Google is your friend. I kinda figured it was from Game of Thrones (even though I’ve never watched a minute of it), and so it is:
Still don’t understand how it supposedly applies here - but no sweat, I’ll move on…
How bad a scandal for you to not vote for Trump’s 2020 Democratic opponent?
Public cannibalism.
…no, wait. Even if the candidate turns out to be one of my two least-favorites (Bernie or Gillibrand), and even if that candidate takes a big, enthusiastic bite out of a baby held up for the traditional kiss …
… I’d still vote for him or her over Trump.
Earlier it was mentioned that the rotting corpse of Hitler would be ineligible for the Presidency, given that Hitler wasn’t born in the USA. Well, Charles Manson was born in the USA.
So: yes. I would vote for the rotting corpse of Charlie Manson over Trump.
(And let’s be clear: Third-party voting is a vote for Trump. Not voting is a vote for Trump.)
That’ll earn you a warning for being a jerk, BennJammin. Don’t do it again.
I don’t think they could nominate someone as bad as Trump.
There’s a small chance that the Democratic nominee, after then convention, will experience a personality change – maybe due to a head injury, or a rare neurological disorder. If looked to me that he or she had become at least as authoritarian as DJT, or even close to it, then I’d vote third party.
Here’s hoping all 3rd party candidates read and truly believe this for our next election!
As far as not voting for Trump, hell, I’d vote for Casey Anthony before any Orange people. (You heard it here. I’m racist against orange people. The Ooompa Loompas are lucky they have jobs in a closed factory!)
If the GOP wants to keep the WH, they need to nominate a Romney again. That’s the only way they’d have a shot. (And I’d still vote Dem no matter what.)
It is impossible for the Democrats to nominate anyone worse than DJT. There is no way I could ever vote for any Republican for any office at any time in the future unless the Republican Party is disbanded and more conservative Democrats resurrect the brand at some point in the future.
In that case, I’d expect the democrats in congress to step up to the plate and do something about it.
If it happens after a presumptive nominee but before the Convention, it could be fixed, pretty easy.
After the convention and before the election- it would be harder, but possible.
After the election? Nope.
Original Statement: “Or the Democratic candidate could go full-blown left and back universal health care, universal basic income, AND full open borders.”
Modified Statement and Reply:
You quoted a partial sentence and ignored a capitalised “AND” in order to change the context of my statement. But let’s use that as an analogy. To lose the 2020 election, the Democratic candidate will have to make herself/himself less popular than Trump. A way that could happen is if the Democratic candidate listens to only a portion of the American public. If the candidate and party decides that Trump can’t win and 2020 is the time to energise the left and go bold with lots of big, liberal policies, then they could end up turning off lots of voters. The Democrats need a candidate that appeals to all of America and not just the far left. Being stupid enough to just pay attention to the left and ignore the rest of the country would cause the Democratic candidate to lose. And losing to Trump twice would indeed be scandalous.
Hey Wrenching Spanners, how do you feel about separating families, locking children in cages, and giving them away to christian adoption agencies? 
I think it’s too long to make a good band name.
Even so, sticking with the original post, I suppose you’re asking for a platform or action that would be more scandalous than your listed items. I can certainly think of left-wing policies that would be more harmful in the long term; prohibiting GMO crop research, ending animal testing for drug research, and shutting down Wall Street quickly come to mind. However, they’re not exactly scandalous. How about open hostility towards rednecks? If a candidate makes it through the primaries, and then is caught multiple times making derisive statements about pickup trucks, trailer parks, and “God, Guns and Guts” bumper stickers, it would anger quite a few people. It would also bring into question his/her competence as a politician. I think some of the current Democratic candidates could be labelled as urban liberal elites, or even champagne socialists. If a candidate with that profile makes a few anti-redneck gaffes, she/he is going to be unpopular. And popularity wins elections.
blinks
Thanks for the candid answer, I guess? “Derisive statements about pickup trucks, trailer parks, and ‘god, guns and guts’ bumper stickers” is somehow as bad as or worse than separating families, locking children in cages, and giving them away to christian adoption agencies.
Please tell me I misunderstood you and that’s not what you’re actually saying. 
