Top 15 Dem Candidates for 2020 According to the WaPo

Even the writer admits that age will be a factor (Sanders, Brown, Biden). They may all run, but it's unlikely any of those three can win the nomination. Sanders, for one, is not even a Democrat, and I don't think the DNC will make the same mistake again and allow him to run as one.

him to run again.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

Give or take a couple.

I am currently leaning towards Tom Steyer.

The best way to prevent Bernie from running again is to add as much of his economic and campaign financing agenda to ours as possible.

He ran last time because there was a large popular demand for what he stood for and nobody else was going to speak to it. The fact that he didn't develop an adequate approach to winning the votes of people of color is actually a sign that he DIDN'T want to run.

Bernie is not the problem and trying to make this party a Bernista-free zone is not going to help us win in '18 OR '20.

Bernistas and non-Bernistas(I'm not talking about 'bros here-they're a lost cause and may never have even been Sanders supporters at all) will have to work together. That can be achieved without anyone in this party being de-centered or betrayed.

if the Democratic Party requires someone running as a Democrat to actually BE a Democrat? It seems not only reasonable, but pretty basic.

Bernie does not get to dictate the Democratic Party's agenda. Democrats do that. If he wants a say, it's pretty simple what he needs to do.

And it's not about Bernie dictating anything. This has never been about things Bernie supports and no other Dems support.

I get it that his campaign didn't say enough on the stump about historic and continuing oppression(he had a clear commitment to anti-oppression in his actual platform, his supporters have the same views on social oppression as anyone in the party who didn't support the guy, but he didn't communicate it in his speeches and his campaign did not do an effective enough job at listening to communities of color and to women or speaking specifically to them.

That's why I say he should NOT run again.

But while he shouldn't run again, this party needs to add and COMMUNICATE THAT IT HAS ADDED a significant amount of his economic ideas and his commitment to reducing the role of corporate power in politics-and shape all of that into proposals that account and adjust for the effects of historic oppression.

The idea is to add that on economic justice to our existing social justice commitment-and also move at least slightly away from "bear any burden, fight any foe" on foreign policy. It's not about wanting anyone to take over, it's about blending the best with the best.

Doing THAT is the best way to make sure he doesn't run, and we lose nothing by doing that.

It's true that they emphasized (NOT added) many positions on corporate power (for example). It's debatable whether or not they did it because of Sanders; after all, he doesn't and never has owned those positions all by himself. I know some Berniecrats think so, but it's demonstrably untrue.

Yes, they should keep those positions, but it's unnecessary to call them Bernie Sanders' positions, as if he invented them. The Democratic Party has always stood for curbing unfettered corporate power; it's a matter of emphasis, not something that's brand new to it.

(As to the last platform...the ideas were added, then the platform went unmentioned in the fall campaign while Sanders people were repeatedly told that their efforts were a pointless failure...clearly we should have LED with the platform-it was just as important as leading with the person, because voters care as much about what we stand for and what we will do as they do about the individual we nominate and care more about what we are promising than they will ever care about how horrible the other other party is).

I'm talking about how we create the conditions in which Bernie doesn't run, and the conditions in which those of his supporters who weren't with us in November of '16 ARE with us in November of '18 and November of '20. We should WANT them to be with us, shouldn't we?

The way to do that is to show(as we chose not to show in the '16 general election campaign)that what his supporters had done had made a difference and had made our platform better, and to accept that they have a legitimate role to play in OUR partybecause we need to give them buy-in with us rather than just demanding that they support our nominee on whatever platform we adopt just to get Trump out.

This party stands for good things. Always has. It does no harm to acknowledge that sometimes we need to stand for better things. that we are usually better when we listen more to voices from below than voices from above, and that we are at our best when we respond to advocacy for change and for better policies. We can win by being a party that is open to debate and discussion, open to honest, respectful conversation.

And while Our Revolution has often expressed itself in a far more harsh and confrontational manner than it should have, if we are honest we should admit that we needed to hear the message, despite its tone.

We can do all of that without, in the slightest, minimizing the effects of Russia, Comey and vote suppression.

