2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

[Travis]

Progressive candidates only....that's all I'll say.

Bring in O Malley, dull as he is, bring in Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.

No Clintons, No Joe Biden please no....No Kamela Harris, no Booker that showboating idiot. Let the DNC elites whither away.

I'll go so far as to say media should be biased against them and cover them less so the progressive wing of the Democrats and independents gain more airtime.

How in the world is Kamela Harris, a new Senator, part of the "elite" and therefore tarnished but Sanders, O Malley and Warren are not?

 

[applecorped]

Hillary 2020!, because Dems still don't have anyone better.

 

[varwoche]

It's bizarre to me to see people actually still trying to push the ridiculous myth that "centrism" (AKA acting just like the right) is the way to go for Democrats and "going left" would harm them. When has there ever been any evidence of anything but the exact opposite? That's exactly what they've already been trying for years, it's been losing them hundreds of offices, and the reason why is plain to see in all of the polls, from topic-specific polls showing large majority support for the left side of all major issues, to polls showing that most people believe the party "stands for nothing" and that liberal voters who theoretically should be voting for Democrats don't see anyone to vote for precisely because they're disgruntled by Democrats going right and the lack of options to vote for to the left, to the latest off-year election results in which voters elected the farthest-left option they had in practically every case, to popularity polls showing that our country's most established left-winger is its most popular politician and that the rabid orange baboon they managed to lose to with this brilliant strategy in the last Presidential election was the most unpopular (AKA most easily beatable) candidate ever on the day they handed the election to him.

This is 180 degrees wrong. It's contradicted by most election cycles, post Hillary malaise notwithstanding. You're a prisoner of the moment.

When a progressive leftie can't win the nomination, the notion that they would have won the general is risible.

 

[Belz...]

This is 180 degrees wrong.

It's half wrong?

But seriously...

I thought that Delvo's point was that trying to go centrist to appeal to voters on both sides is a losing strategy for the Democrats and I agree. Making a stand for their values might work a lot better.

 

[Delvo]

The fact that people think the Democrats "stand for nothing" probably has less to do with their actual positions than the way they try advertising their stances.

Both, plus the fact that they keep caving in to the Republicans instead of doing any resisting at all (another classic example in the news just in the last day or two), and mixing the occasional actual stand on principle with some cases of actually standing on Republican principles.

I suspect that if a liberal voter doesn't see the difference between the republicans (a party that is trying to dismantle Obamacare, gave huge tax breaks to corporations, and wants to crack down on drugs) and the Democrats (who want to maintain Obamacare, were against the tax bill, think drugs need to be dealt with differently) then they are really a first class idiot.

The problem is: where are the signs that the Democrats we've been getting so far actually want any of the stuff they're supposed to want? They've done nothing at all on any of those issues but the ACA, which was a Republican plan to serve & protect the insurance middlemen, which Obama pushed when Democrats had Congress and could have done Medicare For All (the popularity of which was why the middlemen needed ACA to save them), without even trying to go for something truly progressive and somehow get "compromised" down to the Republican ACA we got. Their idea of how to negotiate & fight was to start out at the opponent's position! And that was also the President who got our military involved in a few more wars we haven't left with no indication of when the mission will be accomplished and we can get out or even any pretense of asking Congress (which were once things Democrats claimed to be against, when they weren't in power to demonstrate what they really thought) and ramped up a drone-strike program from which 90% of the kills are bystanders.

The actions of the Democrats we've been getting so far, under the "be just like Republicans, practically never go against them on anything" plan they've been losing with for years, really have been no different from what Republicans would have done.

Not exactly a good measure, since you're talking about a fairly statistically small sample.

The latest round or two makes for a clearer-than-average example of voters electing the farthest-left option available, but the main thing that would change by adding more previous elections to muddy the water is just including more cases of conservative Republicans winning against Democrats who appear wishy-washy or even like they're trying to imitate Republicans. Given a choice between a righty who takes a stand & means it, and someone who hides & runs away from the idea of doing so or even tries to suck up to them by pretending to be someone else, voters will vote for the former, but that says nothing about what they'd do if there were someone to vote for who actually took a stand on the left and showed a spine about doing it.

