Let's talk about 2020

[Simfan34]

Ok, 2016 is a done deal. Fact. Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. This is the map:

Whatever. Now, what about 2020? I've heard that Clinton's health issues are more severe than how they're presented. Does she run for another term? Who would the Dems run, etc, ect.

[free my dawg]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

[SWE]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Why is her best state Utah?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Heh. If Obama's approval rating drops any further - and he's got a lot more failures and disappointments ahead of him, starting with a Mideast peace process that gives him multiple chances to lose on multiple levels with very little chance of success - Hillary's "done deal" is about as certain as McCain's.

[Mechaman]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

[NHI]

Assuming Clinton runs and wins in 2016, she arguably stands in a strong position to win reelection; provided that her health and the economy are intact. Potentially with a Clinton win in 2016 and a successful first term, we maybe looking at sixteen years of Democratic Rule. How likely is it? Only time will tell.

I think the better question to ask: What happens to the Republican Party after a loss to Clinton in 2016?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Heh. If Obama's approval rating drops any further - and he's got a lot more failures and disappointments ahead of him, starting with a Mideast peace process that gives him multiple chances to lose on multiple levels with very little chance of success - Hillary's "done deal" is about as certain as McCain's.

His approval is at 47 percent, far higher than a reelected Dubya. He also had ethical concerns on Alberto Gonzalez and so did VP candidate Palin. 38 approval for Dubya's.

[Joshgreen]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

False and disingenuous analogy is false and disingenuous.

[IceSpear]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

You guys are really trying to compare Hillary and Hoover now? Lol

I can smell the desperation. It's only a matter of time before we get "Hillary = Hitler!" comparisons.

As for the topic at hand: it really depends on how the GOP deals with their loss in 2016. For example, in 2012 we heard all about how they needed an "autopsy", to reach out to minorities, and to moderate their positions to better fit the electorate. However, after a few months, this all went into the trashcan in favor of pandering to Tea Partiers and hoping for "missing whites" to put them over the top. If they follow a similar pattern after 2016, the Democrat, whether it be Hillary running for re-election or someone else, will be a huge favorite. Every day demographics are getting less favorable for the GOP, and I think by 2020 we will be at critical mass for their ultimatum: change or die.

On the other hand, if they DO get out of radical right wing fantasy land and marginalize the Tea Partiers, they'd be in good shape simply because of Democratic fatigue.

[Mechaman]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

You guys are really trying to compare Hillary and Hoover now? Lol

I can smell the desperation. It's only a matter of time before we get "Hillary = Hitler!" comparisons.

As for the topic at hand: it really depends on how the GOP deals with their loss in 2016. For example, in 2012 we heard all about how they needed an "autopsy", to reach out to minorities, and to moderate their positions to better fit the electorate. However, after a few months, this all went into the trashcan in favor of pandering to Tea Partiers and hoping for "missing whites" to put them over the top. If they follow a similar pattern after 2016, the Democrat, whether it be Hillary running for re-election or someone else, will be a huge favorite. Every day demographics are getting less favorable for the GOP, and I think by 2020 we will be at critical mass for their ultimatum: change or die.

On the other hand, if they DO get out of radical right wing fantasy land and marginalize the Tea Partiers, they'd be in good shape simply because of Democratic fatigue.

The comparisons are natural.

Hoover was considered a super invincible giant of a man who could lead the nation to prosperity and that there would be a chicken in every pot.  We all know the story behind that.

I will not be a seer or a prophet here, but I must urge caution at least to forum Democrats who are convinced that Queen Hillary will be an automatic super FF who will bring a reign of a thousand years to the Democratic Party.  Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

The point is, the voters should be asking serious questions about Hillary not only as a candidate, but as a possible future President.  Every candidate running deserves a degree of skepticism and review and we shouldn't foist a candidate upon the nation who might possibly have a very dangerous mentality on how to run things just based off of what the general public populace thinks without challenge or inquiry.

But of course, a dumbfuck like yourself wouldn't understand such concepts.

[Mordecai]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Why is her best state Utah?

She appointed Bill to the Supreme Court and polygamy was legalized.

[IceSpear]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

You guys are really trying to compare Hillary and Hoover now? Lol

I can smell the desperation. It's only a matter of time before we get "Hillary = Hitler!" comparisons.

As for the topic at hand: it really depends on how the GOP deals with their loss in 2016. For example, in 2012 we heard all about how they needed an "autopsy", to reach out to minorities, and to moderate their positions to better fit the electorate. However, after a few months, this all went into the trashcan in favor of pandering to Tea Partiers and hoping for "missing whites" to put them over the top. If they follow a similar pattern after 2016, the Democrat, whether it be Hillary running for re-election or someone else, will be a huge favorite. Every day demographics are getting less favorable for the GOP, and I think by 2020 we will be at critical mass for their ultimatum: change or die.

