician so maybe not?

[Adelaide]

That said, I hadn't thought about Caroline Kennedy as a potential candidate, though now that I Google her name and "2020", I do indeed see a fair number of appreciable results and petitions for her to run, so maybe there is indeed some chance that she will be a candidate! I don't know much about her yet, personally, so I don't feel adequately informed to place her anywhere on such as list as the above as yet. Do you know what sort of political perspective she is reputed to hold, @Adelaide (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=473)? Maybe I'm missing a prospect that should interest me!

She has political experience without ever having actually been a politician (unless you count being an ambassador) by serving on boards involved in the election process. She came out in support of same-sex marriage before many others, including Obama and Clinton. She is against the death penalty. She is an environmentalist and has spoken out against animal cruelty. Supports free trade based on things she said as an ambassador. She has spent most her adulthood working for non-profits. She supports more gun control (I disagree with that part). She supports unions and their right to assemble. She is considered to be further left of Obama.

[Captdon]

I am hoping to see Caroline Kennedy make a run at it. She isn't just worth her name, she has leadership and political experience.

She served as Ambassador to Japan for a couple of years. What else does she have besides the name?

[IMPress Polly]

Adelaide wrote:
She has political experience without ever having actually been a politician (unless you count being an ambassador) by serving on boards involved in the election process. She came out in support of same-sex marriage before many others, including Obama and Clinton. She is against the death penalty. She is an environmentalist and has spoken out against animal cruelty. Supports free trade based on things she said as an ambassador. She has spent most her adulthood working for non-profits. She supports more gun control (I disagree with that part). She supports unions and their right to assemble. She is considered to be further left of Obama.

Hm. Sounds like someone I can agree with on a lot of things. Support for so-called free trade (which basically means outsourcing) bothers me though. Well anyway, she sounds like someone I should be paying more attention in the future!

[suds00]

i guess that it's possible but how long can he satisfy his base?

[The Xl]

Maybe, the dems are damaged and have no one of note to run.

[donttread]

She has political experience without ever having actually been a politician (unless you count being an ambassador) by serving on boards involved in the election process. She came out in support of same-sex marriage before many others, including Obama and Clinton. She is against the death penalty. She is an environmentalist and has spoken out against animal cruelty. Supports free trade based on things she said as an ambassador. She has spent most her adulthood working for non-profits. She supports more gun control (I disagree with that part). She supports unions and their right to assemble. She is considered to be further left of Obama.

I'm married to the best CCU nurse I know, but if you were having a heart attack I couldn't do shit for ya. Just sayin.

[Boris The Animal]

I am hoping to see Caroline Kennedy make a run at it. She isn't just worth her name, she has leadership and political experience.Ahh the "professional" politician, the very same maggots who got us in this mess in the first place. Just in case our Constitutionally deficient Liberals forgot, our government was never meant to be run by career politicians.

[Common Sense]

Yes, I know it's early, so what.

Poll is PUBLIC

Probably. Idiocy doesn't just disappear. It tends to spread.

[jimmyz]

Probably. Idiocy doesn't just disappear. It tends to spread.

Canadians will still look-in from their sidelines complaining about their futile limp dick trying to use it to penetrate American politics...lol.

[Adelaide]

Ahh the "professional" politician, the very same maggots who got us in this mess in the first place. Just in case our Constitutionally deficient Liberals forgot, our government was never meant to be run by career politicians.

She has experience in politics without having been a politician. That's sort of appealing. She's more of a diplomat, and has worked for a lot of great non-profits.

[resister]

Probably. Idiocy doesn't just disappear. It tends to spread.
Evidently, Canadians feel the need to post their impotent, opinions on TPF!

[Tahuyaman]

Agreed, but I don't think he will want to run. I think it's likely that he won't run for reelection. Why should he? I sure wouldn't. Of course, he might just to piss off the establishment types.

[Tahuyaman]

I dont think Agent Orange will make it thru this term!

Too many demons chasing him!

https://s26.postimg.org/4bm6w2ca1/frva_Kz_A.gif


Of course he will.

[Tahuyaman]

I am hoping to see Caroline Kennedy make a run at it. She isn't just worth her name, she has leadership and political experience. Caroline Kennedy? Seriously? Why not Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton?


Sheesh

[IMPress Polly]

jimmyz wrote:
Canadians will still look-in from their sidelines complaining about their futile limp dick trying to use it to penetrate American politics...lol.
But we don't need feminism, they tell me.


resister wrote:
Evidently, Canadians feel the need to post their impotent, opinions on TPF!

Yes, Canadians are allowed to share their opinions on this message board. Why do you feel that they shouldn't?

[Green Arrow]

Ahh the "professional" politician, the very same maggots who got us in this mess in the first place. Just in case our Constitutionally deficient Liberals forgot, our government was never meant to be run by career politicians.

