Still no, because this is not about Trump himself and his brilliance as a candidate. Trump is, in himself, basically Chauncey Gardner’s evil twin, a low-IQ television-obsessed cipher onto which the Powers That Be have projected their desires and through which they obtain them. Trumo is merely the figurehead, behind which vast and malevolent entities and machinations lurk. That’s why Democrats have no easy, or even “easier”, mode - not because Trump himself is unbeatable but because the battle is against Trump and the entire Republican Party (who are willing to carry an ocean’s worth of water for him) and the right-wing media machine and the agents of chaos (foreign and domestic) who like the fact that Trumpism is tearing the country apart. And that’s a helluva fight.
It will be a much harder fight when they have all those same weapons at their disposal, but also a “Bob Roberts” type (or the hardhat-wearing Martin Sheen character from “The Dead Zone”), who presents a smiling populist veneer concealing ruthless cunning, and who doesn’t constantly shoot himself in the foot.
I think historians will say that Trump in 2016 was one of the GOP’s least formidable candidates. I think they will also say that he won.
It was said of the Bourbon dynasty that they learned nothing, and forgot nothing. We shall see if historians say the same about the Democratic party in 2020.
Regards,
Shodan
Democrats have lost close presidential contests to weak Republican nominees before: Humphrey ‘68 and Gore ‘00 come to mind. And Carter nearly blew it in ‘76.
True enough. Keep in mind, however, that the Democrats lost to both these candidates in '72 and '04, and by much larger margins. Of course, Nixon resigned, but even with that scandal, as you mention Carter nearly blew it, and did lose fairly resoundingly in his bid for re-election. It does not seem to me that history offers much support to the idea that Democrats can come back against a weak Republican and win. Clinton brought it off, more or less, but he never got a majority of the electorate to vote for him even in his re-election. And I don’t think Bush 41 could be considered a weak Republican, given that he was Vice-President under Reagan for eight years and with a very considerable resume.
As I say, Clinton won, and that wasn’t exactly a fluke - he was one of the best pure politicians of the era. I suppose you could argue that the Dems learned not to run a wimp, so maybe that offers the Dems a little comfort for 2020.
Regards,
Shodan
I see nothing to make me believe Donald Trump will be out of office prior to January 20, 2025. The Democrats are making it clear they are preparing for a circular firing squad that will leave the party fractured and broken going into the 2020 election. The Progressive Purity Squad is just getting warmed up and will shortly begin destroying Harris for not being black enough, Beto and Biden for being too white and too male and Buttigieg for not being gay enough. Any Democrat making plans for how the party should “fix” things after the 2020 election illustrates why I fear we will lose and lose biggley.
If anyone wants to seriously discuss plans for the post-Trump era I would recommend they focus on what can be done after the Pence Presidency ends on January 20, 2033. The Democrats have done exactly zero to convince me this isn’t what our future looks like.
The idea that Pence could win a presidential general election is absurd. He doesn’t even have Trump’s political upside. He’s the worst possible type of Republican for this era.
Kerry came very close to winning, so you’re overselling that one.
I do think Bush 41 was a weak candidate, who lucked out to go against a weaker one in ‘88.
The idea that Trump could win a presidential general election was absurd.
Until it happened.
He is the worst possible type of Republican for any era.
I would be delighted to be wrong about this but the Democrats appear to have learned nothing from 2016. And progressives are already demanding ideological purity on multiple issues. I see no reason at this point to doubt Trump will be re-elected. Four more years of autocrats and oligarchs destroying our system of government and a Pence presidency will be a distinct possibility.
I would also like a robust two-party system, but we can’t have a two-party system if we don’t have two parties. We don’t: We have one party and one troupe of criminals and incontinent clowns. Our best hope now is that the GOP be swept into the cesspool of history and that a new legitimate party arises in its wake.
If the R’s have only 30% while the D’s get 70% in one of the Houses of Congress, can they split 35-35-30 so that the D’s elect both Majority and Minority Leaders? Or must the R’s be reduced to 24% for a 50-26-24 split?
He was indeed weak, and there are some parallels to Trump’s first term, which is one reason why I’m far from convinced that Trump will lose. I think if the economy begins showing signs of tanking, then that’s a game-changer. But short of that, I think he doesn’t have to be liked to win re-election.
Why Pence? It’s perfectly feasible that Trump will win in 2024 and 2028.
Ivanka Trump
You are of course right. I used Pence since as Veep it would likely be his if he wanted it. I should have been clear I meant someone who would keep the GOP a Trumpist party. Ivanka would do. So would Don Jr. or even Sean Hannity. If Trump gets a second term I would imagine any of those are possible.