Octopus Overlords

Hopefully not? Because I need some reason to be optimistic.

But seriously, it's way early, but I don't have a clue who might even be the possibilities at this point. Elizabeth Warren? Al Franken? Alec Baldwin???

Of course, all of this assumes that America still exists in 2020...

Warren/Franken. Yes please.

The dust needs to settle, trump needs to appoint who he is gonna, GOP agenda has to be seen.....

What i will be very curious to see is who is gonna be the Dem's new generation of leaders? Who are they? Where do they come from?

I think Warren & Sanders are too far left, but we'll see. Need to look through the D's governors.

Warren is going to find the Senate frustrating. She has held her own against Trump in Twitter, and can energize the Democrats. I think she's the strongest candidate to Dump Trump.

Would Biden be too old? I would think he would be a potentially powerful candidate, especially with the nostalgia that I expect people will be feeling for the Obama era.

Can we start with 2018? I don't think she can take 4 years of the current style of Republican control of the entire federal system. I see my state as a microcosm for the damage that can be done, and we don't control international anything or the lions share of how money is spent or debt accumulated or civil rights.

Since political experience means nothing, how about Michelle Obama? Martin Sheen? Harrison Ford?

El Guapo wrote:Would Biden be too old? I would think he would be a potentially powerful candidate, especially with the nostalgia that I expect people will be feeling for the Obama era.

Biden is 73 and would be 78 on inauguration day 2021. Reagan was 77 on his last day in office.

Zarathud wrote:Warren is going to find the Senate frustrating. She has held her own against Trump in Twitter, and can energize the Democrats. I think she's the strongest candidate to Dump Trump.

Forget limiting yourself to the Democrats. That's been the argument of the last nine months. Warren can endear herself to and (mostly) represent the the vast majority of the country while still being mostly true to the goals of the democrats.

LordMortis wrote:Can we start with 2018? I don't think she can take 4 years of the current style of Republican control of the entire federal system. I see my state as a microcosm for the damage that can be done, and we don't control international anything or the lions share of how money is spent or debt accumulated or civil rights.

In 2018, 25 Democrats/Independents Senators will be up for reelection. 8 Republicans will be up for reelection. The house is gerrymanders. I don't think our chances are great.

Sanders will be too old. Warren -- maybe. If the next 4 years are enough of a cluster fuck as expected and the entire country is in revolution mode, it probably won't matter who the candidate is. I would just hope it's not a left hand version of Trump and someone who can make better use of a mandate than Obama did his first term.

LordMortis wrote:Can we start with 2018? I don't think she can take 4 years of the current style of Republican control of the entire federal system. I see my state as a microcosm for the damage that can be done, and we don't control international anything or the lions share of how money is spent or debt accumulated or civil rights.

If only more people in Michigan had voted for Clinton.

2018 would be nice, but with the tendency of democratic voters not to vote in non-presidential elections, the continued efforts by the GOP to disenfranchise minority voters, and the fact that the economy (notwithstanding Trump's efforts) will probably not be terrible in 2018, I am not optimistic, especially with the democrats only picking up (I think) a net of 1 seat in the Senate.

We'll see, though. IF the democrats can get a wave in 2020, though, it could also give them the opportunity to reverse gerrymandering that has been plaguing the House.

Warren is too left. You need someone more moderate who has shown they can work with the other side. You won't get your dream candidate, you need to pick someone who both sides can live with.

El Guapo wrote:If only more people in Michigan had voted for Clinton.

Apparently it is too early start thinking about 2020.

Depends on the lesson you want to take from 2016.

One interpretation is that America is much, much further right wing than the Democratic Party realized. If that's the case, nominating someone who is further to the left than Clinton (most democrats) seems like an ad idea. Warren would be DOA due to her gun stance. We need someone who can appeal to working class white values.

Another interpretation is that policies are not so important as personalities, and perhaps even celebrity. If that's the case, well, maybe Kanye isn't such a bad idea after all. Anyone who can attract the eyeballs will do.

