In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2024, 09:40:47 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: In hindsight, who should the Democrats have nominated in 2016?  (Read 12534 times)
ηєω ƒяσηтιєя
New Frontier
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,296
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -1.22

« on: May 22, 2018, 03:41:52 PM »

In order to secure the presidency: Biden

In terms of long-term political success: A narrow loss in 2016 is probably the best outcome for Democrats if we look at what this means for the 2018/2020 congressional/gubernatorial elections. If we had a Democratic president right now, the Democrats' would likely have no chance at a majority in either chamber or improving their very weak position in state legislatures, and the incumbent president would probably have an uphill fight in 2020 after 12 years of a Democratic president. Because Trump won in 2016, the Democrats are probably favored to win the House and several governorships this year, the 2020 Senate map is very promising as well, and I would argue that Trump is likely going to lose reelection. I think the Democrats are well poised to control both chambers and the presidency during the 2021-2023 period, and hopefully they could capitalize on it as well as they did in 2009-2011.
I agree 100%.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 11 queries.