Donald Trump told his supporters to pretend that he was on the ballot in the midterm elections, and many voters from both parties acted like he was. The estimated 114 million people who turned out to vote was within shouting distance of the 137 million who voted in 2016. But what if Trump really had been on the ballot? Out of curiosity, TIME gamed out what a presidential election would have looked like in 2018 if one were to replace votes for House candidates with votes for a presidential candidate of the same party. In this speculative face-off, the hypothetical Democrat wins the White House with 284 electoral votes, well north of the 270 needed to win. http://time.com/5449607/midterm-elections-results-donald-trump-2020/
What is clear, though, is the importance of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (although you could also add Minnesota to the mix). Win all three of them — let’s call them the Northern Path — and Democrats don’t need Florida, assuming that they hold the other states. Lose all three, and even Florida wouldn’t be enough. Instead, they’d have to win Florida plus at least one of North Carolina, Arizona, Texas and Georgia as part of what you might call a Sun Belt Strategy. Hillary Clinton’s problem was that Trump performed well in the Northern Path states — and she didn’t campaign in them enough — but at the same time, the Sun Belt Strategy wasn’t really ripe yet. She did much better than a typical Democratic candidate in Arizona and Texas, but not well enough to actually pull off wins there. Getting stuck in between the Northern Path and the Sun Belt Strategy is a big risk for Democrats: where their Electoral College problems become most acute. And although the potential addition of Texas to the Sun Belt Strategy group of states makes it more intriguing, Tuesday night’s results suggest that the Northern Path is still the path of least resistance for a Democrat hoping to win the Electoral College. If Trump has lost the benefit of the doubt from voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, he may not have so much of an Electoral College advantage in 2020. https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ike-2012-and-that-got-me-thinking-about-2020/
So you are hoping she runs because otherwise it's game over? Dems are not gonna sit out the next election unlike 2016, - there is no Comey, Trump supporters cannot make the same appeal to LGBT/Minorities/Anti-War/Anti-Corporate/ProWeed voters, Russian propaganda has totally lost its sheen except for Republicans and if the economy slows down then even that excuse goes away.
I am making the point that the Democrats better not select Hillary again in 2020. A point that seems to be lost on Hillary and many of her crony-capitalism left-wing supporters.
There is no history of that kind of thing happening and it won't happen, prepare for a Beto/Booker/Warren/Harris combination and Trump throwing tantrums and bitching when he loses in 2020.
Doubt shes running and if she did I doubt she would get the nom.Just cause she could beat Trump doesn't mean there arent others better.2020 is also about Trump far more than the democrat nominee.