It ran on slogans instead of facts.

Many of us are facing personal disasters. I will actively oppose any more movements and candidacies of people lacking meaningful foreign policy experience or that present simplistic and bs slogans.

And it was never "manipulation" to question the idea that the '16 result was ONLY caused by Russia, Comey, and voter suppression.

It's enough to say those were part of it.

Russian lies were a distant but decisive second.

The best evidence is that Clinton's economic message resonated more than Trump's did.

n/t.

ideology from the inception of those ideas, and there's nothing new about them.

That's how he's gotten reelected for decades -- calling himself independent, claiming to be above his colleagues and offering something seeming shinier and more determined, suggesting he's just slightly radical, enough to seem exciting but never dangerous, and then voting reliably Democrat along with the people he despises. A winning formula with his constituents. Including the never producing the "more" he only rants about but never delivers.

What I think we're going to see by 2019 is who's replacing him. Judging from the dwindling of mentions here, leftist DUers who also despise mainstream Democratic politicians are about ready for a new leader.

Judging from the breaking up of his post-2016 following into separate, competing groups, it'll also be interesting to see if they can put aside the typical quarrels already developing to come together behind one person. That last has always been a severe weak point.

to our country. Face it, one reason we Dems let him run as a Dem is that it would divide the votes and make it impossible for Dems to win, if he ran as an Independent.

Either respect* Bernie Sanders or he'll run as an Independent out of pure pique even when he KNOWS he'll divide the vote. To hell with the country.

*give him whatever he wants.

She was a good candidate, but simply ONE good candidate of several. And no one is ever owed a presidential nomination.

If Bernie had stayed out of the primaries, Trump would have carrieed the Electoral College anyway.

And it's not about "respecting Bernie"-it's about accepting that we have to INCLUDE the issues his campaign raised as part(not all, but part) of our message.

Is that such a terrible thing?

What are you talking about? Nobody is doing that. Nobody is saying that.

Who are you talking to? Nobody is saying that. It's a strawman argument you're making and knocking over... but for what purpose?

Depends on what you're talking about.

Thank you. Sometimes I just have to shake my head in perplexity at some of the stuff said here.

her with lies and conspiracy theories that noone in their right mind...Fox Repubs...would believe. They were euphoric on Hillary Hate.

But that's the Right, not the prohibitive majority of Sanders supporters.

Support for Sanders was based almost entirely on the fact that those who backed him saw him as the only person in the race addressing
the set of issues he emphasized, not sexism, not dismissal of social justice Sanders supporters-whatever you might say about Bernie's personal emphases-were and are just as anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, anti-xenophobia and pro-choice as HRC supporters.

And I strongly suspect that the vast majority of HRC supporters never thought economic justice and social justice were in any actual way in conflict, or that economic justice as a concept was something they thought needed to be put aside.

There was never a difference on the actual issues between the voters for each candidate, there's no reason the voters for each can't now find common ground, there's no valid reason to try to exclude or silence either group, so whatever anyone might think of either candidate, can we at all agree that the artificial divisions created by the primary should finally be ended so we can all accept that we are all, on the Left, on the same freaking side?

What matters is unity and the future.

16. We need fresh faces.

The best way to make sure that he doesn't is to embrace the economic ideas from his campaign-just call it "full democracy" and embrace his supporters-IN ADDITION to continuing to embrace the supporters we have now.

The worst way is for people to refuse to let up on "Bernie caused Trump/Bernie had no business running" canards and to treat Sanders supporters like they're the enemy and should just shut up and do what they're told.

It's not possible to simply bar him from the next primaries and then STILL demand that his supporters back whoever we nominate.

We need new ideas, but we need the ideas from that campaign as part of those ideas.

We can't win if we anathemize anyone and anything even remotely connected to what his campaign was about. His proposals weren't unpopular and they weren't wrong. And they can't be blamed for what happened in November, because the campaign we ran after Philly virtually never mentioned those...the televised message was boiled down almost entirely to "it's time to elect a woman", "defend choice" and "Trump is a predatory scumbag"-all of which were and are valid points, but none of which were ever going to put us over the top in and of themselves.

