Fmr. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) vs. Pres. Donald Trump (R-NY) 2020

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I was reading the "Under-the-Radar Candidates" thread and Feingold was the most popular possibility. Let's say he runs and wins the Democratic nomination to challenge President Trump. Who wins, and what does the map look like?

My personal prediction:

Closest races are IA, FL, OH, AZ, ME-02, NE-02, NC, NV, and NH, in that order.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

If he gets beat by Johnson by 3 points in an election year in his home state.... wait, that was the SECOND time he lost to Johnson as well.... then I doubt he'd have much of a chance nationally.

Feingold is actually evidence to me Bernie would have lost in the general as well.

Trump - 350 (Trump 2016 states + VA, CO, MN, NH, ME at-large, and NV)
Feingold - 188

Trump - 50.8%
Feingold - 47.2%

[UWS]

The moreover that he was the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act even after 9/11.

[Spark]

Never happen

[Vosem]

Pre-2010 Feingold, who the Republicans barely bothered to challenge in 2004 and who had a really independent Senate voting record, might've been a great presidential candidate if he were still around. Unfortunately for Democrats, the Russ Feingold who's lost 2 Senate races to Ron Johnson and got scared out of a 2012 bid (that, to be fair, he would've clearly won) by Tommy Thompson is the one who's around now.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Pre-2010 Feingold, who the Republicans barely bothered to challenge in 2004 and who had a really independent Senate voting record, might've been a great presidential candidate if he were still around. Unfortunately for Democrats, the Russ Feingold who's lost 2 Senate races to Ron Johnson and got scared out of a 2012 bid (that, to be fair, he would've clearly won) by Tommy Thompson is the one who's around now.

Feingold peaked in 1992.  He won his primary in an upset by a HUGE margin, then beat Sen. Bob Kasten, but by a bit of a disappointing margin (53-46 over an incumbent with a well-publicized drinking problem).  He never won with the kind of overwhelming victory that would propel him into the upper tier of Presidential candidates.  He might do well to run against Scott Walker, but I can't really see him winning, and I can't see him doing anything with his victory if he pulled an upset.  Peyton Manning was a great QB, but I wouldn't want my favorite team coaxing him out of retirement this year, even as a backup.

[mcmikk]

Pre-2010 Feingold, who the Republicans barely bothered to challenge in 2004 and who had a really independent Senate voting record, might've been a great presidential candidate if he were still around. Unfortunately for Democrats, the Russ Feingold who's lost 2 Senate races to Ron Johnson and got scared out of a 2012 bid (that, to be fair, he would've clearly won) by Tommy Thompson is the one who's around now.

Shhhhhh...Let me dream.

[Sir Mohamed]

I don't see how someone who lost two senate races and not held any other office since then can be nominated. Particularly when he was favored in the most recent race. What Democrats need is a new face and not a yesterday's man.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't see how someone who lost two senate races and not held any other office since then can be nominated. Particularly when he was favored in the most recent race. What Democrats need is a new face and not a yesterday's man.

Like I said in the other thread, I just don't think voters care about whether you've lost races in the past.  Hence, e.g., Santorum coming in second in the 2012 GOP primaries despite having been obliterated in his 2006 reelection.  His 2006 failure was barely even brought up in the presidential campaign.  Voters have short attention spans, and most outside of Wisconsin probably weren't paying attention to his races in the first place anyway.  If he were to campaign on a message that had appeal, I don't think his past losses would necessarily be a deal-killer.

[Sir Mohamed]

I don't see how someone who lost two senate races and not held any other office since then can be nominated. Particularly when he was favored in the most recent race. What Democrats need is a new face and not a yesterday's man.

Like I said in the other thread, I just don't think voters care about whether you've lost races in the past.  Hence, e.g., Santorum coming in second in the 2012 GOP primaries despite having been obliterated in his 2006 reelection.  His 2006 failure was barely even brought up in the presidential campaign.  Voters have short attention spans, and most outside of Wisconsin probably weren't paying attention to his races in the first place anyway.  If he were to campaign on a message that had appeal, I don't think his past losses would necessarily be a deal-killer.

Well, one race lost isn't the problem. But he fell short twice. 2010 was tough to win, I agree. 2016 was definitely winnable, though, and he blew it. I mean, it's not that Ron Johnson was overwhelmingly popular like Grassley and Portman, two other mid-westerners who massively outperformed Trump in their respective races. I think if Feingold were to run, it would become an issue. Particularly because WI is a state Dems should be able to win back. A state, Russ lost twice.

However, given Trump's performance so far, even Feingold should be able to oust him.

[McGovernForPrez]

Friendly reminder that Nixon lost a race for Governor of California before winning in 1968 and then winning a landslide in 1972.

Russ could easily do it. He's a really strong fit for the Democratic primary. Could easily see him winning Iowa and NH back to back.

[heatcharger]

Friendly reminder that Nixon lost a race for Governor of California before winning in 1968 and then winning a landslide in 1972.

Uh yeah, he was also the Vice President for 8 years before that.

Russ could easily do it. He's a really strong fit for the Democratic primary. Could easily see him winning Iowa and NH back to back.

Remember when Sanders almost did that and didn't come anywhere close to winning the nomination? Why would Feingold do significantly better than Sanders in Clinton states? Let's get real.

[mcmikk]

Friendly reminder that Nixon lost a race for Governor of California before winning in 1968 and then winning a landslide in 1972.

Uh yeah, he was also the Vice President for 8 years before that.

Russ could easily do it. He's a really strong fit for the Democratic primary. Could easily see him winning Iowa and NH back to back.

Remember when Sanders almost did that and didn't come anywhere close to winning the nomination? Why would Feingold do significantly better than Sanders in Clinton states? Let's get real.

Well, he has much more of a personality than Bernie or Hillary. If there's no other candidate that much of the establishment and Democratic politicians are supporting, and if he, say, picks up support from Bernie and his crowd, I can see him running as a progressive insurgent and winning out over a divided Democratic primary. There's no good way to tell just who's running and who will win what states in primaries, especially this point in time.

[McGovernForPrez]

Friendly reminder that Nixon lost a race for Governor of California before winning in 1968 and then winning a landslide in 1972.

Uh yeah, he was also the Vice President for 8 years before that.

Russ could easily do it. He's a really strong fit for the Democratic primary. Could easily see him winning Iowa and NH back to back.

Remember when Sanders almost did that and didn't come anywhere close to winning the nomination? Why would Feingold do significantly better than Sanders in Clinton states? Let's get real.

For starters Nixon's loss was utterly embarassing. Far more embarassing than either of Russ' losses. For a former Senator, VP, and near President to lose a gubernatorial race in a red leaning state is really really bad. Point is you can suffer embarassing losses and still come out of a competitive primary and win the presidency.

As to the Clinton states, literally anybody can expect to do better than Sanders in them, including Sanders. Hillary was literally a darling of the Democratic party. The fact that independent from Vermont even made a serious dent is crazy. Without Hillary on the ticket plenty of states should be far more competitive. Feingold can expect to do better than Sanders because he's actually a Democrat and isn't running against Hillary Clinton.

[Cynthia]

Trump wins, unless Feingold mysteriously becomes Governor of Wisconsin.

[mcmikk]

Trump wins, unless Feingold mysteriously becomes Governor of Wisconsin.

I wish.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

2020 will be a referendum on Trump and Trumpism, regardless of who the GOP nominee is, so Feingold, or any Democrat for that matter, has a chance.  Repulsive as she is, Maxine Waters would approach 200 EV if nominated.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I admire Russ and I was very sad to see him lose both in 2010 and 2016. His time had passed.