The unmentioned Sherrod Brown is the Democrats' dark horse.
3
Can someone please explain to me why Elizabeth Warren's brilliant release of her DNA data was a mistake? Trump challenged her that he would contribute 1 megabuck to the cause of her choice if she could prove what she proved.
Of course he welched. Instead of pointing this out, the left criticized her!!!
BTW - her choice was for a group dedicated to helping battered women - another sharp idea.
I guarantee you will never hear Trump say Pocahontas again. Even though Trump - or more likely one of his possibly effective moderators - recognizes this. But the Democrats and left-leaning press formed a circular firing squad with Senator Warren in the middle.
Is there any hope?
Yes, neither one of the three can be hopeful in the climate of the misguided belief in Trumpian "redneckism" and disenchantment with the leftist, radical, militantly vegan, anti-tobacco pro-cannabis Democrats.
1
Sad but predictable part of the Dem run for the roses is that Beto, Bernie and Biden are men. They are the enemy of the Dem State. The advocacy groups that run the party will nominate a multi-ethnic looking woman. And that's that. Hello, President Trump... again!
We should all be focusing on the nightmare that is happening right now. How are we going to remove this psychopathic criminal from the highest office right now? We can worry about Biden Bernie and Beto later. And why would democrats ever care what Bruni says about anything?
1
I have a solution to the problem Frank describes so well. He and all the other opinion writers in all the press, when they have nothing important to say, should say nothing. Leave column space empty. Invite readers to doodle or otherwise take advantage of the empty space. Maybe the publisher can sell the space for advertising at steep discount.
3
I love you, Joe Biden, but please don't run.
Bernie, you're a powerhouse and I resonate with your politics, but please don't run.
Beto, you are a rising star, but please don't run.
1
Frank, thank you for your steadfast sanity.
Bernie & Beto will expand Bernie’s 2016 two-word sound-bite campaign slogan of only “Political Revolution” into a short but complete ‘action sentence’ with the ‘object’ of the same democratic change as America’s first “Political Revolution Against Empire” [Justin du Rivage] in the ‘New World’ of 1776.
1
Mr. Trump consecrates ordinary folks with their own precious American identity--most underrated and ignored political force by the cynical liberal media. Stuck in their manufactured liberal rut of political correctness none of his political rivals can make the ordinary Americans feel as free, proud and hopeful as Mr. Trump could.
Based on the 2016 model, the press and social media will focus on the most outrageous Democrat, the one who is easiest to write about, the most clownish, and we'll be forced to choose between that candidate and Trump.
Why in the world are we talking about elections and nominees this early?? Cable news network and media in general should stop bombarding viewers with " this and that candidate" this early on in the game. We still have 2 more years till the election. If democrats and the left leaning cable news channel do not stop discussing general election this early on, DT will win 2020 because his voters care less as long as "MAGA" man is right on stage name-calling every other candidate. They love the cheap shots he takes and relate him to someone like "one of them".
Running for president is a crucible that tests the character and mettle of prospective candidates. No one knows what specific issues will be most relevant and resonant with a winning coalition in 2020. There are reasonable guesses at the macro level, but details on things like healthcare will matter.
For now, aspirants can announce and start to organize for their runs. Two dozen Dem prospects seems likely, but so what. I think the ideas will coalesce faster than the field will be winnowed. But the primary winner should end up with 'it.' That is, the necessary message, character, talent, team, and charisma for the general election.
Regardless of the final candidate, winning in November with governing Congressional majorities is of utmost importance. (Followed only slightly by winning as many state legislative seats and governorships for maximal impact on 2021 redistricting.) We need a big tent that carries raging moderates as well as raging progressives across the line.
Inevitably there will have to be compromises as the national temperature is taken. Again, if the Dems don't win, there are no moral victories. Winners make policies, staff the government, and pick judges. Losers moan on the sidelines.
Hillary had more votes for president than any Republican candidate, and only Obama surpassed her (twice). An opportunity like that should never have slipped through our hands. Protest votes are ignorant betrayals of the greater good.
Have the Dems already forgotten how they just took over the House?
It sure wasn't with the white hairs like Bernie and Biden!
It was done by a tremendous turnout of women voters.
Young voters turned out in unheard of numbers.
People of every ethnic origin went to the polls to have a say in how our country will be run.
Biden and Bernie should graciously bow out and let the voters have what they said they wanted in the House election.
Here in Pennsylvania we have judicial and local elections in 2019 to get through first. While there are certainly issues with electing judges, you can't argue that it isn't important. In 2015, we elected 3 Democrats to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. That same State Supreme Court struck down our old Congressional districts (including the infamous 7th where I live until January when the district ceases to exist. It was called Goofy kicking Donald Duck and Goofy kicking a moose.) and ordered the lines redrawn. You saw the results of that in this year's midterms. We went from No women in our 18 member House delegation to 4. If I were more technically proficient I'd link to the Times article about our State Supreme Court gerrymandering case.
Polls. The only people I know who answer phone calls that are unrecognizable are some of my fellow Seniors.
The candidates need to elucidate how they would create a society that lifts up all Americans, regardless of economic background or educational attainment, and how they'll squash economic inequality. Otherwise, we might as well skip the next election and let Donald run the country for another 4 years. It would save us all the time and money.
"Biden’s, Sanders’s and O’Rourke’s strong showing in current polls isn’t wholly irrelevant. It will help them with fund-raising. It will direct more media attention their way. It demonstrates that they’ve crossed the all-important threshold of widespread name recognition."
I was confident that Beto O'Rourke was going to clean Ted Cruz's political clock at the polls. He was close, but not close enough to win the election.
I was also mildly enamored with Bernie Sanders and even Ben Carson . . . for a short while.
What I found is that I need to read other news sources besides the NYT for balance and to see how the GOP folks view us. I love Frank Bruni and often times he tells it straight. But I also find myself reading and believing only what I read in the NYT.
I think voters need to do due diligence and scope out ALL of the candidates so we don't get blind sided by the likes of another Donald Trump. I still can't believe he won the election. But he did. And it is a very long, painful, arduous road to the next presidential election.
I just appreciate articles like this one because they help keep things real and in focus. There is no such thing as a shoe in any longer. Polls are at best, professional guess estimates. They are good indicators but they are not a crystal ball.
3
The Socialist Senator Sanders campaign was (and will be) funded by labor Unions and small contributions via the Net from millions of ordinary citizens. Contrast the multitude of Capitalist candidates, including politicians who swear they are now Bernie-style"progressives," but who also seek funding by billionaires and large corporations and can be counted on to represent their interests. Perhaps Mr. Bruni cannot perceive this elementary distinction. But the Democratic primary voters will. They will nominate the Socialist Democrat.
2
There are many good candidates for the Democrats and plenty of time to decide and be challenged by their new ideas.
2
I don't want to vote for a candidate. I will vote for a team.
Bring the best of the lot together for a week at least. Let them sort out the best roles for each to fulfill. It's the top 25 smartest, most willing and eager to work together that we should choose.
May the best team win in 2020.
3
Walter Mondale, Carter's vice president, became the nominee in 1984. Al Gore, Clinton's vice president, became the nominee in 2000. Clinton's wife, HRC, runner-up in 2008, was the nominee in 2016. Other recent nominees were Senators McGovern, Kerry, and Obama, as well as Governors Carter and Dukakis. So, look to the vice presidents, the presidential spouses, the Senators and governors. Michelle's never running. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and, unfortunately, HRC, fit the historical profile. Joe Biden was unsuccessful in two brief runs for president but America has grown to like him personally, while Bernie Sanders ran a fine race and showed the political conviction lacking in his opponent. Beto appears as close as we've gotten to another great political talent, almost winning in a deep red state, but he lost in a wave election to a repugnant candidate in Ted Cruz. Elizabeth Warren doesn't light a fire, despite her impeccable financial protection bureau chops; there is no massive Klobuchar wave, despite her intelligence and focus; Andrew Cuomo has burned too many bridges in his own state and party; and Cory Booker, a great political talent, has yet to resonate with millions around the country. Better odds on the field than any one candidate, but better odds on Biden and Sanders than others. The Democratic savior may not rise until 2024, I am sorry to say.
Biden won't primary well in the marijuana legalization states because he's been too Tough on Crime for too long. Bernie has some major drawbacks, his potential physical expiration date being one of them. Beto I don't really know. We'll see if he has any shelf life. I really prefer Kamala Harris right now. That would be my pick if the primary were held today.
I seem to remember one of the requirements of eligibility to hold the office of President was a minimum age of 45? Has this been changed , or just bad memories of grade school?
1
@Stanley You must be 35 years or older. Given what seems to be happening lately it would be nice if they had a maximum age of no older than 70. But that is not likely to happen.
1
@Stanley: 35 is the minimum age.
@Stanley Bad memories of grade school. Article Two, Section 1 sets the minimum age at 35.
The media, under pressure of capitalism, has become, yes, an "enemy of the people". Due to how technology and psychological manipulation reveal the frailty of human consciousness, the media's distortion field denigrates our culture and comity.
Free exchange of ideas to essential to our nation, but Orwell was right and we've got to figure this one out.
No Biden
No HRC
No Sanders
No Warren
No Pelosi-Schumer backed candidate
Someone younger
Someone fresher
Someone with waaaaaaaay less baggage.
Someone who isn't afraid to use the words "progressive" and "liberal" and who will call out Trump as needed.
2
Nobody should get cocky at this early stage. And Biden and Bernie are too old. And I'm saying this as someone who will be 72 next month. Enough with the old guys. Time for new blood and new ideas.
4
I can understand the prognosticating; most people are hungry for hopeful news. The only problem with trying to foretell the future, is that it's usually very inaccurate. There are many promising candidates (most not even declared yet) that could take Trump on and win. But I agree with the author, it's just too soon to place any bets on a Biden or a Beto. I would like to see the Democrats chose the best candidate from among their own ranks to run and thus get the best chance for receiving delegates when it comes to the convention. I'm convinced that the so-called Republican Party has devolved into amoral authoritarianism, and they need to be voted out on all fronts.
I THINK THAT THE PERFECT TICKET IN 2020 WOULD BE BIDEN AND KASICH.
Yup, that's right: two good men, different parties but both committed to making things work, to actually getting things done, to compromise when necessary, AND who actually have substantial government experience, in a national unity ticket.
It's time to end the nonsense, to kick the pygmies and the louts off the stage. And they could do it.
1
@Rudolph
Biden and Kasich. Are you kidding?
Neither would stand a chance against Trump.
Thanks for this perspective. We live in a world where no one remembers what happened six months ago much less six years ago.
I've also heard people asking "Who is going to run when Trump resigns/is impeached?". A lot of people are living in a fantasyland right now.
2
Sherrod Brown interests me, but so do others. When I lived in Ohio, I didn't think too much of him at first, but after I met him and saw how he performed as senator, he earned my respect. There will be plenty of candidates for the Democratic nomination, I just hope that whomever is chosen will be elected.
4
Klobuchar v. Haley
2
Just show us their Tax returns Full Stop.
3
Trump proved that debates don't necessarily help the process. In 2016 the debates were a place where the person with the most entertainment value won, and Trump knew that. Americans grabbed the popcorn and watched, and were either cheering every time Trump mocked an opponent while christening them with a derogatory nickname or were aghast every time Trump mocked an opponent while christening them with a derogatory nickname.
1
Bernie, especially.
Refuses to finalise his FEC filings from the last time — yeah, that stalwart champion of campaign finance accountability, for everyone but himself.
Refuses to release his tax returns (no, one partial year doesn’t cut it).
After all that railing against PACs, first thing he did was start one, and now several more have sprung up to support him in 2020.
