Cory Booker vs Donald Trump

[Rjjr77]

Depends whether or not the pro-Trump left manages to demonize him and brainwash progressives against him like they did Clinton. If he can avoid that, then he should be heavily favored.

You're like a parody of a Clintonista.

First of all, the "pro-Trump left" isn't really a thing. Sure, a few "leftists" here and there chose to support Trump, but that was more out of a desire to spite the Democratic Party and to send a big fat "f-you" to the Democratic establishment in Washington. And although I believe their support for Trump was misguided, it's hard to argue that they didn't achieve their goal.

A fire has now been lit under the asses of the Democratic establishment and the activist base of this party is fired up and ready to take over congress, governors mansions, and state houses all over the country in 2018.

Booker is not the ideal candidate for Democrats in 2020, and it's really not hard to understand why. He's despised by the Sanders wing of the party, plain and simple. Democrats need a candidate who can please both the Sanders and Clinton wings of the party. A candidate like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, or Jeff Merkley.

Careful. The other two are better choice but Warren may project as too far left for the palate of the electorate.

While there have been a few liberals and a few conservatives the majority of our presidents fall center right on a world wide scale.

She's not as far left as Sanders, and I believe Sanders would have beaten Trump.

Still, I understand where you're coming from when you say to be cautious of Warren. I agree that she'd be a weaker GE candidate compared to Brown or Merkley, but I believe she could pull it off in the right political climate.

I don't think Sanders would have beaten trump, but sadly there's no way to prove it.

[Vosem]

To elaborate, if Booker can stay at the same level as Clinton but motivate just a few more black voters, it's really not that hard to get to this map:

307-216, with 15 electoral votes in North Carolina too close to call. I see no reason Booker can't achieve this in basically the same environment as 2016 was held in. What the environment will be like in 2020 isn't really up to Booker or Trump, and could move voters from one side to another.

I find the idea that Booker could cause more WWCs to move from Clinton to Trump to be extremely dubious -- by 2020 it'll be clear that Trump can't bring about his promises of bringing back manufacturing -- but even if this is the case the only states that would be put at risk are NH, ME, and perhaps WI -- not enough to break the Democratic victory on this map.

One of the key points is: for Democrats to win in 2020, no actual Trump voters from 2016 need to be persuaded over. It would help, but it's unnecessary. Better turnout or convincing third-party voters is sufficient.

[heatcharger]

I find the idea that Booker could cause more WWCs to move from Clinton to Trump to be extremely dubious -- by 2020 it'll be clear that Trump can't bring about his promises of bringing back manufacturing -- but even if this is the case the only states that would be put at risk are NH, ME, and perhaps WI -- not enough to break the Democratic victory on this map.

One of the key points is: for Democrats to win in 2020, no actual Trump voters from 2016 need to be persuaded over. It would help, but it's unnecessary. Better turnout or convincing third-party voters is sufficient.

The question is: did Hillary hit rock-bottom with WCWs in the Midwest? It clearly seems to be the case in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but whether that's true in MN, WI, and MI remains to be seen. Either way, your last point is quite true.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I find the idea that Booker could cause more WWCs to move from Clinton to Trump to be extremely dubious -- by 2020 it'll be clear that Trump can't bring about his promises of bringing back manufacturing -- but even if this is the case the only states that would be put at risk are NH, ME, and perhaps WI -- not enough to break the Democratic victory on this map.

One of the key points is: for Democrats to win in 2020, no actual Trump voters from 2016 need to be persuaded over. It would help, but it's unnecessary. Better turnout or convincing third-party voters is sufficient.

The question is: did Hillary hit rock-bottom with WCWs in the Midwest? It clearly seems to be the case in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but whether that's true in MN, WI, and MI remains to be seen. Either way, your last point is quite true.

Lets run an absolutely terrible candidate and find out.

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

Donald Trump's first term will most likely be a utter failure. Booker could possibly win. Also, Booker doesn't have any major scandals as of now (unlike Hillary). A significant amount of working-class whites voted for Trump due to Hillary's scandals.

Even if a major scandal is discovered, no one will really care because Booker is male.

Donald Trump is unarguably more corrupt than Hillary is. Trump has plenty of scandals such as his breaking of labor laws, Trump University, Trump Foundation, etc. The only major Hillary scandal was her emails. Despite this, Hillary was perceived as more corrupt than Donald Trump because humans are designed to judge to females more harshly. Politics is all about perception, not reality. Gender plays a huge role in how voters perceive candidates. It's why Trump's scandals were taken much less seriously even though they're arguably much worse.

Booker maybe pro-Wall Street, but that won't be an issue at all because he's a male.

Obama got more Wall Street donations than any other politican in history (much more than Hillary), but no one cared because of his gender. I love it how none of these progressives cared about Obama's Wall Street donations and his constant pandering to Wall Street, but when Hillary does it (even though she's unarguably less pro-Wall Street than Obama was) everyone harshly critcizes her for it. She is known as a Wall Street shill (even though Obama is unarguably even more of a Wall Street shill than she is) due to her gender. I think people tend to forget that Obama ran to right of Hillary on Wall Street in 2008. Hillary ran as someone who was going to be tough on Wall Street while Obama largely ignored the issue. Despite this, Hillary is perceived as more pro-Wall Street than Obama because humans are designed to judge females more harshly. Politics is all about perception, not reality. Gender has a huge impact on the way people perceive candidates.

