Incumbents have an advantage over challengers.
When Obama was doing a campaign stop in 2012, the press had to cover it... because at any moment he could have announced a new policy or military effort.  Mitt Romney was begging for that kind of coverage.

Whomever the Democrats pick, they'll be at a similar disadvantage.  As incumbent, Trump will get more attention.  It's unavoidable.

Mexico tries to fix this unfairness by saying, you just can't run for any reelection.  The Confederacy had the same rule.  But Mexico's experience has not been great - Presidents of Mexico behave with impunity because they know that inauguration day is the pinnacle of their careers.  They know they will never face the people again.  

But there is another way.  We should let people run for re-election, but it should be a yes or no question.  Obama should have had to run, not against Romney, but simply, "no.". 

If a majority says "yes," the incumbent gets another term.  No need to have a challenger go through a big campagin.  If the majority says "no," the incumbent is disqualified, and you start an election cycle with two new candidates.  You could also do this with Congress and state house and other elections.

What do you think?

---