And, of course, Mueller. The investigation has made it clear that Russia was helping Bernie too. And Bernie knew about it, and at best did nothing, enjoying the benefit of, and amplifying, the lies and smears being spread. At worst? Why won’t he finalise his FEC filings, and clear up all the concerns —600 pages worth — about suspect overseas donations? Where’d the 10 mil in dark money, that he refuses to explain, come from?
Bernie’s gonna have a LOT of explaining to do.
5
Polls are skeptical but since the beginning of time, a good sage is often more reliable. The world consist of energy. There are individuals, call them wise men/women - oracles, if you will, that read this energy as if it were front page news of the New York Times. These wise people warned us about 911 and the last big stock market crash. Joe Biden is the current front runner to be become the next president of the United States. Kamala Harris looks like she is his running mate. Cory Booker is right there with her as well. Take note
1
@Bruce Savin Carrot Top will upset Trump in the Republican primary and Alec Baldwin will be the Democratic nominee. It's unclear who will win the Presidency.
3
There is nothing wrong with considering people for the Democratic presidential candidate at this point. Listen to what they say. Watch the way the conduct themselves. Predicting a winner at this point is silly; that's for sure. But looking around for candidates? That's a good thing to do.
1
Doesn't you taking up column inches to talk about "polls for 2020", even if you are saying they are a waste, simply server to further give air to stories about "polls for 2020"? Aren't we better served by just ignoring them? Surely you have more interesting and pressing topics to cover?
2
I won't vote for anyone, ANYONE, who is not at least five years younger than Donald Trump. It's time to pass the torch to a new generation.
33
@WmC After the last Dem fiasco where progressives and Dems mostly sat the election out and or voted 3rd party spoiler I would say this: when the final tally comes WHOEVER is the Dem candidate is will get my vote. Look around and see the clusterfox that has happened since Don took office - if that doesn't wake everyone up I don't know what will.
16
@CAM The new governor of California is a young, attractive, charismatic, brilliant politician. I want to see more of Gavin Newsom. I want to see someone who can beat "the other guy" at his own game.
3
@CAM
Please stop reinforcing silly our two party system, in the last election the critical states were not within the margin of votes going to Jill Stein, additionally Hillary still won the popular vote.
When Obama had a super majority it would have been trivial for the Dems to reform voting: drop the electoral college and implement an instant run-off system for national single seat elections. This did not happen because establishment candidates benefit from reducing elections into binary choices and this needs to change.
3
Bernie is too old and I don't believe he truly sees past the color or sex of a person. Beto has yet to win a big race so he should run again in Texas, win and then become a presidental candidate. Joe Biden is my favorite of the three but I believe his time has passed. I hope he speaks for Americans but not run for president.
2
Hillary candidate predictions were pretty accurate, pretty early (earlier than this)...as were many about Barack Obama (as soon as he made his 2004 convention speech). It's ok to start evaluating and predicting for this highly important position ....Of course, getting cocky never benefits anyone at anytime (Hillary would be the first to tell you)!
Obviously polls from today should not be used as a proxy for final vote totals after all primary votes are cast. But it grossly understates their importance to say they are "not wholly irrelevant."
Al Gore led the Democratic primary in late 1998 and won the 2000 nomination easily. Same with George W. Bush on the Republican side. John Kerry led in primary polls at the end of 2002, after Gore announced he wouldn't run (although he didn't hold that lead from wire to wire). Hillary Clinton polled between 50% - 60% in primary polls from late 2014, and ultimately captured about 60% of the popular vote in the 2016 Democratic primary. In other words, in four of the last eight contested presidential primaries, the leader in the polls more than a year in advance of the Iowa caucus ultimately went on to win the nomination.
A better point to make is that prognosticators should not put undue weight on a single data point, but at the same time, they should not ignore the most valuable data points that we have available.
You know some of us actually form our own opinions not necessarily based on the latest Times oped or story from Fox or MSNBC.
3
Bernie would be a bust for the Democrats. The Mid-west would not go with him when push comes to shove! We need him in the senate. Warren...no, no! Sharrod Brown is by far the most promising...as well as Biden. Klobashar - not this year, just after the push for Clinton.
"A Horse, a horse, my kingdom for a dark horse candidate"
3
Frank, do your part and stop writing columns like this. Talk about something else.
2
Mr. Bruni's comments are best directed at his cohorts in the news media. They feed us this junk in the first place in order to sell more subscriptions. No thanks.
3
There is entirely too much chest-thumping among naive Democrats, following the Nov. elections. Any team athlete knows how stupid that is. Unfortunately, there are to few 'team athletes' among pols.
You don't count your winnings until the game is over, as that old song goes. And in politics, the game isn't really ever over. I beseech my compatriots: be a little more Zen.
1
I hate this column. Not only is it is eons premature but, based upon some of the commentary, it has the potential to start infighting in the democratic party.
Part of why Trump was able to survive the primary season was that it had a ridiculously large number of candidates. He stood aside and cracked jokes and watched qualified candidates tear each other to shreds. Then, when he smelled blood in the water, he picked them off one by one. The other republican candidates didn't see his war of attrition until it was too late.
Anyone running for the democratic nomination has to realize they have to tread lightly and not provide fodder for him to use against the ultimate nominee. Put the country first and your egos second and agree upon a handful of strong candidates who can have meaningful policy debates and not spend time mudslinging and inducing voter fatigue.
For all of our sakes, please!
3
"Promise me something: Over the coming weeks, whenever you hear a pundit or read a poll on the subject of who the 2020 Democratic nominee might be, you’ll flash back four years. You’ll remember predictions about the Republican nominee at this same point before the 2016 election."
Thank you, Mr. Bruni. I promise. ~cz
2
Biden + Gillibrand, then
Gillibrand + Beto, then
Beto + whomever
That covers the next 20 years...
@JP Williamsburg
Beto, Beto, Beto...
Don't you all realize that he is from Billionaire money?
@JP Williamsburg: Gillibrand is the only Democrat I wouldn’t want to vote for. A consummate snake, for her treatment of Al Franken, who was set up by Roger Stone over a make believe picture and fake and vague accusations of patting women on their rears.
Adam Schiff would be my Democratic candidate. I personally will not vote for neither Warren nor Sanders. Enough.
7
Here are some dark horse predilections (another word not in Trump's lexicon.) Nancy Pelosi, Sharrod Brown, Tom Steyer , Michael Bloomberg, or finally John Kerrey.
I'd like to see John Tester have a crack. If a Democrat senator can win 3 times in Montana, he can win anywhere. Klobuchar and Tester. Dream ticket.
3
How about promising your readers that instead of focusing on the three ring circus component of the campaign, you and your colleagues, will write about what really matters, so that the American people know what candidates are committed to and all about?
3
Elizabeth Warren is still my pick because she is so versed economically and able to articulate it. The US has a huge economic mess coming, thanks to the latest tax break for the rich. I want someone who can pin the tail on the correct "donkey" I don't care that Trump was able to pull her into a stupid discussion about what she did when she was 19. She didn't rape anyone...I like that she gets emotional. We need someone who can put some emotion into this office other than anger and hatred. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as her running mate. Perfect ticket in my world.
2
Trump commanded the media by being so outrageous and it played into his hands. He garnered countless hours of free exposure on TV and in the print media making him the most recognized Republican candidate. It was often "ha, ha, ha look at the dopey thing Trump did today," with little regard for the danger to democracy in the ignorant things he was spouting forth. We did not take him seriously enough.
2
I throw my hat into the ring. To get a jump on the competition I will walk down the steps of my tenant building where I live and make a formal announcement in two weeks. I have a stellar team in place. Maybe the best ever. Have enough skeletons in my closet, well not exactly the closet, they're out there for everyone to see. So won't be derailed by any unexpected revelations. Here I am. Vote your hopes not your fears. A vote for a new reality is never a wasted vote. Vote your dreams not you nightmares. A vote for me is a vote for a never ending present and a future yet to come.
3
Merely by putting Biden and Beto in the same sentence with Sanders you are distorting the process. Many Americans knew long before election day that Hillary didn't stand a chance, that although she had many true believers supporting her, that she was one of the best loved women in America, she was also the most hated. The entire American press and political establishment was either in denial, too blind to see the reality or intentionally hoping against hope to influence the outcome (precisely what they disingenuously fault Russia for doing). No sooner was Trump declared the winner than the establishment, smarting from a real and rare for its significance setback, dug in its heels and doubled down on its efforts to prevent another such defeat. Sadly, this newspaper has led in those efforts. Maybe Times reporters can't tell whether its Democrats or liberals or progressives or neo-whatevers who represent any real promise for real change, but the followers of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez and their millions of supporters know, and you guys are repeating the mistake of preaching to your converts.
2
Ok Joe: too old, Bernie : too-o old, Beto : Dems Mark Rubio, no gravitas and Trump already beat Elizabeth. She was my hope now I don't no where to look.
1
It was shameful the way candidates other than Hillary and Bernie were treated at the so called debates. It was very frustrating to tune in and see how unfair the Democrat debates were conducted. At least all of the Republicans were allowed to answer questions.
I want debates. Lots of debates, with anyone and everyone who wants to throw their hat into the ring.
I want to see and hear what everybody says.
What I absolutely do not want is for big donors or the DNC to decide ahead of time who the candidate should be, and then try to make sure that happens.
I don't want to hear any garbage about who is a real Democrat.
I don't want to hear that the candidate has to be x, y, z because otherwise this or that demographic group won't support him/her.
I don't want to hear that it is some demographic's time / turn. I don't want to hear that someone is inspirational based on race / age / gender. I don't want to hear that someone can't be the candidate because of race / age/ gender, either.
And I want fair, balanced coverage. Not 16 flattering front-page profiles of the media's choice, and a single story of someone they don't like that talks about hair and clothing choices.
122
@Talbot
Thank you so much for this comment. Election coverage has become a farce. I, like you, want to hear, in detail, what every candidate's position is on every major issue. I do not want a candidate who was designed by focus groups. I want authenticity.
And please, may we have a deep discussion on their stance on foreign intervention? We seem to completely overlook this area, despite the fact that our invading sovereign countries has been a disaster, morally and otherwise.
Frankly, I don't care about race, age or gender if a candidate will tell me war is a last resort only.
23
@Talbot And more truth than "fair and balanced" (or, "false equivalency").
3
@Talbot
Sounds like Republican primary in 2016?
Of all the losers this election cycle, why Beto? Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum launched formidable campaigns. Why are these two not even considered in these conversations?
Well, I know the answer, but it's still so fascinating to watch white Liberals latch on to this new Great White Hope.
This may be wishful thinking, but I hope Amy Klobuchar and someone with a little bit of color (not Corey Booker)/perspective/experience that reflects America's changing demographic ends up on that final ticket. This could be the formula to building a formidable coalition.
We need real progressive politics to combat the policies of the radical right.
3
@The Black Millennial : I am white but I also wonder why Stacey Abrams is not mentioned (yet). I hope this changes soon.
While dining? al fresco between bites of his three big Macs, Yoouge fries and Large Diet coke, he had an epiphany (another word not in his lexicon), that he would love to get the chance to run against all these democrat party elites and he just might if he takes Rudy's advice.
Political junkies believe hashing out the future, trying to analyse events whose reality is mainly like an iceberg, surely have a good time what-iffing. But they determine events no more than a group of passionate sports addicts determine championships.
Feeding this pastime now employs armies of instant-expert talking heads in the media. Yet, tomorrow and surely next week hardly anyone else will remember their words.
This mental masturbation has gone on so long that its many practitioners now mistake it for the real thing.
Soon nothing real can touch pornographic fantasy. Then when real events happen, they are not noticed.
