Trump is a master media manipulator, and has a lot of people believing he will win re-election. Besides his base of supporters, which comprises between 40-45% of registered voters, who have always believed he'll win two terms, there are now people among lib media sources who are predicting a Trump victory in 2020.

He has the money to outspend any realistic Dem candidate, has a track record of accomplishments and has done a masterful job of discrediting any media source that opposes him. Couple that with his daily Twitter campaign of non-stop attacks on the Dem party in general. This media onslaught: a daily drumbeat that re-election is a foregone conclusion, may bear fruit with enough unaligned independents to make it happen.

The other result of this continuous pro-Trump/ anti Dem media message is to discourage lib voters from going to the polls by convincing them that Trump's re-election is inevitable. That was part of the plan in 2016: reduce lib voter turn-out.

His re-election campaign is dialed in on the contested states that he surprisingly won in 2016, and appear to have locked in enough solid red states to get him close to the magic 270 electoral votes...just two or three purple states will do it...

so..can Dems overcome their malaise and historical low turn-out to muster enough enthusiasm to beat Trump? If so, which candidate can do it?

Plus Bloomberg is gonna pull a LOT of votes for the dems

Can’t vote for Brewha...too homophobic

TRUMP 2020!!!

From the dems

Two lily-white flyover states into primary season and the dems are throwing in the towel....lol

And Perez still has a job....even after blaming the little guys in Iowa; dude should be collecting unemployment by now

im writing in michelle obama

Trump has had this since day 1... only question left is did Nancy burn da House down..?? 😟

No, she made them all run from that rotten salmon smell she carries

that's the problem right there.
You don't need a "besides". With that number of voters properly dispersed across the midwest, he will win.

If the Democrats don’t pick a candidate that the vast majority of their voters can get behind Trump wins because his supporters will go to the polls and vote for him. Their is t a compelling candidate for the independents.

At the moment a Socialist is leading. If he doesn’t get nominated a huge percent of his voters will stay home. Elizabeth Warren will he gone after Super Tuesday if not before. Voters have tired of her. Based on a New York Post article Biden’s money pipeline seems to be drying up. Pete has virtually no experience. His crowning achievement is mayor of a city of 100,000. Hell, Baton Rouge is larger than South Bend. His dismal performance there will soon catch up if he’s nominated. Bloomberg is days away from a crash and burn, but he’ll spend a billion bucks before he realizes he can’t carry the black & brown voters because he supported throwing blacks against the wall.

I’m betting on 4 more years of MAGA.

well you're right about that part.

But honestly, I'm getting tired of hearing "socialist" from the right and the left. Apparently neither side has any f-cking idea what "socialism" actually is, and decide to label any government program as this.

Come on guys, we're better than that. Socialism requires that the means of production be taken from private hands and turned into a government run entity.

Handouts to the poor is not socialism.
Handouts to the poor rich banks is not socialism.
The ACA is not socialism.
"Medicare for all" is not socialism.

If someone decided to turn all hospitals / clinics into government run entities and make all doctors work for the state.... that would be socialism.

If the government decided to seize all steel companies and run them in whatever manner the government thought was best. That would be socialism.

I don't like any of the above examples (those which are socialism, and those which are not socialism) But most of all I don't like improper use of words to propagate fearmongering.

Someone in here very recently inferred Hitler was a socialist. it was sort of like saying a crab-apple is a crustacean but has happened in here a lot and I'm not talking about JPOTTS this time.

that was probably tittums. but may have been kodiak0808:::#()(::#$:

I could sure use some crustaceans about now... 😟

You want da crabs?

#-o

crabsody in blue

nope.....

#11

I did a few months back. He was the leader of the National Socialist Party. Lol They we're more "right leaning" socialists, but socialists nonetheless. So I'm sure he was a Libertarian...

I wasn't referring to you... but he was in no way a socialist despite the word in the nazi party. and a crab-apple is not a crustacean even though it has crab in the name.

Fascist then? It's really just semantics. Fascism/Communism/Socialism. State control of the people and resources of a nation.

All three of those are very different.... its not just semantics its knowledge

B ut again I wasn't referring to you. I don't care if you think Hitler was a socialist.