My criteria for "democratic" candidates for major office:

Dynamic, younger, relative outsider, short tail.

Dynamic - this is a candidate that gets people inspired to vote. Sounds like a real person and can tell natural sounding jokes.
Younger - this candidate won't (statistically speaking) die in office and thus has an incentive to not screw the country up for the rest of us that have to keep living here. Also, knowing what "the internet" is tends to be a plus.
Relative outsider - people apparently (although not too surprisingly, to me) don't like career politicians. Quit with the stupid transparent backroom deals that even Joe Blow in Potato Country can figure out. I sat out of the discussions re: DNC's manipulation of the primaries for the most part, but that was about the stupidest thing they could have done.
Short tail - little to no political career other than one or two terms in office. No major public persona prior to it. This is the equivalent of keeping your hair short if you're regularly brawling hand to hand - less stuff for your opponent to grab. This also means you know how to set your facebook posts to 'private'.

Of course, the real issues to start thinking about for 2020 are as follows:
Where and how to stockpile large amounts of canned and dry goods.
(Especially once Trump lifts the ban on assault weapons) purchasing firearms and substantial amounts of ammunition and replacement parts.
Radiation mitigation and treatment measures (I don't suppose they make RadAway yet?)
Installing a geothermal tap in your house so you can power your house/bunker when the lights go out.
Talking to my grandparents to get their perspective on how to survive living in the Stalin regime.
Trying to contact some aliens to come bail us out.

Little Raven wrote: We need someone who can appeal to working class white values.

You are assuming that class isn't extinct in 4 years.

Hopefully Michelle changes her mind

LordMortis wrote:

El Guapo wrote:If only more people in Michigan had voted for Clinton.

Apparently it is too early start thinking about 2020.

It's still a little raw, I suppose.

Maybe Corey Booker? I thought his convention speech was pretty good and seemed to get the crowd energized.

I think a lot of it depends on how the next two pairs of years go. There are three possibilities:

1: Trump does what we fear. He alienates our allies, crashes our economy, wrecks the environment, and grinds his heel into people who don't look and fuck like him.

2: Trump tries to do #1, but his own party actively prevents his more extreme positions, leading to infighting and nothing being done. After the midterms, the Democrats take over the responsibility of Trump-blocking. In other words, we have the last six years all over again.

3: Trump does some good. He's a liar, and has been lying about his extreme positions to get elected. He takes an unfriendly stance on civil rights issues, but makes some meaningful and productive decisions otherwise. (Note that polls have this at 72%, so it is pretty unlikely.)

For 1, the Dems could put up a goat with a Hillary Clinton mask and win.

For 2, business as usual. Silly petty crap vs. silly petty crap.

For 3, that would be tough. That's going to require an anti-Trump who can win on popular appeal rather than beat him on the actual issues.

Blackhawk wrote: (Note that polls have this at 72%, so it is pretty unlikely.)

If you want to be optimistic about 2020, here you go:

From a 2020 perspective, this could be the best thing ever for the Democrats. It depends on how Trump + the Republicans Govern.

If Hillary had won, it was going to be very dicey that she could win again in 2020, which would likely have meant another GOP state + federal landslide for a Census year (as happened in 2010 for the GOP). Now, if Trump + the Republicans govern along the Ryan plan, ala Sam Brownback in Kansas, and torch the economy (as he has in Kansas), the Democrats stand to pick up a lot of momentum in 2020 at all levels - which is one of the things the GOP did so well in 2010, allowing them to do a LOT of Voter ID/Voter Suppression/Gerrymandering to ensure a House majority. With 2020 being a Presidential election year, preferably with a Presidential Candidate who can explain how wrong the Trump + GOP wedding has been for America with enough gravitas to have long coat-tails (ala Obama in '08), the Dems could be very well positioned for the next decade (2020-2030).