3
If Trump wins, we will cease to become a functioning democracy and segue into merely being a colony of Russia. So that America doesn't fall for good to a traitor and his puppetmaster, we need a strong candidate to oppose Trump in the next election.
3
@Walter ... and that candidate is...?
Although I am anxious to see Trump leave the scene expeditiously, I still dread the CNN panel shows staffed by people who possibly worked in the mail room of one of the prospective candidates previous campaigns or knew them in high school. They will be starting anew, in a matter of weeks to handicap the potential Democratic Presidential candidates. The only thing less captivating then the bloviators that they bring on to create controversy, talk loudly over each other and introduce conspiracy theories worthy of National Enquirer headlines, is actual election day coverage when Wolf Blitzer repeatedly elbows out John King in front of the election map, like Shaquille O'Neill did when trying to put back an offensive rebound. To enhance the performance, he yells over King like someone trying to get the attention of the counter man during lunch hour in a mid-town deli. Fortunately the second half of the season is almost 2 years away, and if I am lucky Judy Woodruff will still be covering national politics for PBS and my ears can rest a little.
2
How refreshing it would be to choose from a group of hard working, down-to-earth candidates who behave like adults and seem capable of bipartisanship.
4
God help us; I sincerely hope there are other candidates!
Trump and the RNC have pooled $. Trump's money is RNC money, he OWNS the Republicans. The same 40% that liked him in 2015 will still be there in 2020. In economic slumps, fear mongering and scapegoating usually flourish, and we are headed for stagnation or recession. No time for slacking off.
I think you have it right, Frank. We are (hopefully) in line for another Carter/Clinton/Obama moment where the nominee is NOT a favorite, or even one of the favorites.
1
You ignore the all important factor of the state of the nation and its mood leading up to and during the primaries. Indications are that we are headed for a recession. If so how long and how deep. Will we enter into any new wars or military incursions. Just who as yet will be indicted in the trump WH. If convicted who will be let off with a light sentence or a presidential pardon. What level of Russian meddling will we experience and what as yet will Putin do. The electorates mood can turn on a dime even as a result of "fake news", just ask Michael Dukakis or John Kerry.
The only thing that seems certain is that people will vote for the person that offers them hope, even if it is as fake as trumps. A sizable portion of our population is gullible and ill informed. They make bad choices.
1
Trump was elected by default. His die-hards maybe account for 20-25%, the rest were just fed up with anyone named Bush or Clinton.
I think most of the country STILL wants a new hat in the ring. In 2008, Obama was fresh. 2016, Trump was fresh (OK, he spoiled rather quickly, admittedly). 2020 will prove the same. He/she may even be a republican (Nikky Haley?).
Hmmm. I haven't heard any of them getting cocky. I would be fine with all three - and several others - running and having a vigorous but civil primary process where the DNC keeps its thumb off the scale. Relentlessly pushing Clinton in spite of signs she would not fare well with a number of voters, particularly independents, failed horrifically last time around. Let's let our candidates be heard and tested on a level playing field. The nominee that emerges will be all the stronger for it.
1
Whichever party runs twelve candidates in the primaries deserves to lose the election. More people voted against DT in the primaries, by far, than voted for him. But because of our culture of egomaniacs, party rules seem to allow anyone to run in a primary. Democrats Beware! Don't let Iowa cause us to despair!
I would love to see those three, plus Warren and Clinton, all vie for the candidacy in 2020.
The Democrats will not win the election.
Having these group tear each other apart and end their careers now, is beneficial to all. It will result in the dead wood drifting away, and a new possible candidate raising for 2024, some one people can gather round and have a chance.
Right now the options are the hasbeens, the wannabes and the neverevers. Let them end each other, start building up for 2024.
The press should do more to focus on policy for the 2020 election to ensure that the candidate that gets the most press should be the one with the most detailed and sound policy ideas
Make it about ideas and don’t fan the reality show nonsense
3
Good article. President Howard Dean should read it--wait, never mind.
12
Let us not forget to look west for candidates as well. Washington's Governor Inslee could mount a strong candidacy and would find support in our household. Former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro will likely emerge as a strong candidate. He has also served in executive office as Mayor of San Antonio. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu is one of the finest political leaders on the national stage today. He is the winner of the 2018 Profiles in Courage award. We would do well to remember that President Kennedy wrote his book Profiles in Courage to recognize courageous people, often in politics, who did the right thing in the face of massive opposition and at considerable risk to themselves and their careers. There are lots of such people in America today. I'm looking forward to seeing those first Democratic debates when a number of such people step forward to engage in the great contest for leadership of our country. Senator Elizabeth Warren, yay, get in the race! Senators Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris, get in the race. There's no shortage of highly qualified Democrats. It's going to be an interesting race!
@Margaret ... why no mention of Spartacus?
Amy Klobuchar is the single most electable progressive on the Democratic Party bench. She's composed, authoritative, telegenic and has immense mainstream appeal. She is electable.
Beto or Andrew Gillum, etc., might make great picks for her VP.
3
Anyone taking polls on 2020 seriously this early on (or even bothering to read or listen to them) is what we refer to as a "low information voter". Polls are for candidates & their campaigns, used to adjust their tactics.
I hang up on pollsters.
2
Think that the candidate will hold debates with Donald Trump. Think, who could hold their own emotionally, politically, and policywise while maintaining civility yet not bending or being cowed by Donald Trump. They will need to withstand bullying, name calling and ridicule while not responding in kind while projecting calm cool leadership. Of the list of possibles you mention Mr. O'Rourke is the one I would choose and in spite of your note that he will have to explain his gap between speaking from the left and ruling to the center, that is exactly what successful Democratic politicians have always done. Indeed, even many centrist Independents and Republicans would find him an acceptable alternative to the more far left possibilities, which in spite of the altleft liberal leanings of some, could well swing the election.
Where Is The Democratic Bench?
While the Trump wars have raged, Republican investigations are winding down while some Dems contemplate the ones they will fiercely conduct in the House - the potential Democratic 2020 hopefuls keep dropping out.
Biden, Bloomberg and Saunders too old. Beto too young. Harris, Booker and Warren's missteps, and both Booker and Harris seen as flame throwers. Brown, Hickenlopper and Klobacher: two known but all good lawmakers but not-world-beaters. Kerry, you gotta be kidding.
As Bruni points out at this time in 2015 the leading Republican candidates were; Bush, Carson, Paul, Christie and Huckabee. And we do know how that ended.
What issues wil be key to the 2020 campaign. Health Care, but a Texas judge maybe changed that? Immigration reform, couldn't do it before and the caravans, wall and Dreamers have made it more difficult not less. Foreign policy hot spots like the Middle East, Ukraine or China and Russia? China would be my choice due to their long term threat, followed by Russian election meddling and Noth Korean nukes.
Who is out there that can win and with what issues?
After Beto O'Rourke's loss in November I happened to catch his concession speech. What should have been brief, uplifting, encouraging and unforgettable, was instead an over-long, meandering, pointless, disjointed, cringe-worthy mess. I was horrified and embarrassed for him. I am a committed Democrat yet could not listen to the whole thing, cutting it off part-way through. I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would vote for him. My only thought was "Huh?"
6
Jay Inslee would also have my vote with EW as his running mate. He's done amazing things for the State of Washington.
And as we learned in 2016, polls and predictions didn't mean much close to the election either.
2
Trump, was inevitable. The country is awash in people from Mexico and further south. There is Spanish radio everywhere. Anyone, having the gut’s to actually mention that, was going to get a huge percentage of the vote, hence Trump’s base. Not only do new immigrants take jobs in a tight market, they work for a lot less, putting downward pressure on blue-collar pay. If they were lawyers or doctors coming across the border, it would be stopped immediately. Since the Democrats have completely abandoned blue collar workers, (and unions), those people had nowhere else to turn. Trump, stole the Democrats message, Hillary still doesn’t know what hit her. (That’s how,“out of it,” they are.)
4
@PrantTheyll be back but the media was at fault along with the common core bore educational theories: 2+2=mc2? and Hillary's head-shaking made folks organize their sock drawer on election day.
@Prant
The GOP made Trump inevitable with 30 years of sermons of hate and fear, beginning with Lee Atwater in the '80s.
Atwater, a big dirty-tricks guy, had the decency, on his deathbed, to repent his horrific behavior. The inheritors of his slimy tactics have simply gotten even worse.
2
@Jojojo Lee Atwater could of been canonized next to Ryan & Trump.
The difference in the two parties is best reflected by the adage "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line". The Republicans have their "ham sandwich" and the Democrats are just now looking to fall in love. It will take most of 2019 for a decision, but their candidate won't be a sandwich!
1
Bruni is right. He is so right about the importance of NOT getting too excited at these very early stages, that I only very briefly skimmed his column. I just wasn't excited enough about not being excited to read it thoroughly.
4
I, for one, do not want to hear about the 2020 election until 6 months before. I know the press has to sell newspapers and the TV stations need ratings, and the polls have to outrank each other but give us a rest for now. "tis the season to be jolly".
1
I don't think that Trump will be the Republican candidate; So there...
All these men and women lining up to defeat him in a slam-dunk election have not truly gauged the breadth of Trump's criminal enterprise that is about to be exposed nor the traitorous connections to Putin and the new Russian Empire. Wait and see on that...
Instead it will be a newly anointed Kasich up against Mike Pence in the primary. If Trump has resigned in some sort of Golden Parachute scenario where he agrees not to blow up the world in exchange for his freedom, The Trumpists will jump on board the new candidacy wagon; Evangelicals, Gun Rightists, No Taxists, White Supremacists, anti-Progressives. The strange and tangled supporters will come together to back anyone but a Democrat.
So in my opinion we really do not envision this next big election because we do not know who will appear on EITHER side of the ballot.
4
Because it's too soon for Beto to get "cocky" about electoral prospects for 2020 -- while "Biden and Bernie" can't even 'afford' to get cocky about living long enough to 'see' the primaries antecedent to election day, 2020.
(I am nearly as 'far along' as Biden and Sanders -- but, if nominated, I will not accept the nomination … and if elected nonetheless, I shall not serve.)
3
Democrats do hope to put up a true progressive but there are plenty of those around who are not white and male. Has this nation not had enough of that particular viewpoint? Bernie blew his own primary by not understanding or speaking to the intersectionality of race and gender in inequity. Being down on neoliberalism isn't sufficient. It's past time to bring down the minority rule in this country -- that of white males. After all, the are only 30% of the electorate. Everyone else is the actual majority.
2
For whatever reason you believe Bernie did not get the nomination in 2016, his ideas have shown lasting power and strength enough to begin to reshape the Democratic Party and will continue to do so moving forward.
After having voted for Bernie over the past 20 years, as our Congressional Rep, Senator and Presidential candidate, it's my sincere wish that instead of running for president again, that he mentor younger candidates to carry his Progressive mantle into the future.
9
I'm happy to see so many people speaking up for Amy Klobuchar. I think she's a winner, and I like a Klobuchar/Beto ticket. The VP candidate should always be someone who feels positive and pretty safe, not someone controversial at all, and I think Beto fulfills this.
2
Why anyone take Bernie Sanders seriously is beyond me. Before the election, I went to his Presidential campaign site. His only claims to be qualified were 1) that the election he won were always bya very narrow margin, and his only boast of his effectiveness in Congress was that he was one of several "co-authors" on a piece of important legislation. For someone who had held political office as long as he has his self published resume was a sad joke. In addition, he had no platform or goals. I told my 20 and 30 something liberal friends about it but the voted for him anyway and them sat out the national election when ]he did not get the nomination.
3
The other "likely" surprise is who the Democratic nominee is going to have to run against.
I am getting more and more convinced that Mr. Trump will shortly announce he has fulfilled all of his campaign promises, and that he has had enough of government.
