Do the dems have any real chance in 2020?

[Frodo]

Only on Atlas.....

If we're already giving up on 2020 (I haven't, but whatevs), then may I suggest we just bite the bullet and run with Bernie Sanders, and see how far his Bernie Bros will take us?  Just as an experiment.  I'm genuinely curious to see what happens.  After all, to paraphrase Trump, we're so far down the hole, what have we got to lose?  

If they feel they can win without us 'establishment Democrats' since they apparently blame us for having lost 2016, it's only reasonable to give them that chance and see if they can do better. 

[Cokeland Chastain]

Probably not. Republicans are basically guaranteed to win at least 272 electoral votes (or 270 in the worst-case scenario).

"Democrats are overconfident about 2018"

Maybe because of all the Republican seats up for grabs?

[BaldEagle1991]

Nope, they might as well just roll over and let the Republicans win for the next two decades at least, since states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Maine are now solid red states, and Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida will never actually trend D.

Sarcasm much?

[Confused Democrat]

Discuss with m^ps.

                          270 freiwal: WIS + FLOA +Ut + OHIOWA

Señor Walker with Sen. Johnson & superstar Jon. ERNST secureing 270 eleCtors for Trump; plus SENIT and house. NC leaning G O P anyways; being fools goold . Go WAUKEISHA County 😂

FL & WI are hardly set it stone. This map is definitely a possible outcome in 2020, but it's hardly a firewall lol.

[Bojack Horseman]

I had a feeling whoever won in 2016 would be a one term president. Donald Trump seems to be doing everything in his power to make that a reality, not to mention the upcoming recession.

[Bojack Horseman]

Absolutely. The low-hanging fruit is by far enough to get us to 270. 42% of union voters voted for Cheeto Mussolini. Their minds will be changed for them when Mr. I-Hate-Trade-Deals signs a national Right-To-Work law.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Of course they have a chance.  And I agree that their chances in 2020 may be better than if Hillary had actually been elected.

The problem with the Democratic Party is threefold:

1.  Relying on identity politics has damaged their brand.

2.  Losing too many elections has left them with a small stable of viable candidates.

3.  Their BEST candidates will be in their late 70s in 2020 (Biden and Sanders).

In 2020, EXPERIENCE and QUALIFICATIONS will be the key to winning, because Trump failing is crucial to a Democratic victory.  In that event, they need a candidate with the kind of credentials that were not considered positives in 2016.  If the Democrats are to win in 2020, Washington can't be the problem; TRUMP has to be the problem.  If that case can't be made in 2020, it may be the biggest setback for the Democrats since Mondale in 1984.

[SWE]

If a free and fair election is held, sure. Of course, that's quite the unrealistic assumption to bet on.

[CatoMinor]

If the SJW wing of the party continues to grow and influence them then they may very well defeat themselves once again. But hey, at least they'd have won California in a landslide twice and without using gendered pronouns, so that's something.

[Bojack Horseman]

If the SJW wing of the party continues to grow and influence them then they may very well defeat themselves once again. But hey, at least they'd have won California in a landslide twice and without using gendered pronouns, so that's something.

Anyone who votes based on gender pronoun nonsense is just as ing dumb as the people promoting it (and there really isn't that many, even on liberal campuses).

Oh yes there are, even on somewhat liberal campuses. When I was at Western Michigan University, the LGBT group was overrun by "genderfluid" snowflakes who threw a tantrum at being called the gramatically correct pronoun based on their actual gender (male or female, as nature intended). Even here at UM Flint, a f(inks)ing commuter school, we got lectured in a sociology class about asking for a person's pronouns as soon as you meet them. It's happening everywhere.

[AGA]

Probably not. Republicans are basically guaranteed to win at least 272 electoral votes (or 270 in the worst-case scenario).

"Democrats are overconfident about 2018"

Uh... yes they are? Doesn't change the fact that there is an impenetrable red 270/272 freiwal.

I'm guessing you're just trolling, because the path to 270 for Dems in 2020 is much easier to envision than it was for Trump in 2016. FL and AZ alone would be sufficient. As would sweeping the Upper Midwest. If the past month is a slight indicator of things to come, I'd be jumping at the chance to run against Trump in 2020. But honestly if I were the Democratic nominee, I'd just camp out in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan the entirety of the race.

You were the genius poor Hillary needed!

Might have to add New Hampshire or Minnesota to that list because this map is still a Republican win.

Trump: 272
Dem: 266

[Comrade Funk]

The way things are going, they'll have to be even more incompetent to lose again. Trump is losing the independents already in less than a month.

[Mr. Morden]

The way things are going, they'll have to be even more incompetent to lose again. Trump is losing the independents already in less than a month.

Is Trump really any more unpopular now than he was on election day?  He was already unpopular on election day, and I haven't really seen anything to indicate that he's in worse shape now.

[Hammy]

Probably not. Republicans are basically guaranteed to win at least 272 electoral votes (or 270 in the worst-case scenario).

"Democrats are overconfident about 2018"

Uh... yes they are? Doesn't change the fact that there is an impenetrable red 270/272 freiwal.

Can't tell if ignorance or irony.