On the other hand, if they DO get out of radical right wing fantasy land and marginalize the Tea Partiers, they'd be in good shape simply because of Democratic fatigue.

The comparisons are natural.

Hoover was considered a super invincible giant of a man who could lead the nation to prosperity and that there would be a chicken in every pot.  We all know the story behind that.

I will not be a seer or a prophet here, but I must urge caution at least to forum Democrats who are convinced that Queen Hillary will be an automatic super FF who will bring a reign of a thousand years to the Democratic Party.  Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

The point is, the voters should be asking serious questions about Hillary not only as a candidate, but as a possible future President.  Every candidate running deserves a degree of skepticism and review and we shouldn't foist a candidate upon the nation who might possibly have a very dangerous mentality on how to run things just based off of what the general public populace thinks without challenge or inquiry.

But of course, a dumbfuck like yourself wouldn't understand such concepts.

I'm pretty sure the dumb one is the person who is drawing overly broad comparisons between people from the current day and people from a century ago and acting as if they're equivalent. You realize it's ridiculously easy to apply the same "Hillary = Hoover!" comparison to pretty much EVERY presidential candidate, right? In fact, your entire basis for comparing them fits the Republican idolization of Reagan much more than it fits the Democratic Party's attitude toward Hillary.

[Mister Mets]

I'll ignore the sarcasm. Hillary Clinton could easily win in 2016.

Historically, she would be vulnerable as an incumbent. Incumbents are weaker when the party has held the White House for a while. Part of this is that random chance puts Presidents in positions where they'll get blamed for problems beyond their control. I suspect parties in power are good at delaying the consequences of decisions for at least an election cycle, but the inevitable will eventually occur, allowing the other side to reap electoral awards.

Republican strategy would be dependent on the circumstances behind a 2016 loss. Much of the nomination fight would be a response to that. Assuming both campaigns are competently, the election will probably be determined by things outside of the control of the candidates.

[SWE]

If Hillary wins in 2016, 2020 is not going to be a good year. It's very, very rare for one party to win four or more consecutive elections (The only examples I can think of are James Madison, FDR, James Garfield, and William Howard Taft). To make matters worse, thanks to gerrymandering, Republicans are almost certain to hold the House until 2020 at least. Combine that with the brutal 2018 senate map, and Hillary could potentially be looking at an even worse Congress than Obama's had to deal with. With four more years of gridlock in Washington, combined with Democrat fatigue, Hillary looks like she'd be an underdog for re-election.

[stepney]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

You guys are really trying to compare Hillary and Hoover now? Lol

I can smell the desperation. It's only a matter of time before we get "Hillary = Hitler!" comparisons.

As for the topic at hand: it really depends on how the GOP deals with their loss in 2016. For example, in 2012 we heard all about how they needed an "autopsy", to reach out to minorities, and to moderate their positions to better fit the electorate. However, after a few months, this all went into the trashcan in favor of pandering to Tea Partiers and hoping for "missing whites" to put them over the top. If they follow a similar pattern after 2016, the Democrat, whether it be Hillary running for re-election or someone else, will be a huge favorite. Every day demographics are getting less favorable for the GOP, and I think by 2020 we will be at critical mass for their ultimatum: change or die.

On the other hand, if they DO get out of radical right wing fantasy land and marginalize the Tea Partiers, they'd be in good shape simply because of Democratic fatigue.

The comparisons are natural.

Hoover was considered a super invincible giant of a man who could lead the nation to prosperity and that there would be a chicken in every pot.  We all know the story behind that.

I will not be a seer or a prophet here, but I must urge caution at least to forum Democrats who are convinced that Queen Hillary will be an automatic super FF who will bring a reign of a thousand years to the Democratic Party.  Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

The point is, the voters should be asking serious questions about Hillary not only as a candidate, but as a possible future President.  Every candidate running deserves a degree of skepticism and review and we shouldn't foist a candidate upon the nation who might possibly have a very dangerous mentality on how to run things just based off of what the general public populace thinks without challenge or inquiry.

But of course, a dumbfuck like yourself wouldn't understand such concepts.

I'm pretty sure the dumb one is the person who is drawing overly broad comparisons between people from the current day and people from a century ago and acting as if they're equivalent. You realize it's ridiculously easy to apply the same "Hillary = Hoover!" comparison to pretty much EVERY presidential candidate, right? In fact, your entire basis for comparing them fits the Republican idolization of Reagan much more than it fits the Democratic Party's attitude toward Hillary.

Seriously? "Hillary=Hoover", then nuanced with a very logical explanation, is dumb, but the assertion that the party that governed America for 90 of the last 150 years is on the verge of extinction in the next decade isn't?

[Simfan34]

Dick Gephardt? This is 2014, not 1994.