John Kasich, wherever you are, please run.
6
Thank you, Frank, for stating far more eloquently than I have in pressing my fellow progressives to turn down the flame of second guessing on who will run, and who could win.
Perhaps the DNC is trying to rally our troops earlier than usual to feel more assure that we will all show up at the polls in 2020. For, it is a sad fact that, as the party with the most diversity in cultures and philosophy, getting Democrats out to vote is a perfect metapho for herding cats.
But if the DNC, along with the men and women considering a run for POTUS, can get the discussion going earlier than later, perhaps we WILL drive more of our base to the polls.
We must also avoid the third-party vote stealers like Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders, to drain the voters away from our nominee. Otherwise, we can expect another Supreme Court debacle handing the presidency to a candidate like Trump.
This is a great time to vet all those interested in the job BEFORE the primaries because we cannot afford a primary with candidate debates set up as multitiered events. This allows the DNC to decide who is worthy of the stage and the mic.
1
We don’t need Biden. We don’t need Warren. And we especially do not need Bernie. We need the next generation of racially diverse and energetic Democrats to take over and wow us with sweeping reforms on jobs, infrastructure and the environment. Show us a new American Dream that embraces equality and opportunity for all, whether you live in a city or in the foothills of Appalachia, on the plains or on the coasts. Let’s rebuild the communities that have been decimated by globalization and technology. That’s the vision we need, delivered optimistically and not in anger. Pick the two best people and let them run together, and for God’s sake let one of them be a woman.
5
The fact still remains that IF democrats make the same mistake all over again and nominate just another corporate/establishment "donor controlled" centrist "Republican Lite" candidate much like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and several similar types on the list, Trump will be guaranteed to be elected again in 2020.
Without something and someone to latch onto whom, unencumbered by corporate money and super pacs, will start correcting the mistakes of the democratic party over the last 30 plus years, much like 2016, again, you can be guaranteed the young and minority voter will stay home.
3
The Iowa caucuses are just over a year away.
What gives the Iowans, who keep electing Steven King, such an inordinate voice in selecting nominees. It is time for the Democratic party to prevent its candidates from campaigning there and refuse to accept any results that Iowa may announce. How about regional primaries?
5
How many people voted for Trump, 62 million? And how many of those voters still like him, 61 million? Since it was an electoral win I suppose there's a possibility that a shifting map could tip the balance - but that's a long shot. Even a good man like Biden has and will be vilified by FOX et al. But you're right - let's wait - maybe a new, young dark horse will emerge closer to the 2020 election and the right won't have time to make up stories about them.
2
Hey, weren’t you telling Biden not to run a few days or a week ago? So far from being “cocky,” Biden and Bernie haven’t even announced that they’re running yet! Your two columns, put together, make no sense. Almost anyone in politics or even mildly interested observers from the sidelines know that being this far ahead in speculative polls doesn’t mean anything good, and even might be bad. That’s why they’re not announcing yet.
1
Especially after reading some of these comments, it would be my thought that whatever the Democrats do, they seriously need to avoid candidates who change a few names and then bellow out pretty much the same gunk that Trump bellows out.
Seriously, guys, Derrida had a point: “coherence in contradiction expresses the force of a desire,” and some of the desire out there is medium scary. Not to mention real ignernt.
1
One of the remarkable things about the Trump campaign was how little money it spent in the election yet how much coverage it garnered. Why? Because he was such a quirky, odd and at times amusing character. Couple that with the fact that his background was not carefully scrutinized, and it's clear that he opened a unique pathway to the presidency.
Indeed, it was funny early on when he called Jeb Bush "Low Energy" during the Republican debates or came up with other names, a la' "Lyin Ted," for the crowd of Republican candidates at the time.
Surely the extensive coverage Trump received on a daily basis, free of charge, had a powerful impact on his election.
Coupled with how Hillary was victimized by right-wing media, Comey's reopening the "investigation," and Russian help, the door was ultimately opened for Trump's victory.
Could such a perfect storm happen to another candidate in the near future? Extremely unlikely. We've all learned a painful lesson. The next series of candidates will not be able to avoid the kind of scrutiny that Trump sidestepped.
Democrats need, therefore, to put forth a viable candidate that can attract voters across the board.
8
O’Rourke’s claim to fame is a losing campaign in Texas against the most detestable human in politics. Warren would get steamrolled. Biden/Sanders are too old.
Democrats will not win with a liberal from the coasts, so it'll be a Brown from Ohio or someone of the ilk. Someone who has Midwest values, can talk to the heartland and get liberals on board. A solid left-of-center candidate that isn't going to make 80% of this country barf with abolish ICE, thinking bathroom policies are top-of-the-ticket important, political correctness and speech policing.
The truth is, California/New York are irrelevant in presidential politics. It comes down to OH, PA, WI, MI and FL every time.
16
@Scott
To Brown's name I'd add Klobuchar's
3
@Jojojo Brown/Harris for the hinterland & the coasts in 2020.
2
Relatively moderate/progressive combined with relative youth, charisma and hard work sounds good to me.
7
@libdemtex pretty low bar for the most powerful office in the world. Why not set our sights a wee bit higher?
Frank Bruni demonstrated the flaws in superficial political analysis based on early polling by producing superficial political analysis based on early polling. Excuse me, but does anyone believe that Beto O’Rourke is truly an analog for Ben Carson. The only justification for such nonsense is that they both placed third in an early poll, but beyond that it is ridiculous. Yes, Joe Biden placed first in a poll that suggests the same timing as Jeb Bush’s first place in a December 2014 poll on the last Republican nomination cycle, but nothing else whatever is the same about the two of them.
1
I agree Beto isw no analog for Ben. Still analysts who waste my reading time mucking around in such ludicrous factual quagmire lose me completely when it comes to the confidence I have in their ultimate conclusion.
"Surging. Jeb!"
Yes, until the corporate-media, in a quest for increased readership/profits, shoved Trump down our throats 24/7.
4
@Ed Watters Jeb's milquetoast mania might have had something to do with his dismissal, as well as his amusing comment that "illegal immigration is an act of love."
2
I wish the media would just drop reporting polls all together. The last election clearly was the pollsters' train wreck, and my gut tells me that the vote was suppressed by the fact that people assumed HRC was going to win and did not bother to show up...
I know this will never happen, though, as polls make for good headlines and fodder for talk tv and radio.
2
This is a great example as to why the voting public is soooo... tired by the time the actual election comes around. I don't believe any one can second guess an American election anymore. Polls are treacherous to say the least. Overexposure is trying for the candidate and the voters. The people on both sides are so beat up with predictions, news flashes, and oversimplifications that many put their head in a hole and put ear plugs in. The pundits on TV thrive. Big deal!
Personally, I am hoping Al Franken picks himself up , dusts himself off, and gets back into the arena. My top two picks, Mike Bloomberg and/or Al Franken. The veep slot will be critical.
5
All or none will get you none. The most important thing in 2020 is to elect somebody who is neither Donald J. Trump nor one of his sycophants. And we have some good ideas now about who CANNOT do that. Anybody over 70 by election day 2020. Anybody who screams doctrine and "my way or the highway." Anybody who cannot be seen as a possibility by at least two-thirds of the electorate. Bernie fails all three criteria. Biden fails one. Hillary fails two. Beto fails one. Elizabeth Warren, alas, fails one. Does that exhaust the list of Democrats? Fortunately, not by a long shot. Let's learn more about THEM.
3
It's a bit early to be talking about 2020. First the Dems have to figure out what they can offer the American people to counter the constant bleating of our Foul-mouthed Prexy.
1
THE INTERFERENCE OF THE RUSSIANS In the 2016 election was not mentioned. Thanks to them, in large part, were stuck with the monstrosity we've got clogging up the US government. The first order of business is to put the Russian trolls and other Internet interferers out of business--limiting their access to websites related to the nominating and election process. If I were a gambling person, I'd not waste any money posting bets nearly two full years ahead of the next presidential election. There is much work to be done. The top priority is pursuing justice from officials at the top, who have been accused of crimes. Did people really pay much attention to the general news during the Watergate hearings? If they did, I don't recall it. Even during the Clinton inquisition--far to much focus was taken away from terrorists like Osama Bin Laden. The point is that we've got lots more on our plate than trying to read political tea leaves.
2
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat; he used the Democratic party in 2016 and switched back to being an Independent as soon as the dust settled. And plus, he and Biden's generation have had their day in the sun - can we PLEASE get someone from a different generation other than the baby boomers, who will have held 20 years of the presidency? (Obama is actually the top edge of the much ignored Gen X--and hard to believe but true: Trump is actually a Baby Boomer.).
Plus neither Bernie or Biden get it about struggles faced by women or races other than their own. Enough already.
5
Biden, Berny, Beto as well as Warren will guarantee that Democrats will loose the next President election again.
Democrats and mainstream media will never learn.
Thank you Frank for paying attention to these horrible ideas.
5
The 3 Bs are my worst nightmare. In fact, the Democratic Party focusing on ANYTHING besides the removal of Trump is a waste of time right now. 2020 will easily take care of itself if Trump is removed from power. For once, Dems, ignore articles like this and just focus on staying united to govern.
Hats off to Pelosi and Schumer for sending Trump packing with the lies he told about the border wall funding. Trump said Mexico would do it; so if he wants a wall, call Mexico.
Dems held firm and won. Stay focused. Remove Trump.
9
My preference would definitely be to stop worrying about who's ahead at any given point before the convention and spend more time telling us what the candidates stand for, what their qualifications are, and what they hope to accomplish if elected. I am so sick of the information free beauty pageant/horse race reporting on elections. We have learned (I hope!!) that elections have consequences and that our votes are important, and we need to know who and what we are voting for.
That said, I think Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders - both men I esteem and admire - need to find one or more younger standard bearers to support and not throw their hats into this ring. Beto O'Rourke, however, intrigues me and I would like to hear more from him.
3
Surely it is name recognition alone that accounts for these early poll results. Unfortunately, as time passes, the rise of a candidate to the top of the polls will not likely be based on who is most qualified or who has the best policies.
It will be based on who is most liked. That is what happens when governmental leadership is decided by a popularity contest funded by millionaires, super-pacs, and dark money, which involves some indelicate balance between negative campaigning falsely describing opposing candidates as evil and positive campaigning falsely describing oneself as whatever focus groups determine makes that candidate likeable. The election of Trump was the tasting that proved that pudding.
My fantasy remains that both parties will nominate persons well qualified to serve as President who may have differing policies on how to accomplish the country's needs but whose policies would nevertheless benefit the most people. To paraphrase my dear departed grandmother, I "should live so long."
2
We live in a strange world where voters wait for media to tell them who to vote for, that to avoid the humiliating bad choice. A vicious circle.
1
@Roland Bergerthe so-called media listens to how they sound on speaker phone.
Bernie, stay home - you helped ruin it last time - your time is over as is, sadly, Hillary's; Biden - be low key but maybe; Beto, go slow but stay in there.....may "we, the people" start taking our country back as we wade through the swamp...
4
regardless of the toddler in the white house and the ineptitude of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, it is painfully obvious why your government accomplishes so little from a legislative perspective: you are in constant campaign mode. That individuals are already jostling for position for a decision that will be made in just under 2 years is mind-boggling to me. Until that changes......
3
Perhaps it's unrealistic of me, but I like to think that Democrats are more measured than Republicans when it comes to picking candidates.
1
I think Frank is overlooking the CNN effect on trumps candidacy. The relentless free exposure he received helped sink the other candidates. A segment of voters were obviously attracted to the idea of a fraudulent tv personality being president. It was fun for them. Safe to say it won’t happen again.