Little Raven wrote:Depends on the lesson you want to take from 2016.

The lesson I take is the meme that dominated the beginning of the primary season: That this would be a "change" election favoring outsiders. The Democrats swatted down their insurgency and congratulated themselves on nominating the consummate insider.

One hopes that 2020 will be a "change back" election, but we have to see how this experiment in winging it is going to pan out.

Pyperkub wrote:If you want to be optimistic about 2020, here you go:

From a 2020 perspective, this could be the best thing ever for the Democrats. It depends on how Trump + the Republicans Govern.

If Hillary had won, it was going to be very dicey that she could win again in 2020, which would likely have meant another GOP state + federal landslide for a Census year (as happened in 2010 for the GOP). Now, if Trump + the Republicans govern along the Ryan plan, ala Sam Brownback in Kansas, and torch the economy (as he has in Kansas), the Democrats stand to pick up a lot of momentum in 2020 at all levels - which is one of the things the GOP did so well in 2010, allowing them to do a LOT of Voter ID/Voter Suppression/Gerrymandering to ensure a House majority. With 2020 being a Presidential election year, preferably with a Presidential Candidate who can explain how wrong the Trump + GOP wedding has been for America with enough gravitas to have long coat-tails (ala Obama in '08), the Dems could be very well positioned for the next decade (2020-2030).

This is what i am hanging my hat on, the one silver lining in all of this.

Pyperkub wrote:If you want to be optimistic about 2020, here you go:

From a 2020 perspective, this could be the best thing ever for the Democrats. It depends on how Trump + the Republicans Govern.

If Hillary had won, it was going to be very dicey that she could win again in 2020, which would likely have meant another GOP state + federal landslide for a Census year (as happened in 2010 for the GOP). Now, if Trump + the Republicans govern along the Ryan plan, ala Sam Brownback in Kansas, and torch the economy (as he has in Kansas), the Democrats stand to pick up a lot of momentum in 2020 at all levels - which is one of the things the GOP did so well in 2010, allowing them to do a LOT of Voter ID/Voter Suppression/Gerrymandering to ensure a House majority. With 2020 being a Presidential election year, preferably with a Presidential Candidate who can explain how wrong the Trump + GOP wedding has been for America with enough gravitas to have long coat-tails (ala Obama in '08), the Dems could be very well positioned for the next decade (2020-2030).

I don't think so. A 2020 Democratic candidate might ride the tide of change following economic disaster as Obama did after the Bush debacle. Economists warned that it would take 5 years to recover, yet the GOP had to try hard to botch the 2012 election when Obama had a low favorability rating and was meeting nothing but resistance trying to get anything passed in a hostile congress. The last few years the economy has improved drastically, but yet the GOP got their opportunity to take it down again by constantly pretending it was still 2008 and it was Obama's fault, not Bush.

Hillary would have taken over a strong and improving economy and the economy was the best it ever was in my lifetime during her husband's presidency and there was a lot of expectation things would continue well, economically speaking. There is no such vote of confidence with Trump. The dems might benefit from a total collapse when it comes to getting their peeps elected, but they will again fail in continuity as the Republicans then work to attach the stink of their failure on those who would fix their damage.

Leo Dicaprio is 41...

Jaymann wrote:Leo Dicaprio is 41...

What is he dying or something?

What's the over/under on how long it will take Trump to issue a pardon for Bill Cosby?

tgb wrote:What's the over/under on how long it will take Trump to issue a pardon for Bill Cosby?

About 10% of the likelihood that Obama will issue one for Hillary.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Maybe Corey Booker? I thought his convention speech was pretty good and seemed to get the crowd energized.

Been thinking who could lead the Dems and be the candidate in 2020 ....will add to this as a i think of em.

1- Bernie - he's only 67, so say 71 at this time. Still young enough to be president. Bet he's planning his run already. And he could win. I'd almost say odds on favorite now...