Oh and by the way, you know Doug Jones, the Democrat who beat Moore in Alabama? Well, he holds views in favor of gay rights, but he also said he was a "second amendment guy" and has no problem with the concept of cutting taxes. So I'd characterize him as anything but "far left"... more of a "moderate-left".

The concept of cutting taxes is neither right nor left until details get added like which brackets go down and which brackets go up. But yes, he's no lefty extremist. But he was the farthest-left option available, in a generally conservative area, and the only option available without Moore's other issues outside of politics. (And an even smaller sample than before, down to just 1 now.)

You talking about Sanders? I think most of his current popularity is more due to name recognition than an actual interest in his policies.

The policies created the name recognition.

That Trump won had less to do with Democratic policies and more to do with underlying bigotry, Russian interference, and a successful decades-long smear campaign against Clinton.

Those are just Clintonite excuses. The SJW obsession with constantly spitting out accusations of bigotry like a sprinkler at anyone & everyone who ever disagrees with them about anything, including the non-bigots (actually, especially the non-bigots), is responsible for a backlash more widespread than the original problem was, the effects of anything Russia did or even could have done were minuscule, and the opposition Clinton has faced has been nothing special in the world of politics, apart from the amount of privileged "but I'm a woman (the only one in politics!)" whining about it and the amount of time it's been going on, the latter of which is only because the party has been stupidly pushing her at us for so long.

When a progressive leftie can't win the nomination, the notion that they would have won the general is risible.

Even if she hadn't been controlling the system and rigging it against him, he still would have been against immense name recognition, a gigantic financial machine (like many Democrats claim only Republicans have because they know liberal voters wouldn't like that), the fact that she was female, the royal-dynasty effect & "she's been around so long & we've given her so much résumé padding it's just her turn" syndrome, and, especially toward the end, the myth of her invincibility and the common human desire to vote for the inevitable winner even when we know that the win that's being built up is a fake artificial "win". To even get so close against all that, especially early on when it was still more about policy positions and less about the months & months of hearing that it's a lost cause & watching the superdelegates pile up under their anti-democratic marching orders, with nothing going for him except his policy positions, just proves how much people liked & want his kind of approach and how spectacularly weak hers was.

And really, given that he held his double-digit lead over Trump throughout the rest of the campaign (while not even campaigning) and on election day and ever since, while Clinton was around -1 to 3, and with other Democrats in general sinking with antics like their latest cave-in on DACA, it wouldn't even matter if your assertion were true that liberal policies aren't popular enough to win among Democrats. The facts still show that they're popular nationwide, so that would just mean that that party isn't where the liberals are.

 

[Delvo]

Bottom line for Democrats, without all of the detailed case-by-case stuff in a couple of recent posts...

You know, in the big picture, over hundreds of elections for various seats at all levels across the country, that the party's been losing hard for years. Why insist on sticking to the same approach that's gotten that result? How on Earth is such a pattern of failure not a sign that a different approach is called for? How can the people who've been in control throughout all of that losing be the ones we'd want to listen to now about how to win?

 

[varwoche]

It's half wrong?

Er, I meant to do that?

But seriously... I thought that Delvo's point was that trying to go centrist to appeal to voters on both sides is a losing strategy for the Democrats and I agree. Making a stand for their values might work a lot better.

First off, I take issue with Delvo's framing of the Dem divide. I don't think s/he describes the Dem spectrum accurately, nor the dynamics of the election cycles. That said, a quick summary of recent election cycles:

1972: McGovern, leftie, biblical trouncing
1976: Carter, centrist, wins
1980: Carter/incumbent, loses. I suppose it's conceivable Kennedy would have beaten Reagan but I'm dubious.
1984: Mondale, centrist(?), trounced. Hart was the sort of progressive(?) candidate that could have won -- smart, articulate, photogenic -- but alas he self-destructed.
1988: Dukakis, centrist, loses. Jesse Jackson, not a chance. Paul Simon, hard to envision.
1992: Clinton, centrist, wins. Hard to imagine Jerry Brown winning. (One of the few times I ever donated to a candidate was Brown.)
1996: Clinton, re-elected
2000: Gore,centrist, loses barely. If Bradley (who I supported) can't beat Gore in the primary, how's he going to win the general?
2004: Kerry loses, barely. Dean wouldn't have stood a chance. Ditto Edwards.
2008: Obama, centrist, wins. Edwards self-destructed, fortunately.
2012: Obama re-elected

At the very least, if the Dems want to win with a leftie, they need a much better candidate than most of the recent past contenders.

