CNN Graphic Shows a Total of 29 Potential 2020 Dem Contenders: We're Not 'Scraping the Bucket...

[Soph0571]

....to Find Names’

Including Warren, others in the graphic included:

Former Vice President Joe Biden
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Former Secretary of State John Kerry
Rep. Robert O’Rourke (D-TX)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT)
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)
Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)

[link:https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/cnn-graphic-shows-a-total-of-29-potential-2020-dem-contenders-were-not-scraping-the-bucket-to-find-names/|

Its a long list!

[SFnomad]

1. BS has told us he isn't a Democrat ... and since we have more than enough real Democrats ...

We really don't need him as part of the mix. He'll just end up helping cause a repeat of 2016 and giving us another 4 years of tRump.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Why so devisive? I thought the Democratic Party is the "Big Tent" party...

We should be uniting if we want to win in 2020.

[MrsCoffee]

8. Divisive?

We have plenty of great candidates that are proud members of the Democratic Party. Why on earth would we want someone who bashes the party and boasts about NOT being a Democrat?

That “Unity Tour” was just a joke played on the party. There is absolutely zero chance of uniting around Bernie Sanders. That just isn’t his style.

[Autumn]

11. He's not a Democrat. He should find his own people to ally with or start his own party.

He's not needed in the Democratic party.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

22. Seriously Autumn... what are people thinkin'!! Can you imagine if Bernie ran as an Independent?!

Last edited Tue Jan 1, 2019, 03:47 PM - Edit history (1)

The 2020 election would be a disaster for us!! Guess the "Big Tent" is more like a pup-tent.

[NurseJackie]

16. WTF is that supposed to mean? I see no division. I see no disunity.

We should be uniting if we want to win in 2020.

WTF is that supposed to mean? I see no division. I see no disunity. The loyal MEMBERS of the Democratic Party are already united. There's no need for the party to pull-up-stakes and move the entire tent just to be "inclusive" of of a few malcontents who refuse to budge from their non-support of the Democratic Party.

All I'm trying to say is the "division" you're complaining about doesn't exist in real life.



Note: Look! I spelled every word correctly. I think I deserve a parade and some sort of commendation.

[oberliner]

13. He got quite a lot of support in the Democratic primaries and caucuses last time around

That should count for something.

Also some pretty impressive rallies.

[David__77]

15. I voted for him and was glad to do so.

It’s going to be an interesting primary season and discussion leading up to a platform and convention!

[oberliner]

17. He has definitely earned a prominent seat at the table, that's for sure

The excitement he generated in 2016 was something special.

Also, the Democratic Party platform was largely shaped by his input - and has, in fact, moved closer to his vision of the party.

[Jim Lane]

21. No. Those 13 million people were all deluded and should be ignored.

We can spot Trump 13 million votes and still win, as long as we keep our eyes on the ball. What will really count in 2020 is not health care or bloated military spending or income inequality or any other such trivia. What the electorate will really care about is formal party identification. As long as we adhere to purity on that score, our victory is assured.

Or so I would gather from reading DU.

[karynnj]

14. There is NO proof that Sanders cost Clinton votes

It is true that 10 percent of the primary voters of Sanders voted for Trump, just as 25% of Clinton's 2008 voters voted for McCain. We have no idea if these people would have voted at all without Bernie or if they would have voted for Clinton.

Another unknown number is the number of voters who voted for Bernie in the primary then HRC in the general election who without getting drawn in by Bernie would not have voted at all. Without estimates of these 3 numbers, it is impossible to estimate whether he helped or hurt Clinton.

[David__77]

18. It's a rather sour, irresponsible narrative.

...

[karynnj]

20. Also divisive

I do not think that Sanders will come close to his 2016 numbers that benefited by being the "anybody but Clinton" AND were even then too low to win. I would even guess that his current number might be his high water mark.

In any election, there will be some people who "fall in love" with a candidate and others that very consciously are picking the candidate that they perfer out of many. I think that many candidates - notably Warren and Sherrod Brown - have the ability to appeal to both people who voted for Sanders and people who voted for Clinton.

Warren has taken the first step and is exploring a run. Several others will do so this month if past elections are a guide. That step and the step of officially announcing are times when many voters will get closer views of who they are. I suspect that many on that list, which includes some who have signaled they are not running, will never take the step to running. Others may test the waters and find them too cold or see that there is a much stronger person in their lane.

Not to mention, we can't ignore what happens on the ground in NH and Iowa. In some years, candidates have emerged with momentum after Iowa to get a national look that they did not get before. here Amy Klobuchar might be a dark horse (from a neighboring state) who might do well enough to gain that look.

Another thing that will happen is that as some people leave, the people interested in them will look for a second choice. I would bet that by the primaries, there will be a much smaller number of candidates. The biggest changes would be if some who are at the top - especially Biden or Sanders - opt out. Given their numbers, they might be extremely encouraged to run, especially because if they win the nomination - they have a good chance of becoming President. (I think the dynamics in the general election are more 2008 than any other year - even though Trump is the incumbent - his numbers are closer to Carter or Bush 1.)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. Exactly right Karyn... the Bernie supporters were as loyal as any voters... party unity prevailed.

Thanks for pointing that out!!

[Sherman A1]

2. Seems to be an interesting if wildly speculative one

I am also missing Andrew Yang on it who has already declared his candidacy as a Democrat.

[femmedem]

10. Yes. I caught that, too.

I realize his chances are slim to none, but he deserves to be included. Not only has he declared, unlike the majority on this list, but he's also talking about the massive impending job losses due to automation.

[Sherman A1]

12. Agreed

1). The list is really about the “horse race” narrative more than anything else. Hardly serious journalism.
2). If Yang is on my state ballot he gets my vote. I listened to him on Book TV and he seems to be way ahead in his thinking.

[allgood33]

3. What about Martin O'Malley?

I believe he warrants a serious look.

[Glimmer of Hope]

9. Word in Baltimore is that he has some problematic

Issues.

[Vinca]

5. Not a nut among them.

[samnsara]

6. every single one of them more qualified than trump!

[Skidmore]

7. I can see several

really valuable legislators I wish would stay in Congress and work for change in the institution itself. I can see a couple of people I won't even consider now.

[Buckeyeblue]

19. I could see a Harris/Castro ticket coming out of that field