2016 was a disaster, we all agree on that, but it serves no purpose to blame the Sanders movement for it any more than to blame HRC as an individual-which is why I never do that-or to keep arguing that he should have been barred from the primaries when the approach the party had been using on a lot of issues made something like the Sanders movement inevitable.

And if Bernie had actually wanted to destroy this party or had secretly wanted to help Trump, he would have accepted Stein's offer of the Green ballot line for November. He refused to do that.

It would have made no difference if the nomination had been settled in March and the attack ads against Trump had started three months earlier. If none of the attack ads the other GOP candidates ran made any difference against Trump, why would running any of the attack ads we ran after the convention-none of which ever swung a single "moderate suburban Republican woman" voter towards us, why would it have served any purpose at to run even MORE attack ads?

Nobody is doing that. Nobody is saying that. Why are you "defending" against something that's not even happening? What good purpose does that serve?

If he ran the last time as an independent I think he might have won

but I REALLY don't want him to run as a Democrat, unless he becomes one and sticks to it. I'm not going to argue about whether or not he would have won, but he really shouldn't run again.

Candidates would not have to move to extremes to attract the activist true-believers.

and a different Republican primaried the Democratic candidate. Because I live in a closed primary state, we did not wind up with a choice between two Republicans in the GE.

Hopefully there will be a dark horse that comes out in the next few years to take the lead.

I think he could be a force to reckon. He could be an incredible candidate.

the voters have spoken in the majority of states on medical cannabis legalization and a growing number on recreational

we are not letting a politician like him erase the progress and drag us back into prohibition. no way

to!

The party needs to get these young dems out there, front & center & get them some name & face recognition before 2020.

This is an opinion piece by Aaron Blake. His opinions are his own.

Biden, perhaps, but hopefully not.

Joe, but he won't take us over tbe finish line.

Booker needs to be on the ticket.

I will vote Dem, no matter, but I will not support with my time or money any ticket that Gillibrand is on. I will support Biden, but there are people that have a better chance of winning.

I think he could win that. They can't make as much of age as they'd both be old. Joe might have the personality to be able to make fun of Donald. He has experience debating Palin, another ridiculous candidate.

been able to carry a Dem primary. Nonetheless, if Joe is the nominee, I will work hard for him.

The Republicans would just lo-o-ove Sanders to run. Anyone who thought Clinton's campaign beat up on Bernie would be in for a rude awakening.

This list is opinion-based, not better than anyone here might draw up.

Besides, let's concentrate on 2018. First things first.

than not being interested or deferring to his older brother. I will now find out from our more astute members...

2020 seems like pretty far-out speculative stuff, given that we still have 2018 to get through
if Democrats don't take back some of those state houses and governorships in 2018, 2020 is going to be just another fucking miserable year in what will have become a fairly long string of them by then.

a US Prez would want to separate immigrant kids and parents; fire all of the scientists; discredit all media but his own propaganda station; discredit the FBI; stir up war in the middle east; alienate Mexico and be condemned by the UN.

we currently living under President Scott Walker. This crisis goes so much further than Donald Trump. He is the ultimate symptom, not the main cause.

Are you familiar with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach? Be afraid. He strikes me as a future dictator of America.

The Repubs support each other, waive the flag and stick together, as least the facade. They fight for each other until there is no hope, while.using lying and cheating, and whatever it takes (NBD, that's their culture, ), whether they are right.or wrong.

They sure don't threw their winners overbard with jealous mobs,. Other than 2 or 3 lemmings, who stand alone, in the rush to shut down our most effective, we cast them aside with the speed of light BEFORE the facts can be brought.out.
We have a.lot of work to do becase we have some deep psychlogical and jealousy problems. The no due process aspect,.means we did either did.not follow or have comepent legal staff either.
Personally, I think we need a purge in order to retain kiour credibility or we won't be the party who survives

Of Booker/Gillibrand. Biden is the safe choice.

She would never get elected and she would sink any Dem she gets near.