 

[varwoche]

It's bizarre to me to see people actually still trying to push the ridiculous myth that "centrism" (AKA acting just like the right) is the way to go for Democrats and "going left" would harm them.

What's bizarre to me is the binary thinking that's been so glaringly on display ever since the Bernie phenomenon. Can we use Hillary as an example of a centrist? Here's my rough grading from left wing perspective. We could quibble around the margins, but I think it's basically fair.

Birth control rights: Hillary A, Trump/GOP F
DACA / immigration: Hillary A, Trump/GOP F
Medicare/Medicaid: Hillary A, Trump/GOP F
Global warming: Hillary B, Trump/GOP F
SCOTUS: Hillary A, Trump/GOP F
Tax policy: Hillary A, Trump/GOP F

(btw - there are a number of things I don't like about Hillary. I voted for Obama in 2008 primary, and was dismayed by her emergence in 2016)

This abject "just like the right" nonsense may have cost the last election, and might cost the next.

 

[CORed]

Yeah, well, I've seen no indication that Republicans are willing to remove him no matter what he does. And unless 2018 goes to Democrats in a massive landslide*, the Republicans will have to be willing for anything to be done.


* This is not going to happen.

I think impeachment is possible, but removal is extremely unlikely, unless some sort of "smoking gun" for colluding with Russia surfaces. Removal takes 2/3 of the Senate, and I don't think even a Democratic sweep of all Senate races will give the Democrats 2/3. Barring some kind of unequivocal evidence that Trump sold out to the Russians, I don't think enough Republicans will vote for removal to make it happen. I still think there is a possibility that Trump won't run, or that he will lose to another Republican for the nomination.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I thought that Delvo's point was that trying to go centrist to appeal to voters on both sides is a losing strategy for the Democrats and I agree. Making a stand for their values might work a lot better.

Absolutely.

Let's be charitable and assume that the Republicans are staying fixed on the political spectrum. The suggestion that Democrats take a more centrist stance is actually a suggestion that Democrats move to the right. If they do this, the more "centrist" position becomes the new "left", and the process repeats.

I'm not sure how some people are unable to foresee this.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Absolutely.

Let's be charitable and assume that the Republicans are staying fixed on the political spectrum. The suggestion that Democrats take a more centrist stance is actually a suggestion that Democrats move to the right. If they do this, the more "centrist" position becomes the new "left", and the process repeats.

I'm not sure how some people are unable to foresee this.

I don't know why we have liberals and progressives believing conservative memes. The Dems have not been getting trounced through their history of running centrist, they have been winning by doing so. When they do their own version of litmus tests, they lose. The "Clean for Gene" and (whatever his slogan was) McGovern wing nearly consigned the Dems to the wilderness for two decades. They were only relieved of that in '76, largely thanks to Tricky Dicky's manipulations (the word at the time was that he thought no one would dare impeach him because Ford would take over and no one wanted that). But between '68 and '92 they had only those four years in the White House. When they ran centrist (even corporatist) candidates like Clinton and Obama, they won.

When the opposition hands you a gift, you take it. If you view the US political spectrum as a meter in length, the GOP have positioned themselves at and to the right of the 33 cm mark. What you need to do is sell to the white progressives and liberals what the black voter has long since figured out: When you get down to the 33 cm mark you're talking the dregs of American politics; the racists, bigots, theocrats, etc.... and those willing to put up with those dregs "just so's long as I get my tax cuts".

All you have to do is position yourself right in the middle, about the 50 cm mark on that scale. You'll get the support of everyone from about the 40 cm mark on over. If the progressives haven't been shaken up by the frightening right wing kleptocracy taking over Washington, then we need to go back to school. I mentioned in the '16 elections early on.... I was not supporting Hillary Clinton, I was trying to stop the Republicans. They had already become, in my mind, dangerous. They are more so, now.

Unless you're of the Tobacco Road(the song) attitude that the only thing we can do is "bring dynamite and a crane; blow it up and start all over again", why the hell would you sit on your hands and NOT fight the tyranny of the minority.