5
Is this really the best the Democrats have to offer? The enthusiasm around Beto is mind boggling. His experience and accomplishments are what you would expect from a very average person who managed to get elected to Congress. Is this the guy who will stare down Putin and Xi? Give me a break!
Where are the candidates who have been battle hardened through true tests of leadership in private and public service? Enough with Senators and Congressman whose only expertise is fundraising and doling our political favors. Let’s see governors and private sector leaders step forward to bring competence back to the Presidency.
4
We have a private sector president now. How's that working out for you?
5
Governors, yes. Private sector leaders?
How is that working out???
3
@Elizabeth Treacy Fight fire with fire...Bloomberg would be great.
3
Only one of the candidates can project conviction with the same power as Trump and that's Sanders.
Bernie Sanders would never make a racial pandering speech like the one Elizabeth Warren made the other week (we can say goodbye to her as a winning candidate). Beto O'Rourke just mouths liberal slogans and has very little record. Kamala Harris has no record on a national level. Joe Biden puts his foot in his mouth and represents the Establishment. If the Democratic Party doesn't nominate Sanders we will see four more years of Trump and I stand by that prediction.
2
@Anne if Sanders gets the nomination, it will be like handing the Presidency to the Republicans. He could get 100% of the votes on the coasts and still lose badly. Did we learn nothing from 2016?
9
@Anne Bernie would have beaten Mr.T in 2016 due to the turnout by millenials if their phones were removed beforehand.
Mr. Bruni, I always look forward to reading your articles and listening to you on Don Lemon's nightly program.
You know how nasty and ignorant this last election was full of foul mouthed name calling, trash talking nonsense and Trump's audience loved it. Wait till 2020 (if Trump lasts that long without resigning--just a wishful thought) and watch how this useful idiot of a president has his performance again for his base lies and filthy mouthed accusations vs his challengers. This is something you bet we can count on before the elections even get here.
2
To your point, my initial enthusiasm about O'Rourke was demolished when I found out his avid support of Israel and oblivion to the violations of Palestinian human rights. Now I would actively work to deny him the nomination.
2
Um, Beto couldn't beat Cruz in Texas, Bernie got lots of help from his friends in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and Warren stepped in it with the DNA test. Of the three, this Dem voter would choose Warren, but Frank is right, it's way too early. And how about Al Franken for president? We could use someone, for a change, with brains, a conscience, and a sense of humor.
7
Let's hope that whoever the Democrat nominate, that person will rid the White House of the disaster that is currently residing there. I don't even want to write his name. And we will be rid of the riff raff who is with him.
3
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar is smart, funny, effective and has a knack for connecting with both urban and rural voters. She is the anti-Trump.
10
A basic rule of thumb. Political “junkies” and commentators rarely have the pulse of normal Americans, whose focus is on family, work, and their lives. At this point, really, who cares.
6
As if the rules haven't changed. Since Trump, we are playing some kind of game with some kind of ball with some kind of net, but it isn't like anything we have ever done before.
Stop with the advice to democrats already.
Pundits and similar should think twice before covering the latest shiny object. That's how Trump got so much free coverage and fooled enough fools to become viable.
Stop with the crustal balls already.
Thank you. Truer words never said and all that.
Beto is about a mile wide and inch deep; but looks Kennedesque. I can see the fascination. Uncle Joe is great grand uncle Joe. We all love him dearly, but would hate to see what a run would do to a man with a highly distinguished record of public service, and an impeccable life. I would rather be occupy the position as a democratic sage than a Dukakis.
I do not underestimate the power of the majority of democrats in the congress now to foul things up beyond measure - everyone of them is likely to want to the spotlight on themselves, fight with the other, engage in "who is fairer, purer, more left than the other," and produce virtually nothing coherent. These cats wont herd; they so totally lack the lock step brown shirted proclivities of their opponents.
Now is the time for democrats to register voters, knock on every door - and engage, engage, engage people. And undo what they can of Trump's defiling of this beautiful republic.
But they won't - will they?
Complaining about lost registrations, republican shenanigans, and voter intimidation after a spectacular loss in 2020 - is infinitely more tempting and eventually more satisfying.
And there is one thing democrats can do now that will make all the difference in the world: woo Bloomberg.
2
Since the subject came up here are some things to remember about the men Mr. Bruni mentions here:
Bernie Sanders has been in OUR U.S. government for years - as an independent - and has done nothing to stop the mess we're in right now. Far worse is the fact that he and his supporters knew the Russians infiltrated their facebook pages to smear Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton and they didn't report it. I call that as treasonous as The Con Don's behavior.
Joe Biden has also been in OUR U.S. Congress for years and has also done nothing to stop the mess we are in right now. His time is past.
Beto O'Rourke, according to a comment in the NY Times recently and backed up with believable information, accepted as much BIG oil money as his opponent, Ted Cruz. They are both from Texas and WE THE PEOPLE do not want anymore Texans and/or BIG oil operatives in charge of OUR governments at any level.
The best candidate who will work for 99.9% of us will emerge and WE THE PEOPLE must support and vote for them. Do not let the Good Old Boy media system pick OUR leader.
6
Too early to predict anything. Most effort now should be in bringing down Trump and waking up his base - if that is possible. Trump needs to be treated with ridicule(and indictments) - it is his Achilles heel.
2
This lifelong Dem has seen Steve Bullock close up and sees courage and charisma.
I hope a very qualified Democrat wil agree to run in a flawed and corrupt system. Fake news accepted by the unaware.The appointment of unqualified lawyers to top positions in our judicial system, a Republican Senate quick to trash precedent, voter suppression, on and on, money-making media hosting presidential "debates" that bear no semblance to the real thing.
Joe Biden- too old, Beto- too inexperienced, Bernie - no way. a spoiler, cost HRC the election. I agree with his policies, but they will never happen until the wider public supports radical change in the financial markets and can bundle the resources to defeat them.
3
The media elected Trump. He made them a lot of money so he was constantly in the news. If the same attention had been paid to any other candidate they likely would have won.
8
Ah, but Frank, as you know, writing about the horse race is an easy reach for newspeople on deadline. No need to spend time and energy on in-depth analyses of positions, no need to speak with people on the ground. So much for 'professional journalists.'
1
Let's travel a little farther down Frank's cautionary trail. If 2016 is a guide to the unpredictability of front-runners, what does it tell us about the eventual nominee? Who is the most odious Democrat we can nominate? Anthony Weiner? Rahm Emanuel? Maybe we could nominate a celebrity! How about Alec Baldwin? He might get some crossover votes from Republicans who think he's Trump. But seriously, so long as Americans select leaders with as little thought as they give to whom to watch on television (as the convergence in 2016 shows us), we will have dysfunctional politics. Governing the country is serious business, and every American needs to treat it as such, spending serious amounts of time investigating the qualities and histories of candidates and thinking hard about the consequences of their votes.
3
@Ockham9
We should have more stringent requirements for political office. Then we would not have Trump and some of the other clowns (both parties included) that are now holding office in DC and across the country.
Thanks for the warning, Mr Bruni. Now just please stand aside and let the electorate smarten up on its own.
Remember last time? When the op-ed pages here went crazy. When Bruni put his bet on Marko Rubio and the column ran on the margin for months. But that was nothing compared to Krugman's frothing at the mouth in his passion to beat down Bernie and the Bernie Bros with the rest of the columnist following.
2
@The Iconoclast
Ah, yes, Bernie. Didn't he have big support in Moscow and St. Petersburg? A winner, for sure.
2
I wouldn't say they are getting cocky Frank. I would say however, you needed a headline for your column that was click bait, more than anything.
1
I wonder if the anti-immigrant message has lost any of the resonance of 2015. See what some new "caravan" in the fall of 2020 does for whichever candidate chooses to address it.
1
What’s the point of this? Yeah, it’s hard to know who the nominee will be this far out. What’s news? People are still going to be interested in who the players are and who has a shot - and so they should be. Yes, perceived front-runners often end up losing, but it is also the case that nobody wins a major party nomination for without at some point being perceived as the front-runner. Perceptions a year out from the earliest primaries should be taken with a healthy spoonful of salt, but they aren’t completely meaningless. Biden, Sanders and quite possibly O’Rourke are going to be in the mix. Throwing up your hands to say nobody knows anything is denying the obvious.
2
Yes, Mr. Bruini, polls mean nothing right now because of the fragmentation of communications. I know many people, including myself, who do not participate in any "polls' so they cannot be accurate.
The media must stop talking about 2020. OUR United States of America and governments around the world are under attack by the 0.01% International Mafia Robber Baron/Radical religion Good Old Boys' cabal and WE THE PEOPLE - including the media - must concentrate on stopping them. They will start WW3 and destroy the lives of everyone on the planet in their demented quest for supposed power.
NOW is the time to use our collective energy to show their dangerous intent and stop them.
There may not be another time for centuries.
1
Whomever is the candidate for the left this time around, I hope to high heaven they understand marketing. Obama's team was exceptional at branding, but I'd say Trump has been even more of a force. His name can be dragged through the mud and he'll come out cleaner than ever to his supporters. I fear no matter who ends up on the ticket for the dems they won't find footing with this. They should respect the genius (yes I used that word) of Trump's branding.
An element of the 2016 Presidential campaign that is almost always dismissed when analyzing the outcome because it is way too difficult to calculate is the ten million Russian bots unleashed on the process designed to denigrate the Democratic Presidential candidate and lionize Donald Trump. But this factor cannot be ignored. Two other issues confound the Presidential campaign and will again in 2020. The Iowa caucuses begin the Presidential nomination process, a state that has 3.1 million people, or less that 1% of the total population of the country and is predominantly an agrarian state. And whoever wins Iowa and New Hampshire is crowned by the media the eventual nominee, Republican or Democrat, thereby skewing the entire electoral process. The media should leave the selection process to the voters and stay out of it.
2
Biden...... really? Democratic progressive politics need to move past the career politicians and bring fresh ideas from those whom recently came from the private sector and not someone whom has been jockeying around in DC the last 30 years. Have we as an electorate and country not learned the lessons from HRC the last cycle?
3
Democrats don't need advice from Republicans.
2
The next President of the United States should be ADAM SCHIFF.
c
2
There is an old saying in baseball: you can't win a pennant in April but you can lose one. I thought about this as I read about Elizabeth Warren's ridiculous DNA stunt. She lost my vote in April.
My fervent hope is that the Democrats do not shoot themselves in the foot again - by nominating a strident "progressive", especially one with anti-Semitic, anti-white, anti-European biases. America longs for and desperately needs a voice that rebuilds the ideals America was founded upon - fairness, equal rights, reason, mutual respect: Sen. Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, perhaps Beno O'Rourke.
4
The business of politics is big business and we are all being sucked into it.The recent 2018 midterms were front and center for months .We all need a period of reflection.It would be a time for us all to consider our priorities and to watch carefully the functioning of the next Congress.There is such a thing as candidate fatigue- those who are hyped now may succumb to that.One year is a long time in politics and two years is ages.Let us take some precious minutes to reflect on our Democracy and think would would best advance its goals.
1
At this stage of the game, it’s all about name recognition. The three front runners have either run for the job before or benefitted from National attention for a local race. I’m encouraged that there are a lot of candidates to choose from, and that Democrats and Independents are dying to be given a meaningful alternative to Trump. My preference right now is Beto, but I’m looking forward to hearing from Harris, Brown, Klobuchar and others before making up my mind.
''And the rest of us shouldn’t use it to write off other candidates.''- I would submit that the rest of us shouldn't write off possibilities, ideas or policy initiatives.