As for the more serious ones, perhaps they would be more harmful in the long term (although banning GMOs is hardly a plank of the DSA’s platform and is supported by many republicans) in terms of overall human suffering, but none even come close to the callous disregard for human life that Trump’s border policy has on offer. There’s a difference between a policy which is poorly-thought-out and a policy that is cruel and evil.
A platform that would appeal to everyone… That would entail, say, guaranteeing something essential to everyone? Something like, say, health care? Is that the sort of platform you had in mind?
The relevant word is scandalous. Two and a half years later, people are still talking about Hillary’s “deplorables” comment. No one’s really rehashing her energy policy. Also, when the OP stated the parameter “someone like Kamala, Biden, Beto or Warren to oppose him”, I thought he was seeking realistic answers, the corpse-voting posters notwithstanding.
I think the worst thing a future US president could do would be to get the US and allies into an unnecessary war. So if a future Democratic candidate was advocating invading Iran, I would find that both worse and more scandalous than locking children in cages. However, I think “someone like Kamala, Biden, Beto or Warren” having that position is quite unlikely.
The next worse thing, in my view, would be for a president to impede societal progress. A great deal of societal progress is based on scientific and technological progress. If a candidate was hostile towards scientific research, that would make me oppose him/her. I mentioned a couple of left-wing positions I disagree with, but don’t find scandalous. Maybe “Break Up Big Pharma” or “Reform Silicon Valley” rise to that level.
Rounding off the list, I’d also oppose a presidential candidate with policies that would trash the economy. I think shutting down/occupying Wall Street would be horribly stupid. But again, I don’t think any serious Democratic presidential candidate is advocating that position.
So what is something scandalous and within the bounds of likelihood that a Democratic presidential candidate could do that would make them more unpopular than Trump? I think being hostile to a segment of American society fits that bill. And white American urban poor, aka rednecks, who apparently are frequently Trump supporters is my guess as the most likely target segment for Democratic hostility.
So, a Democrat who’s sufficiently hostile to Trump supporters might convince them to… support Trump?
I somehow managed to earn a degree in Political Science without ever taking PoliSci 101. But since I have the degree and am qualified to teach the basics, I’m going to say this and in all caps.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE COUNTRY
Stop with this nonsense about a Democrat running against Donald Trump not being the better choice just because you might dislike one tiny aspect of the whole.
Electing a Democratic President means electing the entire Cabinet and setting the policies and programs for a thousand government programs. Electing a Democratic President means appointing liberal judges. Electing a Democratic President means trade agreement and treaties with every country in the world. Electing a Democratic President means exhibiting the moral structure for the entire country. Electing a Democratic president means returning to the norms of democrary and away from fascism.
The Presidency is not about policies; it is about politics. There is literally no person in the Democratic party with the slightest chance of getting the nomination who would be worse overall for the country than Trump. Stop arguing otherwise.
Anthony Weiner has been released from prison, so I guess the Democrats could theoretically nominate a candidate with enough scandal that I wouldn’t vote for him.
I am no fan of Weiner, but the country would be much better off with him as president then Trump.
Bleach is a good thing. Ammonia is a good thing. Mixing bleach and ammonia in a confined space is not a good thing.
I’m generally in favour of universal health care. I no longer live in the US, so I don’t have a strong position on the US implementation of universal health care, or the effectiveness of Obamacare. My kneejerk position would be to implement it incrementally while working to get rid of the most outrageous costs. Off the top of my head, I’d think about a taxpayer funded cheap insurance that covers pregnancies, children, accidents and infectious diseases, but excludes chronic conditions, rehabilitation, and expensive procedures. It would also have a steeply rising income-based deductible. So basically a stop-gap that wouldn’t kill the current market. Provide additional funding to states to pilot including further treatments. If something proves cost-effective at the state level, encourage further pilot programs, and then, if still successful, implement nation-wide. Also, periodically revaluate the deductible. My other kneejerk position is that a big-bang nationalisation of US healthcare would be an utter disaster.
Regarding universal basic income and fully open borders, I’m sceptical and pessimistic about both and opposed to them in current society, but recognise they have some positive talking points. I’m not going to further this hijack with a detailed discussion. But I will state that for any current country, including the US, to implement universal health care, universal basic income AND fully open borders all together at once would be absolutely dystopian. And to tie this aside back to the OP, if a Democratic candidate for president favoured all three, I would think that candidate would be scandalously worse than Trump.