There is no prominent Democrat at that imagined 33 cm mark. Even Hillary is somewhere around 42/45. On the lefty reach, you have Bernie at about 65 cm, which is conceding a vast territory of moderates and even liberals to the GOP. Does anyone know, off the top of their heads, the number of US Senators in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Bing! That's right,... One. Sanders. And running for the Senate in Vermont is like running for the House in Vermont. They're both "at-large" races. Vermont has lower population:representation rates than the US average.

So you have a large caucus of 80/85(I can't recall) progressives, 100% of whom are local heroes. There are zero Senators other than Sanders. There are no governors. There's been no President, ever. There's been one Veep, back in the 40s.

It's an important wing of the Democratic Party but it's there, from my political perspective, to be the advance troops in the continuing leftward movement of the country - - - which has come to a screeching halt since 1970. The Dems need to find a way to engage the Progressive wing. The Progressive wing, in turn, needs to stop being Litmus Test Voters. We had an infamous member here who refused to support Sanders because he didn't like his stand on nuclear power (and maybe on gun control). He could list seventeen areas where they concurred on policy, but those two were enough for him to take his volleyball and go home.

Run a centrist. Incorporate the progressive wing. Progressives, learn from your old Trotskyite buddies, stay in the party and fight for it to win and fight to change it.

 

[Delvo]

I don't know why we have liberals and progressives believing conservative memes.

Telling the left they should abandon leftist positions & candidates is what sounds like conservative wish-granting to me... especially when it's the same advice that comes from the same professional consultants who've been making careers out of repeat failure. This is what they've already been up to lately. It's known not to work.

If you view the US political spectrum as a meter in length, the GOP have positioned themselves at and to the right of the 33 cm mark.

I think you've either reversed left & right or flipped your meterstick upside-down, but OK...

All you have to do is position yourself right in the middle, about the 50 cm mark on that scale. You'll get the support of everyone from about the 40 cm mark on over.

...except that you actually won't and don't. You might get some in that middle area, but your opposition will get some of them too, and meanwhile you're throwing away the entire right left high-numbered end of the stick, where you could have them easily without any competition, by giving voters there nothing to vote for at all because you look too much like the other party. (Say how illogical that might seem all you want, but it is those voters' perspective. If you think we should have universal single-payer health care and paid college and a livable minimum wage and such like all the rest of modern civilization, and you see two parties not doing any of those things or even coming anywhere near them or talking about them, and possibly even insisting on advice like yours to deliberately work to avoid them, then what makes one of those identically-behaving parties better than the other?)

In a way though, that whole debate between hypothetical models of how things hypothetically should go is exactly the problem. Anybody can concoct a hypothetical model to sound like it supports any course of action. The question is what happens in reality, not a spectrum diagram. And in reality, a lesson taken from the people who've lost a thousand seats in a decade is a lesson in how to lose a thousand seats in a decade, regardless of what hypotheses anybody imagines about anything.

you have Bernie at about 65 cm, which is conceding a vast territory of moderates and even liberals to the GOP.

The space between the two parties isn't vast and has both major parties fighting over it (despite the fact that only some of the middle is actually even "moderates" anyway as opposed to apathetics or such), and there is also space to the outside of both parties, at each end of the stick, which the people pushing this strategy pretend doesn't exist. The Republicans have been inclusive of the end that they're closer to, while the Democrats have been shunning the end that they're closer to. One of these choices has been winning; the other has been losing. (Just like the fact that, in a legislature, given the choice between actually fighting for a policy and just giving your opponents whatever they want, one of those choices tends to result in policies going your way, and the other tends to result in policies going your opponents' way.)

The Dems need to find a way to engage the Progressive wing.

Exactly. And the way to do that is not to keep abandoning them, betraying them, ignoring them, and telling them they don't matter.

The Progressive wing, in turn, needs to stop being Litmus Test Voters.

I might agree, depending on your meaning. If you mean ignoring agreement on most issues because of disagreement on one issue, then ya, that's dumb. But it's not what I see disengaged liberals doing. What they're doing is not-voting because the only choices we're given won't do anything for us on any issue. Some might sound like liberals while running, as Bill "a vote for me is a vote for Change" Clinton did while saying things like "the government can and should do more for the people", and as Barrack "hope and change" Obama did during his duel with Hillary over which one would be more hostile to Big Businesses (while turning back the rising of the ocean), but once they're in office, if it's just business as usual, what good did electing them do?

stay in the party and fight for it to win and fight to change it.