We need to win this time, and we can't take reckless chances. We would never win with her. She is way, way more divisive than Hillary or Bernie ever were.
She needs to keep a low profile. I have worked and raised money for Dems, almost every election. If she is on the ticket, Dems get my vote, nada mas, nary a dime.

She has done enough damage to our party to last a lifetime.

but not the one who throws out Dems from the Senate and goes after Bill C.

She'd be a fine candidate, and almost certainly would have the support of the vast majority of Dems.

Has much less baggage--whether justified or not--than HRC. It felt like there was a fairly large portion of voters who simply would not vote for HRC. Maybe Gillibrand will be the same?

I love Hillary, but I don't want her to run again...too much IRRATIONAL, STUPID, Hillary Hate.

G has at least as much, IMO, but not the experience or judgment. I'm sure the Repubs would love Gillibrand or Hillary because they can drive a wedge among voters.

Though I'll support whoever the Dems nominate.

Trump will have his record working against him, he won't be the new thing where people will forgive his behavior. His 25% base will be with him, but the 75% will be looking for anyone else, we just need to run a hardworking candidate that is alert and well spoken, and has government experience - after Trump more people are seeing that we need people that have run government offices before.

I'd vote for him in the Primary.

Young, energetic, basically no political baggage, would get a massive minority vote.

Can't think of anyone I'd rather see in the WH.

Adam Shiff

We have to take on lying, cheating Repubs, and we need someone with a lot of charisma. Sounds so shallow.
However, we have seen that having the most qualified candidate ever is not enough.

... for the top of the ticket. He's a winner!!

Recommended.

But I could get on board. I'd worry about how much that ticket would connect outside the northeast though.

He should have been out there everyday following the primaries, as Hillary did for Barack. When the his chances fizzled he went back to being an independent. He bashes the dems ALL the time. He is much too old, he's proven that he wants things his way, and only his way...not a team player. Why would the dems support him??!!

... a big fat NO for slots 2-4 when it comes to our party's nomination. I'd never support any of them during the Democratic primaries.

Harris, Booker, Winfrey and Johnson... all POC... definitely excite me! Depending on how their campaigns are run will affect my decision on whether I view them as being viable candidates and actual contenders.

It's fun to play this game, but there's no way to know for sure... only time will tell.

Win,and if it lookslike she could, whatever. At least, we know she will get competent people around her with experience.

I would even go for Oprah, Booker, but we need to test poll voters. We have to win! The Most important thing is to win!!

Not a serious list.

But the rest seem pretty serious to me.

I’m not convinced that The Rock would run as a Democrat. Politically I’m sure he’s left of center, but I think he would go independent.

In a weird way, "The Rock" is comparable to "Ike"- if "Ike" had been a star of action movies rather than a World War II general.

???? and let us keep vetting....it's early yet......

Joe Lieberman?

She’s doesn’t act like someone who wants to do that. I’m also not convinced that people will want a first term president approaching or past life expectancy.

Chris Murphy is interesting.

...needs a new assignment!

Note the language at 2:00: "we" want etc. Now, that could easily be we democrats, but it sounds like a platform to me.

around 8:30: "That's what Bernie and I are fighting for. We're in this fight all the way. We need you in it too"

There will be a dark horse candidate that comes up and takes it

I think a woman running for president is going to have to have a lower timbre to her voice. HRC had a great political voice & I think Kamala Harris does, too.

Surprised to see The Rock & Oprah on that list. Can we stop electing people with zero government experience into the highest office of the land?

In case you're thinking it's sexist, there are a slew of men with unpleasant voices too, like Richard Blumenthal.

Chris Murphy and Adam Schiff, or vice versa.

Is my pick. New face nationally.

Al over WITHOUT DUE.PEOCESS!!! Not the ring leader,.but she ruhed to.prevent due process.

Ill work for Dems, raising money for the Senate, but never her. Perhaps, if she atoned, and really tried to change things, but I think it is all to complicated now.

If she is the only choice of a Dem in an election, I will hold.my.nose and vote.