We can look back a short time ago within our history that certain ideas were heresy to even mention out loud. (especially within the Democratic party)
Things like Single Payer health care, peace, (ending of wars) true Progressive taxation (where if you make more, then you pay more - not less), a carbon tax, a true living wage, and just simple equality for all. (especially for women )
These things weren't even on the radar, because (a large part going to the media) they weren't talked about, and if they were, then the media would go along with the labels that republicans came up with.
These ideas were : ''fringe, radical, Socialist, etc, etc, etc,''
It is now the reverse that to think that these cannot be done (NEED to be done or implemented) is the radical choice. True progressive candidates across the nation WON in places that the press wrote off as unwinnable. In other places Progressive candidates came so close to winning, but didn't. However they left a legacy that will carry over to the next election.
Here we are. I agree, that we should not get too cocky, but at the same time we should be aggressive and go for the moon unequivocally.
I will be looking for a candidate that will be doing the same.
180
@FunkyIrishman
"These ideas were : ''fringe, radical, Socialist, etc, etc, etc,'' To think that the Republican Party now stands for divisiveness is unworthy of the America that I grew up in and is an understatement. The Democratic Party must be more liberal going forward or they will stand to lose their liberal base not once, but twice, in the current decade. Maybe some may think it's too idealistic to represent the people over the big-moneyed interests, I say we can't afford not to.
16
@FunkyIrishman@Diane Kropelnitski @Jojojo
I haven't seen a discussed candidate yet that would pose a threat to the current President, warts et. al. We forget he beat 16, a handful formidable. Kasic, Bush, Cruz, Rubio and Huckabee...all more qualified than those mentioned. The bench is very, very bare.
Brown, Klobuchar or Hickenlopper all to me are far from world-beaters. Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg are too old. Beto too young. Harris and Booker flame throwers. Kerry - you gotta be kidding. @Paul Wortman suggest it has to be someone not currently on the radar. I tend to agree. He cites Carter, Clinton and Obama...the last three Presidents.
Two Governors from southern states and America's first African-American senator from Chicago.
The the Season to start thinking. Who could it be?
1
@FunkyIrishman Definitely be aggressive and shoot for the moon.
6
Right now, in an imaginary primary full of the presumptive candidates, Beto would get my vote.
This will be completely agnostic towards political beliefs, any Democratic nominee will surely be highly preferable to Trump / whoever the Republicans nominate.
We need a candidate with the charisma, skill, and energy to beat Trump. I think its foolhardy to imagine policy will be a decider in the coming general election (and who knows if it will matter in another general again?).
I believe Beto is the most dynamic politician we can offer. Beto's lack of credentials might even make him a better candidate - though a worse president.
I fear Warren's handling of the DNA is a sign Trump is in her head. Biden too prone to gaffes. Bernie's time may have been 2016, though I would certainly consider him as well.
1
Beto maybe...
Biden please retire and enjoy your accomplishments. Thank you!
Bernie fumbled his chance last time by not fighting the idiot Dems in charge,
Bernie vs Trump may have had a chance...
1
Democrats may be losers, but they are not fascists like Republicans. So it was natural that Republicans picked the biggest fascist. It is you, the pundit class, who disregards that truth.
Republicans are fascists and they are complicit with criminals like Trump.
1
While we and our codependents in the media waste the next 18 months on chit chatting about the nominating contest, the problems that we're supposedly trying to solve via the 2020 election will be ignored.
We need a moderate to win in 2020- Democrat, Republican, or Independent doesn’t matter so much. Moderate is what matters. Issues over tribalism.
Mike Bloomberg with a younger- second term heir apparent- running mate such as a retired general who “can keep us safer” than Trump when Trump shakes his immigrant fear mongering rattle. That is if Trump is even running come 2020. Bloomberg is competent AND he can fund the entire campaign out of his own pocket. Many times over in fact.
If the Democrats want to lose they should nominate a progressive. America will lose too because- even if the progressive wins the presidency - the other tribe will do what it can to destroy them. In that case both America and the world at large lose.
1
I don't think Beto should run for president this time around. He's young and should go for Texas senate or governorship for a few years then go for president. If he ran and lost it would end a promising career and if he won, after 8 years all he has to look forward to is the presidential library. Someone like Beto could do great things, however I think he should start with Texas and move up from there.
2
No
No
and No.
No one excites just yet.
1
By the people, for the people, we are the work shirts and boots. Start marching with a plan. Many are judging Avenatti style as crude. Yet, Beto's BILLIONS they accept as OK, glazed over with hushed fraud real estate deals and cheering as if we were at the final quarter of the big game. We are.
Judge all greed concealed with a veil of truth, there is not much time, soon the veil will be lifted to reveal a third world country, our beloved Country.
1
@s.whether
Don't know where you're getting your info on Beto from. He is well to do, yes, but doesn't have billions. There were some speculative reports that his wife's family might be worth billions as a result of her father's business success, but that's not definite. Yes, there were reports that Beto faced a COI in some real estate development plan backed by his father in law a few years ago. I think this fell by the wayside, and Beto recused himself from voting on certain issues pertaining to that plan.
I agree that polls this early are questionable. But you, and the NYTimes, have roughly two years. At a topic a month, that’s maybe....20 topics before serious campaigning takes off. Pick a topic and invite all presidential hopefuls, and not-so-hopefuls, to present their best views on that subject. Views they will stand by, advocate, and implement when in office with a.....helpful Congress.
Campaign finance reform, voting machine security, the electoral college, the Tuesday voting day, .....privacy rights, updating laws, or Constitutional Amendments, in areas such as labor law, civil rights monitoring, anti-trust, our federalism structure, state’s rights.....and on and on.
My choice of a first topic- what is an American corporation? Now, and what it should be. Time for a federal definition, a requirement of X percent of business activity here? Transparency? Limitations on holding companies’, in breadth and number?
I want to hear ideas. Not polls, not the amount of fundraising-to-date, not pat campaign slogans. And forget that art-of-the-possible limitation. The possible starts with the ideas. And the determination. And maybe, after you get done with the series, a candidate.
3
For the life of me, I can not understand how anyone could get behind Bernie Sanders. He did poorly in the contest with Hillary: never won a state that wasn't a majority-white, caucus-only state.
Further his record in Congress is pitiful: no meaningful legislation passed but more importantly, no allies.
Lastly, all he is does is spew rhetoric to his base, with no realistic plan to achieve it. "Break up the big banks."
Sound like someone else we know?
7
I refuse to read this column. I'm just commenting to say this: Media owe it to citizens to cover issues of interest *to citizens* not to media themselves. I am thoroughly sick of the way politics are covered in our democracies. Newspapers, even opinion columns, should not be political gossip columnists. Yes, you political junkies are way too far ahead or yourselves and too far away from the issues the electorate and the country face. Time to do a little soul-searching.
2
"Get Cocky" makes good headlines. This is language that is inappropriate for the New York Times, but I'm tired of pointing out the inflammatory nature of NYT headlines at this point.
And, trust me, there isn't a Democrat on the political scene who is 'cocky' at this point, Frank. The political scene is too volatile and there is too much at stake.
2
I'm feeling positively about Amy Klobichar right now, even though the thinking is we want an attractive, middle-aged white male. She has that special something, and she does it quietly - wouldn't that be a CHANGE people might go for?
3
More "cocky" is preceisely what we don't need. And it's not just limited to a few guys.
It would also help us all if the media were less "cocky" in their left-leaning prognosticaions.
Look inward too, Frank. Cockiness is everywhere these days, on both sides. Cocky doesn't get the needed job done.
5
I think a more accurate headline would have been: Why journalists and media sources shouldn't get cocky. I think most of us are aware that polls at this point are ... well ... pointless. So why do media outlets do them and why are journalists writing about them?
2
We are being subjected to incessant and meaningless polls because they make money; for the polling companies and the media. This country has a 24 hour non-stop media monster that needs feeding and polls are like in-between snacks.
For the past 2 decades, the GOP has taken on the mantle of the party of disruption.
If recent history is any guide, the Dem nominee will be Hillary again, or maybe Chelsea!
1
You could'nt be more right. The ultimate winning Democratic nominee should be an extremely guarded secret because the Russians are sniffing and will hijack yet another election. Meanwhile, the only way for Democrats to shake off the Russian tail is by having as many nominees as possible, spread disinformation. But they should keep their fingers to feel the pulse of the people very closely. But please, Joe Biden is no Jeb Bush!
The news media should start giving attention to other excellent potential democratic candidates for President: Mark Warner, Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher Murphy, Jef Merkley, Jay Inslee, Sherrod Brown, John Hickenlooper, and Brian Schatz.
3
Neither Joe, Bernie nor Beto will be the nominee, i hope. Nor will Warren or (horrors) HRC.
How about Amy Klobuchar or Sherrod Brown?
Experienced yet fresh, neither seems "old." Liberal yet pragmatic, they reach across the aisle. No eye-bulging screaming or vilifying the opposition, they seem grown up. They represent the region the 2016 Dems managed to ignore and lose. Unlike the 2016 Limousine Liberal crowd that somehow managed to lose the rust belt, they seem to actually care about working people, as opposed to being derisive of them.
They could, you know, win.
167
Yup, two fine choices --Could back either or both very happily.
22
Brown is 66. Count 'em: 66. And Clinton demonstrated that US is not ready to elect a woman.
1
@Jojojo - Totally agree! They would make a great ticket. And I think they could win the Midwest.
15
Not that I am thoroughly uninterested in who the Democrats will choose to run against the GOP, but I'm taking a break from worrying and prognosticating about that race. In my state we have many local elections in off-years, and those are far too sparsely attended by the voters.
Also? I need a break to enjoy what's around me--the people, the art, the food, the culture. I want to ground myself more in what is important to me so I will have more energy later to fight for them.
Most importantly, there are other fights to be fought. Worrying about the 2020 election now consumes energy that could be used on problems happening now and in much of 2019.
I'll keep an ear out on the primaries. When I feel moved I'll make a choice comment or five. But for now, I am letting myself tune out the horse race and finding the relative calm invigorating.
1
There are lots of good choices in the democratic party! That is the good news. We do not need to go back, but to look forward at the leadership all over the party. Amy Klobuchar gets my support!!!!!GO AMY, RUN AMY! We need a clear headed, thoughtful leader. Every time she speaks the thinks before opening her mouth and truly considers what she has to say.
2
This country needs Bernie, period. He is one person in the race that isn't putting on any kind of facade on the campaign trail. He represents an alternate vision for the country vs. Trump. Trying to be a moderate or centrist just doesn't work anymore.
2
@Frank NO. Please stop with the Bernie nonsense. Thank you.
3
If I was Trump and saw Jeb Bush and Chris Christie were front runners I would have known I could beat them.
Bush was so easy to mock - had that plodding, lecturing, hound dog affect.
And Christie was toast once he was photographed looking like Grover Cleveland in his baseball "costume" on the mound. He was Trump without the carnival barker charm we have all come to enjoy.
In a land of midgets the tallest dwarf looks like a redwood, eh Donald?
1
This is neat.
Write a timeless column. With blanks for the proper nouns.
When you need a column just fill in the proper noun blanks with names from the day’s trending gossip.
Like a comedian calling out the name of the city she is in. ‘Hellloooo Timbuktu’. The band calling out the city name. ‘What is up erehwon!’
String together statements of the obvious of anytime anywhere, sure, but to make it a professional’s work, make it gossipy at the same time
Hellloooo Bruni.
5
Read My Lips---Biden Is Toast....
3
trump will win; republicans for 12 more years; a dead-on prophet predicted it....
1
Hey Frank?
if it's too early (and it definitely is) than why are you bothering to write about it?
We have actual time-sensitive problems to deal with today.
Please focus.
2
Polls at this early stage a clickbait, and worthy of being completely ignored.
