Your 2020 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

our nation's most precious resource

dank memes?

guns?

Our precious bodily fluids.

candidates who can opportunistically pivot left >>> inflexible centrists

― Simon H., Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:40 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

truly, lets go

I'll make sure to say hello next time.

Don't, you creepy fucking turd.

drop it or sell tickets, dudes

taking this long to ban him again = the lowest moment of the board

Maybe you guys think he's too young or too low-profile or I dunno what, but I sure do like Pete Buttigieg.

I heard people talking about him (sporadically) after Hillary lost in 2016. Followed up at the time, but have already forgotten everything I learned about him.

I thought he was really sharp when he ran for DNC chair--had i not been behind Ellison I woulda supported him.

my wife went today
we were all gonna go but my daughter got scared that someone would shoot the protest and got pretty freaked out so we stayed home :(

my daughter got scared that someone would shoot the protest

that right there, that's what has happened to us

I thought the same. immiserating to know that and empathize with it.

i worried all day we'd hear news of that

And with shit like this that was not an unfounded worry. (Not my personal photo, internet.)

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh310/yodelagogo/NRA.jpg

The guy with the gun is the most afraid person in that photo.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/25/books/mitch-landrieu-mayor-new-orleans-in-shadow-of-statues-interview.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/mitch-landrieu-new-orleans-trump.html

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/27/buttigieg-2020-president-off-message-217712

IDK, Veepstakes/Cabinet maybe. He's a Rhodes scholar, ok, but I don't really buy a 36 year old mayor of a 100K city. That's seven years younger than Julian Castro and 1/15th the size of San Antonio (which tbf has a weak mayor system iirc) without previous Cabinet experience. At least Seth Moulton, who's 39, has been in Congress three years. Did Buttigieg think he'd lose to Jackie Walorski or did he think that was beneath him?

I guess maybe someone thinks he and the 36 year old ex-MO SOS will draw the attention of millennials to the process. Maybe they're right.

I’m watching Hickenlooper speak at a conf RN and ehhhhh

Experience doesn't matter anymore, buddy

At least in terms of electability

I’m watching Hickenlooper speak at a conf RN and ehhhhh

― alomar lines, Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2:03 PM (nineteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yup

Experience doesn't matter anymore, buddy

― MooVaughn.org (voodoo chili), Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2:04 PM (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

At least in terms of electability

― MooVaughn.org (voodoo chili), Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2:05 PM (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I wasn't necessarily referring to the latter, but I assure you that there are tens of millions of Americans who a) would regard a septuagenarian as automatically more qualified than a thirtysomething, and b) regarded Donald Trump in particular as having experience highly relevant to or desirable in the job.

this is why the US continued a long and proud tradition of electing 70-year-olds to the presidency. Or maybe Trump was the first one.

Trump was the very first one

it's possible that my DN is confusing when I'm arguing with the real deal

i thought Moo Vaughn was a reference to moveon.org in the first place

i thought it was a cow-based pun on the former mets first baseman

wow i totally forgot Vaughn played for the Mets

"played"

this is why the US continued a long and proud tradition of electing 70-year-olds to the presidency. Or maybe Trump was the first one.

― MooVaughn.org (voodoo chili), Tuesday, March 27, 2018 2:48 PM (nineteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I guess Ronald Reagan wasn't 73 when he won reelection by the fifth largest normalized electoral margin in American history (or 17 days from 70 when he took office the first time, which was closer than Trump)?

Name a 30 year old elected to the Presidency. No one under 35 is even eligible. There is no upper age limit other than the natural one, which only hit 70 on average for men in the late '70s.

Ike also served just into his '70s, William Henry Harrison would have served well into them had he not died 30 days into his term, as likely would have Andrew Jackson, who missed them by 11 days, had he chosen to run for a third term.

this is a very very dumb argument, so im going to shut it down after this.

there is absolutely no correlation between age and winning presidential elections. obama beat mccain, clinton beat bush, kennedy beat nixon. then again, reagan beat mondale, eisenhower beat stephenson, etc. age is simply not an aspect that a lot of voters care about when they go to the polls (and if they do, they're probably old!)

