Nov
21
2014

Amusing thought about how 2014 hurt 2020 for the Democrats.

Let us assume – well, actually, I’m not assuming this; I’m expecting it – that a Republican wins the Presidential election in 2016. Also assume (I am not quite expecting this) that the Senate stays Republican in the process.  Real quick: who is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2020?

This is not actually a facetious question.  The top two contenders for the Democratic nomination (Clinton and Biden) will simply be too old to run in 2020 (they’re also too old in 2016, but never mind that right now). The next obvious step is to look to the governors… but right now there isn’t a viable Democratic candidate in the bunch.  The RGA had a good year, and the DGA a bad one: which becomes relevant because the Presidential crop in 2020 will be heavily dependent on which Democratic candidates won this year.  It takes time to build an executive record in state government; so even if the Democrats have a good year in 2018 it won’t benefit them until 2024.

And, again, this isn’t facetious.  One reason why I’m chipper about 2016 is because we elected a lot of Republican governors in 2009 and 2010 and got most of them through 2014 intact.  We will have plenty of potential Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates for the 2016 election cycle. And even if we somehow do lose in 2016 (I think that we will not lose) we will still have a good selection for 2020.

Meanwhile, the Democrats? – I dunno.  Maybe they can try to nominate another liberal from Massachusetts.  That always ends well for them.

15 Comments

  • Robert Mitchell Jr. says:

    Let’s be honest, Mr. Lane, when was the last time the Democrats nominated someone of substance to be President? It’s been nothing burgers since FDR, if not sooner. “Fresh and New” seems to be the only way the Democrats can sell their lies…..

    • jetty says:

      When ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NYTimes enthusiastically shills for the Democrat, it’s amazing (in a tragic kind of way) what they can get away with.

  • midwestconservative says:

    It’ll be Cuomo ( unless we beat him in 2018) he’s the only one governing a state big enough ( for long enough) to make the argument he can handle the Big Job.

    He’s not really a viable candidate considering the fact he has the charisma of a sea cucumber but he’s the only current D governor who could remotely make a play for the white house, by simple virtue of being the Gov of NY.

    Gillibrand might be the candidate. Or whichever *young* inexperienced Democrat is elected to Boxer’s seat ( that is if she does her party a favor and retires in 16).
    The same can be said about whoever replaces Murray ( if she puts party above ego and retires in 16′)
    Maybe Beau Biden if he’s Gov of Delaware ( but he’d only have one term completed by then)

    For age and liberalism they’d probably consider Klobuchar ( forgettable Sen. from MN who for whatever reason is popular)

    Sherrod Brown will be way to old ( and probably forcibly retired due to 2018) in order to run ( probably a better candidate then Hillary or Biden in 16, he’s a hardcore leftist that I’d never vote for but has won far tougher races then either Joe or Hillary)

    Heidi Heitkamp? *chortle*, she’ll either change parties, retire, or lose in 2018. And she’s both pro-keystone and pro-gun which makes her unelectable in a Donk primary.

    I suppose the Donks will turn to a Congressperson in 2020.
    Maybe a state senator?

    • acat says:

      I’m expecting a major city mayor.
      .
      It’s an executive position, it’s absolutely political, and .. it’s about the most demanding executive position outside Cali that Dems will hold.
      .
      Given your observations regarding Heitkamp and Manchin (who you didn’t mention but maybe should have ..) I don’t see Cuomo – who has well-documented gun-grabber tendencies – winning anything but the rotten urban cores ..
      .
      A mayor with more charisma than a sea cucumber would be a better fit.
      .
      Mew

      • midwestconservative says:

        Joe Manchin has all of the same weaknesses of Heitkamp, on top of being almost as old as Hillary ( and thus too old to make any run in 2020) combined with being a man.

      • midwestconservative says:

        Actually, its sad, but you’re probably right that a Big City Mayor will run ( Rahm?)

      • midwestconservative says:

        Whats her name the AG of CA who might be Gov after Brown? She’d probably be running in 2020.

    • Herp McDerp says:

      For age and liberalism they’d probably consider Klobuchar ( forgettable Sen. from MN who for whatever reason is popular)
       
      I’d rate Amy Klobuchar likely to run in 2016 if Hillary! doesn’t … and sweet Jebus, she just might win. She’ll be 56 in 2016, she’s reasonably attractive, she’ll have a decade as a Senator under her belt, she has lots of Democratic Party connections, and she’s firmly in the mainstream of “progressive” politics without being glaringly whacko. Oh, and she has a vagina.

  • midwestconservative says:

    I forgot, Cory Booker. But like Rick Perry ( who many accused of being GWB 2.0) Cory Booker should remind people too much of Obama to be electable in 2020.

  • AndaO says:

    Well, if we are talking Dem big city mayors then I would call your attention to Kasim Reed. He is good. Look at what he has accomplished for Atlanta. (not that I live downtown anymore so maybe my favorable attitude is out of date) but, honestly, anywhere else, he could be a Republican.

  • Finrod says:

    Regarding 2016, I’ve been having fun taunting leftist trolls with the fun fact that no 1+ term Democrat has gotten a Democrat elected to succeed him in over 150 years. Andrew Jackson remains the only Democrat in history to ever do that.

  • Luke says:

    Looking into my crystal ball, I see Webb.
    (And much bloody infighting.)

RSS feed for comments on this post.



Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com