[IceSpear]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

You guys are really trying to compare Hillary and Hoover now? Lol

I can smell the desperation. It's only a matter of time before we get "Hillary = Hitler!" comparisons.

As for the topic at hand: it really depends on how the GOP deals with their loss in 2016. For example, in 2012 we heard all about how they needed an "autopsy", to reach out to minorities, and to moderate their positions to better fit the electorate. However, after a few months, this all went into the trashcan in favor of pandering to Tea Partiers and hoping for "missing whites" to put them over the top. If they follow a similar pattern after 2016, the Democrat, whether it be Hillary running for re-election or someone else, will be a huge favorite. Every day demographics are getting less favorable for the GOP, and I think by 2020 we will be at critical mass for their ultimatum: change or die.

On the other hand, if they DO get out of radical right wing fantasy land and marginalize the Tea Partiers, they'd be in good shape simply because of Democratic fatigue.

The comparisons are natural.

Hoover was considered a super invincible giant of a man who could lead the nation to prosperity and that there would be a chicken in every pot.  We all know the story behind that.

I will not be a seer or a prophet here, but I must urge caution at least to forum Democrats who are convinced that Queen Hillary will be an automatic super FF who will bring a reign of a thousand years to the Democratic Party.  Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

The point is, the voters should be asking serious questions about Hillary not only as a candidate, but as a possible future President.  Every candidate running deserves a degree of skepticism and review and we shouldn't foist a candidate upon the nation who might possibly have a very dangerous mentality on how to run things just based off of what the general public populace thinks without challenge or inquiry.

But of course, a dumbfuck like yourself wouldn't understand such concepts.

I'm pretty sure the dumb one is the person who is drawing overly broad comparisons between people from the current day and people from a century ago and acting as if they're equivalent. You realize it's ridiculously easy to apply the same "Hillary = Hoover!" comparison to pretty much EVERY presidential candidate, right? In fact, your entire basis for comparing them fits the Republican idolization of Reagan much more than it fits the Democratic Party's attitude toward Hillary.

Seriously? "Hillary=Hoover", then nuanced with a very logical explanation, is dumb, but the assertion that the party that governed America for 90 of the last 150 years is on the verge of extinction in the next decade isn't?

It isn't a logical explanation when it can be applied to virtually any presidential nominee that had any hype whatsoever. Also, I didn't actually mean the GOP would go extinct immediately if they didn't change, just that they'd slowly wither further and further.

[senyor_brownbear]

Heh. If Obama's approval rating drops any further - and he's got a lot more failures and disappointments ahead of him, starting with a Mideast peace process that gives him multiple chances to lose on multiple levels with very little chance of success - Hillary's "done deal" is about as certain as McCain's.

Find one credible argument ever made about McCain's "done deal."

[Mister Mets]

Clinton/Castro: 272
Christie/Mead: 266
Sanders/Gephardt: 0
270 to win

Or Clinton/Kitzhaber; hard to know who Bernie Sanders would take as his running mate. If Al Gore endorsed Clinton and for other reasons Dick Gephardt might run for Vice President.

Sanders and Gephardt will be 79.  Gephardt's record has been well within the mainstream of the Democratic party.

It is interesting to consider what kind of third party runs we'll have if Democrats have held the White House for three terms. Henry Wallace ran against Truman after four terms of Democrats in the White House. Perot ran on the national debt after three terms of Republicans in the White House. So there may be pent up demand from the progressives who think Obama's too centrist. But it would have to be a different nominee.

[Flake]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Why is her best state Utah?

Because when he was coloring the states he only changed the scheme from blue to red and didn't change any % values.

[Joshgreen]

The Republican Party dies. The olds are eliminated by death panels and those who remain are rounded up and put in FEMA camps.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Republican Party dies. The olds are eliminated by death panels and those who remain are rounded up and put in FEMA camps.

Oddly enough, this seems like your average post.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Clinton/Castro: 272
Christie/Mead: 266
Sanders/Gephardt: 0
270 to win

Or Clinton/Kitzhaber; hard to know who Bernie Sanders would take as his running mate. If Al Gore endorsed Clinton and for other reasons Dick Gephardt might run for Vice President.

Good on Christie for picking Mead.  Can't let a genuine swing state like Wyoming get out of his hands.

[Orser67]

Personally I don't think the "four straight terms for one party" factor will be all that important, with incumbent advantage instead being a more important factor. I could definitely be wrong though.

Anyway, with such little information, here's my map. Clinton does well among older states seeking stability, but loses younger voters who are eager for a change. Meh, it's a thought.

[Skill and Chance]

If the 2020 map is the 272 EV Dem win with CO, it could be a very substantial PV win for the Republican with further migration south and west during the decade.  Something to keep in mind is that an election year ending in 0 is by far the most likely time for the electoral college to do something weird (although ironically Gore would have gotten even fewer EV on the 2004 map).