Via Public Policy Polling:

In hypothetical match ups for reelection Trump trails Joe Biden 56-39, Bernie Sanders 55-39, Elizabeth Warren 51-40, Cory Booker 49-39, Kamala Harris 43-39, and Kirsten Gillibrand 42-40. Trump is consistently at 39% or 40% no matter who you poll him against.

We also tested Trump against 2 other hypothetical opponents- although they are one and the same. In groundbreaking research PPP determined that someone’s porn star name costs them 10 points as a candidate for President. Stephanie Clifford leads Trump 42-41 in a hypothetical match up for reelection.

But tested under her stage name of Stormy Daniels, she trails Trump 41-32. Trump’s 41% is consistent across the two match ups, but when Clifford shifts to Daniels she loses 10 points of her support.

damn, harris & gillibrand

But Warren. It's just a matter of recognition right now. Serious campaigning is more than a year off.

name recognition guys!

early numbers like these are essentially irrelevant.

poll from 7/2015:
Clinton: 59
Trump: 34

there's some joke in there with the punchline "-10 and still beating you off!"

Also, isn't PPP one of the left-leaning pollsters?

xxp is it a little different now that we know for sure that Trump will be the party nominee?

lots of things are going to come into play in 2020 that will be different, i think most obvious being that I can't imagine many Dem candidates if any having the same baggage via reputation and years of whispers about fake crimes that Hillary did (it was pretty clear that #nevertrump didn't make as large an impact as #neverhillary), and Trump won't have the same novelty he did in 2016. and the enthusiasm factor on the right will be lower this time around, obviously (as statistically noted.)

but then again the poll numbers before Nov 2016 and other factors being noted were trending left too so who the hell knows.

any signs that polling tactics are going to change by 2020? i.e. doing it any other way than fucking landlines?

decent chance the economy will take a serious hit before the election, also.

significant chance Republicans will lose Congress and have Dems pushing impeachment, also.

My sense is that the Dems in power in Congress would be very much go-slow on the question of impeachment. They'll want Mueller to set the table for them and then take of a nibble of every dish to see if it tastes ok before they 'push impeachment'. The Dem base would need to kick up a huge stink to change that go-slow attitude to something more urgent.

Dems very unlikely to impeach under any circumstance imo

that fake "high road" shit

surprised the "high road" crew hasn't volunteered to pay for Trump's attorney as a token gesture to ensure all legal avenues are robustly addressed

There will be Dems filing articles of impeachment if (when) they take Congress. It's already happened. That's why I said "pushing".

Senate requires 2/3 majority to impeach iirc. even if the Dems take control it won't be by that margin.

there is absolutely no correlation between age and winning presidential elections. obama beat mccain, clinton beat bush, kennedy beat nixon. then again, reagan beat mondale, eisenhower beat stephenson, etc. age is simply not an aspect that a lot of voters care about when they go to the polls (and if they do, they're probably old!)

― MooVaughn.org (voodoo chili), Tuesday, March 27, 2018 3:28 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This response isn't directly responsive to my actual argument - which is that a thirtysomething is an improbable major party Presidential nominee. There have been just two in American history, both in the 19th century (when lifespan was substantially shorter), and while my argument did not necessarily extend to the prospect of such a nominee winning a two-way contest, both of them did in fact lose. While a seventysomething is also arguably an improbable major party Presidential nominee, there have been at least four, three of them in the past four decades and two of them in the past three elections, one of whom of course is the incumbent and for-now-presumptive re-nominee.

Also, to follow up the earlier comment, James Buchanan too would have continued to serve into his 70s had he not been dropped in a compromise after leading several electoral college votes at reelection.