And yet most of our founders were "career politicians" in the sense that they worked in politics quite a bit prior to and affer serving in political office. There's also nothing in the original constitution limiting career politicians.

[Adelaide]

Caroline Kennedy? Seriously? Why not Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton?


Sheesh

Except she has experience without being a politician and isn't just a name.

[Standing Wolf]

Were Trump to run again, out of pure spite or masochism, he would lose to virtually any qualified Democratic candidate. Look at all of his supporters in '16 who have regretted that support for various reasons. Think about the number of folks who stayed at home in '16 because of personal animosity toward both candidates, plus those who stayed home because the polls and media assured them that Hillary would win handily. For those and other reasons, I believe that even in the unlikely event that Trump wants to run again, the Party will not allow it. Without getting into Robert Ludlum territory here, there are any number of likely scenarios for accomplishing such a procedural blockade.

[nic34]

Caroline Kennedy? Seriously? Why not Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton?


Sheesh

Why not Hank Williams Jr, or Charlie Daniels, or Ted Nugent fer cris sakes...lol sheesh

[nic34]

Yes, tChump will run again, he loves himself too much not to....

[Kalkin]

Idiocy doesn't just disappear. It tends to spread.
Until the government labels it a terrorist organization, apparently.

[Kalkin]

Were Trump to run again, out of pure spite or masochism, he would lose to virtually any qualified Democratic candidate.
That's pretty much what they said when he announced his candidacy last time. The left's ego is the death of them.

[Tahuyaman]

Why not Hank Williams Jr, or Charlie Daniels, or Ted Nugent fer cris sakes...lol sheesh

You go ahead and think Caroline Kennedy would be a good choice. I haven't seen anyone name the case for the names you threw out there

Having an iconic name in political circles isn't a qualifier.

[Tahuyaman]

Were Trump to run again, out of pure spite or masochism, he would lose to virtually any qualified Democratic candidate...

Just like the way he lost to Hillary Clinton, whom we were told by Obama was the most qualified candidate in American history?

[Standing Wolf]

That's pretty much what they said when he announced his candidacy last time. The left's ego is the death of them.

Yes, to be fair, I think that is pretty much what Democrats, including the Democratic leadership, thought and said the last time - but they left some things out. Make it, "any qualified candidate" except one who is hated on a quite visceral level by millions of Americans for (1) his or her less than approachable or sympathetic personality, (2) his or her close association with something like Benghazi-gate, or (3) overblown accusations of official misconduct released or re-hashed at strategic times before the election. But by far the biggest impediment to Trump prevailing over any qualified Democratic candidate is the American people's collective recollection of what four years under his "leadership" was like.

[Kalkin]

Yes, to be fair, I think that is pretty much what Democrats, including the Democratic leadership, thought and said the last time - but they left some things out. Make it, "any qualified candidate" except one who is hated on a quite visceral level by millions of Americans for (1) his or her less than approachable or sympathetic personality, (2) his or her close association with something like Benghazi-gate, or (3) overblown accusations of official misconduct released or re-hashed at strategic times before the election. But by far the biggest impediment to Trump prevailing over any qualified Democratic candidate is the American people's collective recollection of what four years under his "leadership" was like.
The only way Trump loses is if he decides not to run. That's my official prediction. I predicted a Trump win last time, too.

[Ravens Fan]

Canadians will still look-in from their sidelines complaining about their futile limp dick trying to use it to penetrate American politics...lol.


Evidently, Canadians feel the need to post their impotent, opinions on TPF!

@jimmyz resister This is an international forum and as such, attacks on members for their nationality are considered to be in bad faith. Please refrain from doing so.

[Tahuyaman]

Except she has experience without being a politician and isn't just a name.

She has the Kennedy name. That's all.

[Cletus]

I am hoping to see Caroline Kennedy make a run at it. She isn't just worth her name, she has leadership and political experience.

No more political dynasties.

No Kennedy has ever been good for this country. There should never be another one in office.

No Bush.

No Clinton.

No Roosevelt.

No more dynasties.

[Cletus]

Were Trump to run again, out of pure spite or masochism, he would lose to virtually any qualified Democratic candidate.

There ain't no such animal.

I don't think Trump will run again. He has an opportunity to seat one, maybe two more Supreme Court Justices before the end of his term. That alone would justify his election. To date, even though I was opposed to Trump's candidacy, I have been pleasantly surprised at his performance as President, as anyone who actually cares about this country should be. However, his age and the fact that he does not need the Presidency, I believe makes it unlikely that he will seek reelection.

[texan]

Please run sweet Caroline Kennedy.....LOL

You Dems still haven't figured this out. It's cute to watch. Roll out another that sounds like a far left nit wit and see what happens again.