Which democrats would be beaten easily by donald trump even with scandal?

[Bidenworth2020]

thx

[Lord Admirale]

Sanders, O'Malley, Chafee

[Bidenworth2020]

my reaction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0HMF7zIKo0

[Bull Moose Base]

If the election were this November and it were Trump vs Weiner, I'd bet on Weiner. Of the actual Democrats getting speculation, any would beat Trump easily.

[Sir Mohamed]

LOL at Weiner. I wonder why Blago hasn't been brought up in this context.


Others, though unlikely to run:

- Lincoln Chaffee
- Mark Warner (good man, but boring)
- Ted Strickland
- Russ Feingold
- Mark Zuckerberg
- Howard Dean
- Charlie Crist (though a nice guy)

[RINO Tom]

Cory Booker.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Cory Booker.

No he won't, the polls show Booker and Harris left right off where Clinton left off at leading Trump by 2.  Kamela Harris would be better, thought.

Julian Castro, Khlobuchar and Warren.

[RINO Tom]

Cory Booker.

No he won't, the polls show Booker and Harris left right off where Clinton left off at leading Trump by 2.  Kamela Harris would be better, thought.

Julian Castro, Khlobuchar and Warren.

A truly brilliant strategy: leave off where Hillary Clinton was with Donald Trump.

[Bull Moose Base]

Booker, Warren, Harris aren't leading Trump in polls the way Biden and Sanders are is because they're not as well known. None of them would lose to Trump with at this point. Nor would Castro, Feingold, Warner, Klobuchar or any of the people mentioned here.

Weiner would be close but I think would have a good chance to beat him in November.

[Mr. Morden]

Booker, Warren, Harris aren't leading Trump in polls the way Biden and Sanders are is because they're not as well known. None of them would lose to Trump with at this point. Nor would Castro, Feingold, Warner, Klobuchar or any of the people mentioned here.

I agree that the current polling gap is largely a consequence of name recognition.

*However*, the question of who would be able to beat Trump "at this point" is kind of a weird hypothetical, because it's hard to say what "at this point" means.  The election is called for tomorrow by surprise? 

In a real world scenario, whoever wins the Democratic nomination will end up with 100% name recognition, because they'll be in the news every day.  Of course, this boosts their polling numbers from what they are now.  But being the Democratic nominee and in the news every day also means that you're a target of the Trump campaign and GOP attack machine.  You become a polarizing figure in a way that you weren't before.  So there's a downside as well.

And this of course applies not just to folks who are currently unknown nationally, like Harris and Klobuchar, but even to the already well known figures like Biden and Sanders.  If Biden or Sanders were nominated, there would be plenty of GOP-leaning voters who are currently mixed or mildly favorable to them who will suddenly discover reasons to hate them, just as they would for any other Democratic nominee.

Bracketing all of that though, I still think (as I mentioned in a previous discussion with you) elections with an incumbent running tend to be more of a referendum on the incumbent than the challenger, so it's not clear that the negatives for any challenger would be enough to offset the negatives for Trump.

[Bull Moose Base]

Booker, Warren, Harris aren't leading Trump in polls the way Biden and Sanders are is because they're not as well known. None of them would lose to Trump with at this point. Nor would Castro, Feingold, Warner, Klobuchar or any of the people mentioned here.

I agree that the current polling gap is largely a consequence of name recognition.

*However*, the question of who would be able to beat Trump "at this point" is kind of a weird hypothetical, because it's hard to say what "at this point" means.  The election is called for tomorrow by surprise? 

In a real world scenario, whoever wins the Democratic nomination will end up with 100% name recognition, because they'll be in the news every day.  Of course, this boosts their polling numbers from what they are now.  But being the Democratic nominee and in the news every day also means that you're a target of the Trump campaign and GOP attack machine.  You become a polarizing figure in a way that you weren't before.  So there's a downside as well.

And this of course applies not just to folks who are currently unknown nationally, like Harris and Klobuchar, but even to the already well known figures like Biden and Sanders.  If Biden or Sanders were nominated, there would be plenty of GOP-leaning voters who are currently mixed or mildly favorable to them who will suddenly discover reasons to hate them, just as they would for any other Democratic nominee.

Bracketing all of that though, I still think (as I mentioned in a previous discussion with you) elections with an incumbent running tend to be more of a referendum on the incumbent than the challenger, so it's not clear that the negatives for any challenger would be enough to offset the negatives for Trump.

I agree with all that. Trump had low favorables going into 2016 but that's different than having low job approval as an incumbent president. I'd even say in an alternate world where Hillary didn't run and Biden had lost to Trump, Hillary would now have the biggest head-to-head leads against Trump and I would like her chances of winning easily.

I think, in general, people overestimate the variation in performance between different nominees for a party. Though it's fun to speculate on it all, it seems crazy to suggest X Democrat would easily win while Y Democrat would get crushed. I do think a different Democratic nominee might have won in 2016 but that's because you only need 80,000 votes across 3 states or whatever it was. The idea that there'd be a 10-15 point swing with a different nominee seems crazy to me.

Hopefully, Weiner gets in the race and puts this theory to the test.

[Liberalrocks]

Sanders, Gabbard, Warren