Also, Booker would turn out African-Americans in the Rust Belt. One of the main reasons why Hillary lost the Rust Belt was because AA turnout was so low. Even if Booker does slightly worse with WCW (although I think he'd do better with them than Hillary), this could easily be made up by AA turning out at record levels for Booker. Clinton was probably the worst possible fit for working-class whites yet she BARELY lost WI/MI/PA. Not only is Booker a slightly better fit for WCW, he is also much better fit for AA.

[Lief 🗽]

^^Great post. It'll definitely be harder for the deranged left to swiftboat Booker like they did Clinton. I think Clinton's long history in politics also worked against her, whereas Booker is basically a fresh face. It'll be much harder for Sanders or whoever to disingenuously smear Booker as the "establishment" like he did to Clinton.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even if a major scandal is discovered, no one will really care because Booker is male.

You really want to lose 2020, huh?

[Shadows]

Depends whether or not the pro-Trump left manages to demonize him and brainwash progressives against him like they did Clinton. If he can avoid that, then he should be heavily favored.

You're like a parody of a Clintonista.

First of all, the "pro-Trump left" isn't really a thing. Sure, a few "leftists" here and there chose to support Trump, but that was more out of a desire to spite the Democratic Party and to send a big fat "f-you" to the Democratic establishment in Washington. And although I believe their support for Trump was misguided, it's hard to argue that they didn't achieve their goal.

A fire has now been lit under the asses of the Democratic establishment and the activist base of this party is fired up and ready to take over congress, governors mansions, and state houses all over the country in 2018.

Booker is not the ideal candidate for Democrats in 2020, and it's really not hard to understand why. He's despised by the Sanders wing of the party, plain and simple. Democrats need a candidate who can please both the Sanders and Clinton wings of the party. A candidate like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, or Jeff Merkley.

Careful. The other two are better choice but Warren may project as too far left for the palate of the electorate.

While there have been a few liberals and a few conservatives the majority of our presidents fall center right on a world wide scale.

Perhaps in the 60's. Then Trump beat the perfect centrist candidate. Trump, a racist & a radical Extremist who is perhaps the most fringe candidate in his views ever & is also a sexual assaulter.

Ohh wait there was Obama vs McCain. The young progressive guy who was called "Communist", "Arab", "Muslim" who was also black against a moderate White guy. And same in 2012.

Had this garbage idea of centrism been true, Trump would have never have won. Centrism is considered a disease now at every ideological spectrum. That is why an extremist like Cruz was beating Hillary in the polls.

We have no idea what would happen in a Sanders vs Trump, but Sanders' insanely high favor-ability, massive ground-base of millennials & huge cross-over appeal to independents, libertarians, etc showed in poll after poll when he was running massively ahead of Hillary.

Now can guess what will happen, but the little data that is available, points towards a Sanders' landslide.

A Booker nomination will essentially hand over the Presidency to Trump & will solidify the Green Party whose share will increase!

[Shadows]

I don't know who came up with dumbf*** idea about gender being the defining role behind the progressives rage against Hillary. You have to insanely dumb to consider that, but I guess we have plenty of dummies in here.

Hillary ran a negative campaign in the primary with McCaskill taking dirty shots, the Media, David Brock, cooking the debates with DWS & on & on while staying "honest" to the public. Obama never had a problem of "Honesty". Hillary Clinton lied to the people claiming no email was classified when it was send. Hillary flip-flopped on every issue, TPP etc - She was everyone, no authenticity.

How on earth could she be running when she send classified emails from her server? Or selling access for her Foundation?

Clinton also was "called out" for selling votes for money by both Obama & Warren. No1 can say Obama sold votes for money. No Wall Street Speeches behind close doors glossing over the Banks while he was about to run.

Obama was charismatic & was a phenomenal speaker. Clinton was a dummy who needed her speechwriter & Consultant to tell her how to talk, dress, look, behave, everything - She was a robot - Obama was a phenomenal talker & seemed "Honest". People could connect with him atleast & he had no scandals - Not 1 bit.

The Clinton supporters here ELECTED Trump & are to be blamed. And they will keep being stupid ignoring a pathetic candidate with calls about Gender !

[Confused Democrat]

I don't know who came up with dumbf*** idea about gender being the defining role behind the progressives rage against Hillary. You have to insanely dumb to consider that, but I guess we have plenty of dummies in here.

Hillary ran a negative campaign in the primary with McCaskill taking dirty shots, the Media, David Brock, cooking the debates with DWS & on & on while staying "honest" to the public. Obama never had a problem of "Honesty". Hillary Clinton lied to the people claiming no email was classified when it was send. Hillary flip-flopped on every issue, TPP etc - She was everyone, no authenticity.

How on earth could she be running when she send classified emails from her server? Or selling access for her Foundation?

Clinton also was "called out" for selling votes for money by both Obama & Warren. No1 can say Obama sold votes for money. No Wall Street Speeches behind close doors glossing over the Banks while he was about to run.

Obama was charismatic & was a phenomenal speaker. Clinton was a dummy who needed her speechwriter & Consultant to tell her how to talk, dress, look, behave, everything - She was a robot - Obama was a phenomenal talker & seemed "Honest". People could connect with him atleast & he had no scandals - Not 1 bit.

The Clinton supporters here ELECTED Trump & are to be blamed. And they will keep being stupid ignoring a pathetic candidate with calls about Gender !

Take a deep breath.

[The Govanah Jake]

If Donald Trumps turns to a Horrible President with 40% Approval Ratings maybe but just like Clinton, he is a Centrist Third Way democrat and would get killed with a mediocre Trump Presidency.