That's what the people you're arguing against want.

 

[Brainster]

Absolutely.

Let's be charitable and assume that the Republicans are staying fixed on the political spectrum. The suggestion that Democrats take a more centrist stance is actually a suggestion that Democrats move to the right. If they do this, the more "centrist" position becomes the new "left", and the process repeats.

I'm not sure how some people are unable to foresee this.

The party itself doesn't need to move to the right. They just have to be willing to accept a more centrist candidate (at times) in order to win.

Your argument, as I see, it boils down to a "politics as a tug of war" metaphor. Ceding ground is generally a bad idea in a tug of war, barring some sort of tactic to throw your opponent off balance. Going back to politics, you want people and candidates who can tug public opinion in their direction, through their vision and their oration.

My belief is that the voters are where they are, that you are very unlikely to sway a huge number of people who aren't already on your side with your vision and your oration. This is a 40-20-40 nation; 40% of the people will vote for a Democrat no matter what, and 40% will vote for a Republican, come hell or high water. The election comes down to the 20% in the middle.

And whom do you think is going to appeal to those middle voters? A candidate from the wings, or a centrist?

The problem is that going with a centrist can be dispiriting to the base, who are looking for a candidate more like them. But for every vote you gain in the center, you can afford to give up two votes from the base. Why? Because when you win a voter in the center, she is very likely a vote that you are taking from the other major party candidate as well, so that it's a net swing of two votes versus your most formidable opponent. When you lose a voter from your base, he is not likely to vote for the other major candidate, instead he will either cast his ballot for one of the third-party candidates.

That's not to say that a party can't go for the fences ever. This country has had a lot of "throw the bums out" elections, where the wind was at the back of the non-incumbent party. The elections of 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2008 certainly qualify and you can make an argument for 2000 and 2016 as well.

 

[Travis]

I struggle to think of in what way Hillary was more to the right than previous Democratic candidates.

Anyone want to help solve that?

 

[Foolmewunz]

That's not to say that a party can't go for the fences ever. This country has had a lot of "throw the bums out" elections, where the wind was at the back of the non-incumbent party. The elections of 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2008 certainly qualify and you can make an argument for 2000 and 2016 as well.

Well, if you lived through 'em you could also make that argument for '52 and '68, also. So actually the "winds of change" applies to most general elections where we see a, well, "change". Government, as Donnie Johnny has figure out, is complicated. Running against something, even a nebulous lie, is easier than having to come up with your own viable programs.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Telling the left they should abandon leftist positions & candidates is what sounds like conservative wish-granting to me... especially when it's the same advice that comes from the same professional consultants who've been making careers out of repeat failure. This is what they've already been up to lately. It's known not to work.

I think you've either reversed left & right or flipped your meterstick upside-down, but OK...

...except that you actually won't and don't. You might get some in that middle area, but your opposition will get some of them too, and meanwhile you're throwing away the entire right left high-numbered end of the stick, where you could have them easily without any competition, by giving voters there nothing to vote for at all because you look too much like the other party. (Say how illogical that might seem all you want, but it is those voters' perspective. If you think we should have universal single-payer health care and paid college and a livable minimum wage and such like all the rest of modern civilization, and you see two parties not doing any of those things or even coming anywhere near them or talking about them, and possibly even insisting on advice like yours to deliberately work to avoid them, then what makes one of those identically-behaving parties better than the other?)

In a way though, that whole debate between hypothetical models of how things hypothetically should go is exactly the problem. Anybody can concoct a hypothetical model to sound like it supports any course of action. The question is what happens in reality, not a spectrum diagram. And in reality, a lesson taken from the people who've lost a thousand seats in a decade is a lesson in how to lose a thousand seats in a decade, regardless of what hypotheses anybody imagines about anything.

The space between the two parties isn't vast and has both major parties fighting over it (despite the fact that only some of the middle is actually even "moderates" anyway as opposed to apathetics or such), and there is also space to the outside of both parties, at each end of the stick, which the people pushing this strategy pretend doesn't exist. The Republicans have been inclusive of the end that they're closer to, while the Democrats have been shunning the end that they're closer to. One of these choices has been winning; the other has been losing. (Just like the fact that, in a legislature, given the choice between actually fighting for a policy and just giving your opponents whatever they want, one of those choices tends to result in policies going your way, and the other tends to result in policies going your opponents' way.)

