Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong, as with DT's win, you will see anti NAFTA as is Republicans run. Pence, the next nominee when DT hangs them up, is tied to the platform he ran on with DT.
Kasich and Portman will never be nominees.
Dems as nominees are in bed with Wall St. Hence they back bad trade deals for Middle America.
Mike Pence was Pro NAFTA, he entered Congress the year after it passed and was in full support of it. Still is and he even supported TPP. You would have to believe Pence's opinion on Trade deals changed the second he became the VP nominee and we both know that isnt true.
I actually do believe midwesterners were Duped when it comes to this election as Hillary Clinton actually had a record of voting against Trade deals when she was in congress....But back to your larger point.
Democrats were never the pro NAFTA party, and the actual NAFTA vote proves that. As a majority of Dems in congress voted against it.
Trump is ANTI America. The worst U.S. president in history. So much civil unrest, protests and an abysmal entry approval rating hovering around 40%. The lowest ever. He is also the most resisted president ever, by Americans. His polices are a DISASTER for America.
How can Trump be declared the worst in history even before he gets started?
As to civil unrest and the like, it is presumably your party members that are out of control in that regard. Many moderates and certainly conservatives thought Obama was going to be bad, but they didn't riot, protest, or act like immature children needing puppies and bunnies to pet is safe zones.
Oh please. Hillary won the popular vote. A Republican hasn't won the popular vote since 2004. Democrats will definitely regain the White House in 2020 or 2024. There was never a time in U.S. history where one party had rule for more than three terms (after term limits were imposed).
Actually this isn't completely true. It's rare for a single party to stay in power more than eight years but it does happen. The last time it did was Reagan/Bush. Before that, you have to go back to FDR/Truman. Both were times following economic hardship when the other party was blamed for the recession/depression. 2016-2020 should have been a third consecutive Democratic term, given the recent history of America. I think had Democrats nominated anybody else besides Hillary, we would currently have a Democrat in office.
Lately, I am seriously becoming a fan of Democratic U.S. Senator from CT, Chris Murphy. He is on the national stage now, often on prime time television networks, and has made a prominent name for himself, particularly when it comes to matters of gun reform and foreign policy. As a Democrat, I hope he considers running for POTUS in 2020, as I believe he possesses the qualities that we need in a president. He is very smart, young, progressive and has 10+ years of political experience as house representative and U.S. senator now.
He is definitely a rising star in the Democratic Party.
What do you think, Democrats?
LoveToRow is right.....it didn't take you long to discard Hillary.
Hillary could run again in 2020.............().
Shame.....shame.....shame .
Your declarations of "I love her" were so numerous that quoting all of them might lead to the longest post in CD history. For shame .
Did Cuomo also, like Hillary have to write a check for $25 million to the 4,000 people that were robbed at Trump U? Oh, pardon me, that was another candidate.
I know it's early, but I've been wondering about who the Democrats should run in 2020. As a Democrat, I was a little disappointed with how few people were in the debates last time around. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but I was ready to move on once he lost. I wasn't a passionate Hillary supporter but I happily voted for her.
However, the Dems will need a candidate with more enthusiasm behind him or her, and one that will be very solidly ahead of the other candidate. You can even lose the electoral college with a 3 million popular vote lead, so it's important to have as much support as you can get across the board.
I honestly have no idea who are the best choices right now. I know Bernie has a lot of passionate supporters, but he, along with everyone born before 1950 or so, will be too old next time around.
Ideally in my opinion, it should be someone who's not anti-gun, and who can appeal to as many people as possible with their platform. Also, it should be someone on the younger side. And of course, somebody with as little baggage as possible! Only Republicans, more specifically Donald Trump, are allowed to have baggage it seems like.
The anti-gun thing is important because not being pro-gun alone is a deal breaker for many people, but not being anti-gun is not a dealbreaker for most Democratic voters. It might open up a lot of gun owners to vote Democrat, which would be very help.
Also, as far as states go, I think Democrats should have Arizona, Georgia, and Texas in their crosshairs. The former two states, Hillary did not lose by a large margin and I can see the next Democrat possibly winning those states. Texas is a little more of a long shot, but it's not impossible. If the Dems get Texas, the Republicans would have very little chance of winning.
I know it's early, but I've been wondering about who the Democrats should run in 2020. As a Democrat, I was a little disappointed with how few people were in the debates last time around. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but I was ready to move on once he lost. I wasn't a passionate Hillary supporter but I happily voted for her.
However, the Dems will need a candidate with more enthusiasm behind him or her, and one that will be very solidly ahead of the other candidate. You can even lose the electoral college with a 3 million popular vote lead, so it's important to have as much support as you can get across the board.
I honestly have no idea who are the best choices right now. I know Bernie has a lot of passionate supporters, but he, along with everyone born before 1950 or so, will be too old next time around.
Ideally in my opinion, it should be someone who's not anti-gun, and who can appeal to as many people as possible with their platform. Also, it should be someone on the younger side. And of course, somebody with as little baggage as possible! Only Republicans, more specifically Donald Trump, are allowed to have baggage it seems like.
The anti-gun thing is important because not being pro-gun alone is a deal breaker for many people, but not being anti-gun is not a dealbreaker for most Democratic voters. It might open up a lot of gun owners to vote Democrat, which would be very help.
Also, as far as states go, I think Democrats should have Arizona, Georgia, and Texas in their crosshairs. The former two states, Hillary did not lose by a large margin and I can see the next Democrat possibly winning those states. Texas is a little more of a long shot, but it's not impossible. If the Dems get Texas, the Republicans would have very little chance of winning.
Get back to us when you return to reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
.
.
Who do you think the Democrats should run