Just what we need: 3 white guys. Biden- Anita Hill and a reputation for being too “handsy” with women, boaster that he could have won in 2016 despite not having run and never having even won a primary for the top spot. Bernie - writer of rape fantasies, beneficiary of Russian propaganda, monumental egotist who, when he saw he had a shot, demonized Hillary Clinton so his bros could not vote for her. Beto - handsome and charismatic enough to have become the rock star candidate despite not much experience, while similar women with more experience and service (e.g. Kamala Harris) benefit from no such buzz.
That these 3 are the top ones confirms my view that a woman has little chance of being elected president in the foreseeable future.
2
You’re right that Harris — and Klobuchar should get more media attention over all. But Bruni was focusing on which candidates are currently at the top of the polls. In addition his prediction that it’s extremely possible that someone who is not on the radar now will end up the nominee could be read as indirect affirmation of female candidates. It would have been “nice “ if Bruni himself had mentioned that !
1
Senator Amy Klobuchar got more legislation passed in any other senator in 2016. She was Minnesota's first woman senator ever and has a 72 percent approval rating. She's whip-smart and diplomatic, and she's a true leader.
She's also nowhere to be found in The New York Times, except for a sexist story three weeks ago talking about her being "Minnesota nice" and not mentioning much else.
My question is, Mr Bruni, is:
Where's Amy, NYT?
Don't ignore the person who could be the Democrats' hope, our whole country's hope, at getting this morally and fiscally irresponsible con man out of office.
10
@common sense advocate
I'm fine with her not being thrown in to the "usual suspects" list that's being trotted out right now. That slate of appetizer candidates may be wiped clean entirely a year from now. Better I think to avoid overexposure at this point.
2
I hear you, G C B - and I really hope you are right!
1
Dems, beware!! When nearly every Republican political strategist is saying that Joe Biden is the candidate they fear the most against Trump in 2020, watch out! Surely, the Dems won't be stupid enough to fall for this little bit of reverse psychology, right? Right? Joe, I love ya, but please don't do it. You would be eaten alive.
3
Correct. After the living. quivering nightmare named Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if the candidate is three raccoons in a trench coat.
1
I can’t bear two years of this type of column.
4
I’m waiting for Hillary to come down the escalator, LOL.
3
At 80+, I long for a Time when our Presidency and our Country
did not depend on Money and Marketing for its total Management. We have succeeded in moving a Malingering Moron into the Oval Office. Meanwhile, apparently, No one has
the depth of intelligence, at the Top, to analyze the character of the Candidates for diagnsable psychological dangers in said characters. We have succeeded in enthroning a bonafide
Sociopathic Personality Disorder in the Oval Office. He is now enjoying his chronic public display,24/ 7, of his psychotic symptoms. He is Sick...we, the People, are in Need of Treatment!
1
I’m surprised that such a truism about early polling warrants a column by Mr. Bruni. Next up--the sun rises in the east.
1
Donald Trump is under 17 separate investigations, he is a woefully ignorant fool who has cheated everyone and anyone with whom he has done business, including his wives and mistresses, and worse, those who voted for him, and yet we fear his being reelected.
1
All this 'second guessing' re Warrens' DNA test appears a total fabrication to me. Who has the time or inclination to even care about such a trivial matter, besides Repubs looking for slime with which to load their character assassination apparati.
Trump came down that elevator and delivered a "racially-charged..."? Why can't you say "racist?"
2
One name:
Chelsea Clinton
Landreaux-Harris 2020
'Tis that season, but who wants to really think about it except potential candidates, donors, political junkies, and pundits. Given that the only winning Democratic candidates in the last 50 years literally came out of nowhere as in Jimmy ("Who?") Carter after the Nixon impeachment, Bill ("the Comeback Kid') Clinton, and Barack ("No Drama") Obama, it's time to give it a rest because the Trump slayer probably hasn't even emerged.
48
Frank you can do much better than wasting time, effort and premium editorial space to tell us not to pay attention to polls two years before a presidential election.
Everybody - well, the general public - loooves a horserace, especially one in which the darkhorse comes from back in the pack to beat the favorite.
Yes, it was supposed to be Rudy G and Hillary C, but they both got overtaken.
If I had to bet, I'd look for Amy K to lead the Democrats to victory over the poor slob who has to run when President Pence chooses to get out of town. Who would be stupid enough, Romney? Giuliani? Sarah Sanders? My eyes glaze over.
1
"Trump finally came onto the radar and earned inclusion in polls around May 2015 — five months further into the process than where we are now. But he didn’t take the lead even then. In a Quinnipiac poll of Republican voters released on May 28, 2015, he placed eighth, just behind Ted Cruz." Wow! But now he is being investigated for collusion ? What a joke! No one, including the NY Times & Vladimir Putin did not believe he even had a chance till the election results came. Now we are supposed to believe Russia put its might behind this loser? The politically incorrect Americans elected him while you were all sleeping at the wheel. Stop whining about it and get ready for 2020. As the writer suggests, no one knows what is going to happen in 23 months.
Early in the presidential campaign, we watched Trump bash Mexican immigrants, women not his wife he allegedly (according to his own videotaped comments) had sex with, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc. We thought he was doomed. He bragged about the mobs at his rallies. His fever pitch verbal diarrhea increased. So did the mobs. His MAGA signature slogan was ridiculous. The MAGA baseball caps and T-shirts sold out. He found the key. It opened the door to the mob's hatred of those allegedly stealing their jobs and raping their women. Trump won their adulation. And votes. Maybe Russia helped. But the mob didn't need Russian propaganda. Trump was his own propagandist. He was effective. The mob still supports him. Can Democrats find a candidate to pry away enough of the mob to abandon him? It won't be easy.
1
Two old men and a party animal ... We are in bad shape.
2
Biden and Sanders too old. O'Rourke too young. Elizabeth Warren? Trump will dress her up as Pocahontas on Halloween, forget it. Kamala and Cory? Politicians who sound like politicians.
Sherrod Brown? Too rumpled. Mitch Landreau? Too nice.
We need guys like Jerry Brown and Bobby Kennedy. Knew how to take it, and how to dish it out.
4
And neither one of them should run. Biden and Sanders are more of the past. O'rourke is a windbag that will fail miserably in what is sure to be a brawl of an election. Eric Holder is right. The democrats need someone who will kick them when they go low, which Trump surely will. The next election is not going to be about ideas or policy. Sadly, it will be about who is the better demagogue that can bamboozle the working people tha their lot is going to be improved under their presidency. Trump has done nothing for his fabled base. Zero, zippo, zilch. Yet they keep supporting him. Simply put, the democrats need a better lyer.
If you want the answer, follow the Russians on Facebook.
I would be willing to bet a ton of cash that the eventual Democratic nominee isn't even mentioned by name in this column. And that's good for the Democrats. Because it means the corrupt, unfit bully-in-chief man-child will exhaust his armory of Twitter taunts before he can even find the right target.
I know one thing, Biden as president would leave the Russian interference with no ability to excite the public. Who would believe that Biden had prostitutes, or colluded with the Russians, of siphoned off public money, or lied repeatedly, or for that matter, lied at all? If all you disbelievers don t think this is an asset, you are too cynical.
Another swipe at Elizabeth Warren by Mr. Bruni. This has become predictable.
1
By endorsing Hillary Clinton, the NYT helped give us Donald Trump.
Let your readers figure out what to do and stick to the facts.
Dirty tricks from Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz also steered us into this mess.
Well done !
7
Lies. And a very bad misreading that assigns more blame than responsibility. Are you a Russian bot testing the waters for 2020?
1
Remember predictions? Seriously? This is all just media hype designed to sell papers, I mean get clicks. I could write a simple computer program to generate those, and this, article. And its why we wound up with that guy in the white house. You are welcome at any time to abandon this "business model". And yes, I clicked on this article, naively expecting a reasoned discussion of why Biden, Bernie, and Beto are not the appropriate candidates. The "clever" headline should have tipped me off, my bad.
If you're ever feeling that audacity of hope about progressives come read Frank. He'll throw cold water on you. We just got through the midterms. Maybe we can savor the moment before the second guessing, the finger wagging and the pearl clutching begins over 2020.
@Julie R
It is exactly the age-ist, racist "pearl-clutching"-type remark that makes "progressives" unelectable. It will be a disaster for us all if the Dems wind up with fascists of the left -
3
We need Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown. He is progressive, quick witted and youngish. Plus, he will give us Ohio and take it away from the Republicans.
4
I agree with the column, as we all know it's going to be Oprah.
1
Please go home Bernie Sanders. You are too far to the left for many moderate Democrats and you're a self-aggrandizing grandstander. We Dems need someone who is electable, and you, Bernie, are polarizing.
3
@NR
If there's one thing we learned from the 2016 election, its that a polarizing candidate can't win the presidency. Oh, wait...
1
Beto would not stand a chance against Trump. He's a candidate whose core support comes from women and does not seem like the type of candidate who can galvanize men. Men would be more likely to vote for a woman than a man who is considered to be dreamy by women. In a one-on-one with Trump that would guarantee defeat. He would not make any dents in his base and he probably wouldn't garner even as much support as Clinton. There are lots of salty dudes out there that Democrats need to win, and Beto will not be able to win any of those votes. Biden and Sanders are the only 2 who stand a chance against Trump. Perhaps Kamala Harris depending on how well she comes out to the electorate--but everyone else should drop out, because quite simply their winning will not put the party in a position to win the election, and running would be a pure egoist vanity project at the country's expense
How about Sherrod Brown and either Stacy Abrams or Kamala Harris as VP?
All those in favor say "aye."
See, that was easy!
3
Dont care about 2020 yet...wont care for 12 months. Final Stop.
Get out the vote: Biden/Obama in 2020. Shake up the world with that combination.
1
Good column, Frank.....but can't we Americans get a break from campaigns? Really. They're non-stop. Our minds are being assaulted by constant very divisive campaigning. I realize the earth shattering importance of purging the country of the incompetent, lying narcissist in the WH. But the incessant and expensive posturing has gone on for decades. I remember after the mid terms in '98 seeing the cover of Newsweek proclaim George W. Bush as the Republican front runner. In that case it was prescient. I know nothing will change; we're too obsessed with these elections to limit campaigns. Just a rant. My ears hurt.
Yeah. Imagine if the media would stop reporting on it? That would be refreshing.
Do you ever say anything interesting or useful? Hopefully you’ll go back to cooking and eating and talking about that eventually because you have nothing worthwhile to offer in this particular iteration and I’m pretty sure you know it.
5
The absence of comment - even mention - of Bernie Sanders in the body of this "opinion" piece again demonstrates for this reader how the NY Times' opposition to the democratic socialist's ideas helped to bring about the monstrous result that was Trump's victory. There is no longer any mystery about the outcome when a leading "liberal" news source demonstrates the power of obfuscation.
1
I’m always disappointed by the narrowness of the topics Bruni writes about. So what’s the message here? We shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves? Ho hum. Is that supposed to be an idea? Maybe he should write an advice column for op-ed’s. Keep it simple. Keep it small. Maybe you can just phone it in.
2
Talking about polls and ranking potential candidates at this stage is just sophisticated avoidance. It’s a distraction. There are important real things to do and issues to learn about for all of us. We need to be better informed. To read history. To go well beyond slogans and regurgitating what we had spoon fed to us on TV or the (mainly stupid) internet. If you need a break from all this high-brow work, I get that. But then let’s talk about something fun - not dull meaningless polls. I’d rather debate polls on who Is “sexually servicing” Trump these days (hint - it’s certainly not Melania). Even better, who is Melania having sex with these days? Hint, it’s not Trump. I’d encourage reporters to ask Trump this! If we are going to do low brow, let’s make it hilarious. Then let’s get back to serious work.
How could we possibly know who the nominee will be when the Russians haven't yet declared their favorite?