2. Kamala Harris - new senator from CA. I'd say a rising star. She took on the big banks here and won. Problem is she's from Cali...

3. Tom Udall - Senator from NM. Moderate I'd say. 68 now, so 72 in 4 year...i just like him.

4. Tim Kaine - being the VP selection opens the door for him.

Not sure who else is out there. Just took a peak at the governor's list and none struck me as presidential. We'll see.

Rip wrote:

tgb wrote:What's the over/under on how long it will take Trump to issue a pardon for Bill Cosby?

About 10% of the likelihood that Obama will issue one for Hillary.

There's only one reason she needs a pardon, and it isn't because she's guilty of anything.

I'm willing to think outside the box, just as long as we make sure Trump doesn't get reelected. Maybe we can convince Romney of becoming a Democrat?

Newcastle wrote: 4. Tim Kaine - being the VP selection opens the door for him.

Kaine got plenty of national exposure and yet I would bet more than half of voters wouldn't be able to identify him. He's just way too boring to inspire much enthusiasm.

Newcastle wrote:

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Maybe Corey Booker? I thought his convention speech was pretty good and seemed to get the crowd energized.

Been thinking who could lead the Dems and be the candidate in 2020 ....will add to this as a i think of em.

1- Bernie - he's only 67, so say 71 at this time. Still young enough to be president. Bet he's planning his run already. And he could win. I'd almost say odds on favorite now...

Bernie is 75.

This was the first Twitter celebrity election. Trump survived all the scandals because of his Apprentice persona and "plain talk" on Twitter. The Democrats need a firebrand who can make the case against Trump and has shown he or she can use technology to build. Personal connection with voters.

Elizabeth Warren

She's a Massachusetts elite, but she can get to Trump and make a personal case for restoring reform.

Captain Caveman wrote:

Newcastle wrote:

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Maybe Corey Booker? I thought his convention speech was pretty good and seemed to get the crowd energized.

Been thinking who could lead the Dems and be the candidate in 2020 ....will add to this as a i think of em.

1- Bernie - he's only 67, so say 71 at this time. Still young enough to be president. Bet he's planning his run already. And he could win. I'd almost say odds on favorite now...

Bernie is 75.

i was wrong...yikes, ok count him out.

Zarathud wrote:This was the first Twitter celebrity election. Trump survived all the scandals because of his Apprentice persona and "plain talk" on Twitter. The Democrats need a firebrand who can make the case against Trump and has shown he or she can use technology to build. Personal connection with voters.

Elizabeth Warren

She's a Massachusetts elite, but she can get to Trump and make a personal case for restoring reform.

Warren won't win because she can make the case against Trump. Warren would win because she can make the case for the American people (and therefore Warren as their leader). Attacking Trump with stubborn on the bullshit that got him elected only fans the flames. Warren's watchdog demeanor is a strength in getting shit done, but Warren's up front work for all of the people of the country irrespective of the tides around her is what endears to the people who want her to represent us.

I think Warren has to do two parts -- (1) build the case against Trump being unfit and a disaster as President and (2) build a personal connection to voters as their champion and better suited than Trump to represent their interests. Democrats need to hear (1), Independents and Persuadables need to hear (2).

Deplorables are a lost cause unless Trump quickly ruins the economy in a trade war.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:

Newcastle wrote: 4. Tim Kaine - being the VP selection opens the door for him.

Kaine got plenty of national exposure and yet I would bet more than half of voters wouldn't be able to identify him. He's just way too boring to inspire much enthusiasm.

I heard him speak in Houston - he was pretty damn good, but you have to appreciate a less bombastic approach. (It was sort of the opposite of his debate persona, which came off as weird.) He also slid in and out of Spanish several times. Again, I was impressed and appreciated the message, but it would be painted as pandering by some, and simply hated by others.

Personally, though, I look for quiet competence in a leader - I couldn't really care less about being "inspired" - I just want smart stuff to get done correctly and am fine with compromise as a way of making that happen.