Well, I gave you a study as well, that must count a bit more than a hunch.

As towards Trump: fair enough. I also worry about post-Trump (I am old enough to remember both George Bush presidencies, especially the son was considered back then the worst president of all times. But fair enough. Trump is bad news, I agree. I still think about what will come after.

If Trump loses, especially if he loses big, I think the Republicans are going to turn on him savagely.

If Trumpism can't win the election, then the republican party is in deep trouble. Particularly with the shifting demographics in the southwest. If Texas and Arizona continue shifting in the direction they've been going, then the party is in an existential crisis. If Trump's 2016 performance in the rust belt was an anomaly (which seems like it may be the case) and Texas can't be relied on, then the party has no path to success on a national level.

In that event, they would desperately need to pivot to the center. And Trump would be an obstacle. I don't believe the republicans would want Trump to run in 2024. If he were in the primary though, he would drag the whole field to the right. If he loses, he might run anyway, which would all but ensure a democratic victory. 

Even if he stayed out of the races, he's such a polarizing figure that he would be an anchor around the party's neck. If the 2024 candidate (let's say someone like Marco Rubio) tried to distance themselves from him, he'd lash out. And Trump would effectively serve as a boogeyman for the Democrats if Trump was a vocal supporter for the next candidate. And, honestly, if Trump loses, would it surprise you if he blamed everyone but himself, including the republican party in general? 

That puts the party in an odd position. They need to appeal to Trump voters, but Trump's support would galvanize Democrats and possibly repel moderates. Then, what can the party do?

The only thing they could do is try their best to completely destroy him. Spend the first two years of the Biden presidency completely dismantling him, scapegoat him, blame him for the party's performance (although maybe that's not quite scapegoating), and effectively beat him into silence. Do everything they can to make sure he's out of the public eye by the next election, and try to "rebrand" the party in 2024.

Calling it now, if Biden wins with something like 315 or more, then Biden will be #3 on the republican hit list. #2 will be Kamala Harris. #1 will be Donald Trump.

So Nanci said she thinks there should be any debate between trump and biden. I wonder why. I have been saying this for a while I have serious doubts there will be debates, which would be shameful.

You really wonder why? Trump would destroy the poor man. 

I sincerely doubt that. Trump would destroy himself, make a fool out of himself. Biden might do that too. But at least he has a coherent message. 

Will they, though? Or will they just blame the economy/Coronavirus/mail-in voting/whatever instead? I'm fairly sure it's the latter, blaming something else for their failure like they always do.

And it wouldn't be the first time, either. They didn't change course after Obama crushed McCain in 2008. In fact, they doubled down on their core tenants and pushed them further to the right.

I'm also fairly sure that in 2024 either Ivanka, Jared Kushner or Trump Jr. will run for office. How they will fare is another question, though.

Yes I know, biden is almost senile at this point and most likely would say something nonsense luke he is running for senate of something. Trump would just be trump and be the bully he usually is. Unless biden is using a teleprompter or have access to the questions before the debate which is something that definitely didnt happen in 2016. 

In the end I believe a live debate wouldnt change things but it would be a shame if there is not at least one debate anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/elections/pelosi-says-biden-should-not-debate-trump-biden-disagrees.html

'Mr. Biden said on Thursday that not only would he debate Mr. Trump, he would fact-check him. “I’m going to be a fact-checker on the floor while I’m debating him,” Mr. Biden told MSNBC, adding that the president had a “somewhat pathological tendency not to tell the truth.”'

--

Nancy Pelosi does not control when and where Presidential debates are held, she gave an opinion. You both could have done this basic research in about 2 minutes or less, yet you both decided to run with this exaggeration. I'm tired of trying to nicely nudge people with an accurate account of the situation, you both have your own responsibility to make sure you're not looking like fools.

Biden immediately said he disagreed with Pelosi and that he'd debate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/elections/pelosi-says-biden-should-not-debate-trump-biden-disagrees.html

People can keep up bringing the stupid senility claims, even though there's been overwhelming proof it is nonsense. It just lowers the bar for Biden to perform well in the debate.

Actually you look like a fool trying to put words in my mouth. I never said Biden himself said he wouldnt debate. I dont need to fact check something I didnt say. Maybe you didnt read properly but I said Nancy said that. 

And again, I really hope there is a series of debates as this is really important for democracy, and if questions are handed prior to the debate they hand it to both parties.