Exactly. And the way to do that is not to keep abandoning them, betraying them, ignoring them, and telling them they don't matter.

I might agree, depending on your meaning. If you mean ignoring agreement on most issues because of disagreement on one issue, then ya, that's dumb. But it's not what I see disengaged liberals doing. What they're doing is not-voting because the only choices we're given won't do anything for us on any issue. Some might sound like liberals while running, as Bill "a vote for me is a vote for Change" Clinton did while saying things like "the government can and should do more for the people", and as Barrack "hope and change" Obama did during his duel with Hillary over which one would be more hostile to Big Businesses (while turning back the rising of the ocean), but once they're in office, if it's just business as usual, what good did electing them do?

That's what the people you're arguing against want.

All you have to do is show me these great huge Progressive numbers, and I'm your boy.

I didn't say you have to "discipline" the Progressives if you're a Democrat. I said you have to engage them, involve them, sell them on the horrors that continued GOP leadership are. But give back* to the progressive wing... it's the history of the 20th century until the last year, at least. Three steps forward, one step back. This year it's been more like five steps back. The crap that Presidents get away with via Executive Orders is out of control, but no one wants to address that. Like campaign reform, the topic is taboo because it's where their bread-and-butter is.

*This is where the Bernie wing lost it. Hillary ameliorated her stance on a number of things and it became proof that she's "No True Progressive"... a litmus test. There are "no true progressives" and "no true conservatives" in give-and-take mainstream politics. Be content that your party's candidate has taken pages from your book. (That's assuming it's actually "your" party and you don't take your volleyball and go home because someone fails a litmus test.)

Keep your eye on the prize. In this case, it's a negative prize - stopping the Republicans. The Communists and Republicans in China figured this out seventy-five years ago. Why is it so hard for well-educated Americans?

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely.

Let's be charitable and assume that the Republicans are staying fixed on the political spectrum. The suggestion that Democrats take a more centrist stance is actually a suggestion that Democrats move to the right. If they do this, the more "centrist" position becomes the new "left", and the process repeats.

I'm not sure how some people are unable to foresee this.

Not only that, but the actual voters on the left might sit this one out or vote for an independant, while the voters on the right will simply not vote Democrat anyway.

 

[theprestige]

You realise that the majority of the Democrat base is made up of Centerists right? That swinging sharply to the Left is most likely to austricize them and leave them in a position for the Republicans to pick up.

Once they're austricized, they'll be ready for annexation by their ethnic comrades across the border.

 

[Belz...]

I struggle to think of in what way Hillary was more to the right than previous Democratic candidates.

Anyone want to help solve that?

It's the impression that she's a bit of a hawk, and possibly with close ties with Wall Street, that's driving this impression.

 

[Tero]

It's really surprising how many people think all the Ds have to do is run a warm body without scandals in order to beat Trump in 2020. It's like people didn't learn anything from all of the numerous "beginning of the end"s predicted for Trump in 2015 and 2016 by all of the "pros."

For example, in August of 2015 the much worshipped Nate Silver of 538 gave Trump a 2% chance of winning the R nomination. (Much less an electoral victory in the GE.) Granted it was an off the cuff prediction, not a result of statistical analysis, but the sentiment was clear.

If the economy is doing well and Trump hasn't started any unnecessary wars or done anything major that is overtly stupid then he MAY stand a good chance of being elected to a second term. And by then all of the "he's the next Hitler" and similar memes will have been proven false.

The economy was not doing badly in 2016. There were jobs issues, but also jobs if people were willing to move. So 2016 was mainly people eneaged about a black man or a white woman trying to punish the Democrats.

Trump is clueless about working legislation so he can only run, the only he is good at. He also cannot function without pretending he will run, as running is part of winning. Talking to his base. But I don’t think he has it in him to do the job 4 more years. He is bored and frustrated. Someone should tell him the congress you get in 2020 is bad for you. They can barely pass a budget.

Some kind of operation of saving face has to be devised. Pence or someone else will run in 2020. A more normal election with more boring candidates. But still, now reduced to Twitter sized messages. People are more and more stuck in their social media bubbles.