231
@Barking Doggerel: Yes! The Russians have proven to be a good indicator of which candidate is most likely to attempt to draw us into war, in particular a war with them, so by all means, we should closely monitor their moves.
6
Oh please, Trump has given Russia no reason to switch their support to someone else.
13
@Dan Stackhouse They have to hedge their bets.
2
I like the idea of settling on a team to take down Trump. I understand that's not exactly how it works - a candidate and a running mate only - but I'm hoping for a curve ball in the final months after a few debates. I'm already cringing at this infighting between Beto's camp and Bernie's camp. It feels very counter-productive. I want the new Democratic leaders to swallow their self-interest for a greater good. A team of top Democrats working together would truly be a force.
"Beto, Biden, Kamala, and Sanders, the last 4 remaining candidates, decide to join forces and work together. All sacrifice the lead for the strength of cooperation, collaboration, and teamwork. 'We're not worried about individual success, we'll let the voters decide who they want at the top of the ticket, but just know we're all on the same side.'"
1
Nobody who has been around with a modicum of proper education will think of polls predicting anything so far in advance.
That bring said, what is the point of your article?
If you have someone or some people who deserve to be President, say who they are and why.
Coy verbiage like the one in this article is at best useless padding material. Padding a centrist ideology you exhibited in the last election. Clintonian hocus pocus and one percenter fluff.
Tell us what you think of Bernie, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. Three candidates you probably wil do your best to keep in the shadows in the best case scenario. Tell us why we should not choose among them. Intellectually and politically honest,progressive people who will deliver us to the 21st Century (we are not there thanks to GW Bush and Trump) of say, Scandinavia and Canada.
Tabloid editorializing is all you do. I am sick of it.
1
If you're being alliterative, don't leave out Booker!
2
Biden is too old, and puts his foot in his mouth too often. There's also blatant incompetence. I can't forget his bumbling performance when he helped Clarence Thomas onto the Supreme Court.
Sanders is too old, but has a different problem: this country will not elect a "socialist Jew" as president. I can see the GOP hate machine grinding him up into little pieces in the south and Midwest. His failure to truly support Clinton also led to her defeat.
O’Rourke we know next to nothing about. This would be buying a pig in a poke.
My point is simple. We cannot allow Trump to win in 2020. The Dems must be careful.
3
"And the rest of us shouldn’t use it to write off other candidates."
Like who?
You lost me when you compared Bernie Sanders to Ben Carson. What foolishness! And no, there won’t be any “new revelations”. The media and the Clinton campaign tried their damndest to smear Bernie, but still seems pretty authentic.
Unfortunately, Beto is a man with a with a conscience whereas Trump has none. If Trump is the nominee for the Republicans, then Beto is too kind and too soft-spoken to survive. Trump lowdown dirty fear longer just as Cruz was here in Texas during the senatorial election. So sad a man of integrity like Beto would lose to a con artist like Trump just like he did to that sniveling weasel Cruz.
Biden and Sanders are each almost 80 years old, and a year ago no one outside of his home county had even heard of this guy named Beto. Yet these are the guys some in the Democratic Party are banking on as presidential material?
Hey, my 82-year old dad watches MSNBC all day and is a pretty determined liberal. Why not him?
2
You got right,Frank: THE FEARSOME FIVE.
Yes, so please remind your colleagues at the NYT to give fair coverage to all of the potential candidates and not to fixate on the nominal “ frontrunner” du jour who may only have 20% favorability.
And also please don’t hyperanalyze irrelevant blips like Warren’s DNA test, unless you spend at least that much print on her proposed policies, of which she already has come forward with several.
Your paper never took Bernie seriously until pretty far into the campaign, and Trump was given too much attention.
2
Do any of these candidates have an original idea? A Marshall Plan for central America? Used carriers for a Japan threatened by North Korean/Chinese nukes? A nuclear powered alternative to global warming? A nationwide push for new state parks for an expanding population?
Nope. The best the Democrats can do is to rub our noses into the carpet like we're a bunch of bad dogs, because we have not done enough for the poor, or the homeless, or the addicted.
Bad dog!
4
I am quite sure that if Biden was president, much of the heat would go out of the strident divisions between the parties and the Russians would not succeed in blackening Biden. Just by his being there, the Russian edge of power that makes them so successful at fake news would become far less effective. Nobody would believe that Biden would turn treasonous or that he would consort with prostitutes or that he would lie, cheat and humiliate our allies. No one would think him billigerant or callous or that his aim would be to succeed at money laundering.
2
Just turn it over to Facebook and some algorithm.
Group think squared.
Could it be much more stupid than what got us into Iraq or two years into el jefe, 17 investigations and counting? (Not discounting FB's role in aiding Trump's piracy of the nation.)
So, whoever gets upchucked and whoever passes. The guts of the selection apparatus is just insanely out of control.
If alter cockers Biden and Bernie can run, so can Bloomberg, who would win.
2
Frank: please no more prognostications ! Is anyone else out there tired of the pundits—- especially those pundits who spend most of their time in Manhattan or the Hamptons? Sigh.
2
To listen to the liberal media the Democrats have 2020 in the bag, all they have to do is pick a nominee.2020 is not an election between Republicans & Democrats, Its an election between Nationalists & Socialists, and once again the Nationalists will win the electoral vote, & keep winning as long as the Democrats on soft on immigration, & pander to African Americans, Muslims & Jews.This is the harsh reality.Trumps victory was not a mistake, he is a symbol of what the Republican base is all about.Trump knew it and pandered to the deplorable, remember when Trump replied to the question that David Duke has come out for him, He said “David Duke, who’s he ?"
2
Sherrod Brown and Stacey Abrams. Just sayin'
this 68yo asks that no octogenarians apply
4
Google “Sanders most popular” -- and you get this:
“Bernie Sanders most popular senator in Morning Consult poll”
https://www.usatoday.com
Oct 10, 2018 – "Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the most popular member of the U.S. Senate, while Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is the least popular, according to the latest Morning Consult poll."
“Americans Maintain a Positive View of Bernie Sanders - Gallup News”
https://news.gallup.com/poll/.../americans-maintain-positive-view-bernie-sanders.aspx
Oct 5, 2018 - Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats, is most popular among Democrats (78%), as would be expected, but a majority of independents (54%) also view him favorably. Meanwhile, more than twice as many Republicans view him unfavorably (69%) as favorably (26%).
“FOX NEWS POLL: Bernie Sanders remains the most popular politician ...”
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-politician-in-the-us-bernie-sanders-fox...
How do you spin that?
We'll debate if he’d make the best candidate in the lineup, but recall in the 2016 campaign-- there was not one NY Times columnist or reporter who would be caught dead saying anything faintly favorable about Bernie Sanders.
They were all careful to denigrate all his proposals. Then they wouldn't be called too left wing liberal by Fox & Friends.
To restore the New Deal is unfashionable. Stay within guidelines.
2
Bruni is late to the dance. Oh so many pundits have been making this very point for several days and, through the magic of television, detailing the perils of premature predictions with numerous charts.
The column was overwritten and needed some judicious pruning. Bruni's column could accurately be summarized with this sentence:
A lot could change between now and 2020, so don't excited about any would-be candidate just yet.
2
Whoever the Dems decide to run, they better stay far away from newbies and wannabes and family dynasty has beens. Meaning Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Beto O'Rourke/Julian Castro, and Joe Kennedy lll. All of them will fail, very badly.
4
Clever alliteration in the title. But what the article sorely lacks proves its point; it is an example of the folly it points to. What about Harris, Gillibrand, Warren? The infinite bias of the media is here apparent in an article pointing to the flaws of the coverage of the 2020 race already places much more attention to the male contenders.
2
Amy Klobuchar maks the most sense at this juncture.
2
Samrt and strong piece !
Elizabeth Warren has revealed as clear a program as one could reasonably hope for, including a bill calling for worker representation on corporate boards of directors. Unfortunately, she has disqualified herself. She took a DNA test that was clearly intended to help her campaign, but she did not report the payment for the test as a campaign contribution. That's a crime, as Trump's lawyer found out. Fortunately, the ideas she has put forward will not die with her candidacy.
1
I hope Frank Bruni is listening to himself, and that his fellow political pundits are listening as well. They need this message more than Democratic voters do.
1
Normally, anti-incumbent fatigue sets in during the 7th year of a two-term president. Voters then select the most anti-incumbent personality, as popular sentiment typically moves like a pendulum from one end to the other. Thus, Clinton begat Bush, who begat Obama, who in turn begat Trump – pendulum swings, indeed!
However, with Trump, everything happens in overdrive and in extremes. So, anti-incumbent fatigue has set in after barely 2 years into Trump’s first term. Therefore 2020 will see the most anti-Trump personality win the Democratic nomination. This necessarily means a person who is soft-spoken, humble, learned, patient, deliberate, politically experienced, anti-business, pro-environment, pro-immigration, pro-worker, pro-free trade, foreign policy savvy, pro-EU, pro-NATO, and pro-western alliance with a demonstrable presidential demeanor, a sterling character and a true patriot with real MAGA (Make America Global Again) credentials! Maybe John Kerry should run again?
37
@Jack Nargundkar
Or Amy Klobuchar or Sherrod Brown.
9
@Jack Nargundkar
Your list is spot on, but you left out "relatable" and "charisma." That proved to be what was lacking in Kerry's last run. Had he possessed those qualities, I believe he would have been able to dust off the Swiftboat assault.
11
@Jack Nargundkar
Sounds like Klobacher could be the ticket. Bernie Sanders would be my choice, but I think he serves us better in the Senate.
2
Even a small dose of reality ought to be humbling, the need for courage and ambition to run (to serve the country) notwithstanding. I still can't believe that a known clownish crook and liar, if not a wild exaggerator, and a 'racist' at least since his hysteric Birtherism, was accepted by the republican party (unless you think it was instinctive, to access power...to abuse it), and made him their candidate.and then, with the explicit help from Putin's Russia, the final assault of the presidency. In Trump's case, it just happened that he was the big-mouth loudspeaker of G.O.P.'s ancient ideological stand kept under wraps (or under 'lock and key', if you prefer). But I digress. The candidates you mentioned may be worth of consideration...as long as they stay unpretentious (and not arrogant 'a la Trump'). Let the best man/woman win the nomination. For that, there is a prudent time yet to get to know them. Quite frankly, anybody with a pulse ought to be better than the current vulgar brutus ignoramus, shamelessly abusing the power of his office, with the complicity of the G.O.P.
2
Despite having the vocabulary and syntax of a 2-year-old, Trump was able to weaponize the little language he possessed to devastating effect during the 2016 campaign. He harangued his crowds with repeated references to “Crooked Hilary,” “Lyin’ Ted,” “Low Energy Jeb,” etc. and cries of “Make America Great Again” and his supporters latched onto his simplistic insults and jingoism with frightening enthusiasm.
Barack Obama gave us the memorable campaign slogans of “Yes We Can,” ‘Change We Can Believe In” and “Hope” which also resonated effectively with the majority of the electorate.
Whichever Democrat opposes the GOP candidate in 2020, had better find a way to “mobilize the the English language and send it into battle” ( Murrow on Churchill) in 2020 as he/she will be fighting for the soul of this country - maybe for the last time.
124
@Susan Obama's "Si, se puede" wasn't his idea
1
@Bar tennant whose idea it was doesn't matter / is irrelevant to this comment...the commenter's point, which I think is a good one, is about the candidates ability to effectively "mobilize the English language."
2
"And the rest of us shouldn't use it to write off other candidates."
Amen to that!
1
Please do not only address your advice to the readers. The people who really need to take this advice to heart are your fellow columnists. Wherever they may work--print, internet, TV. Not that anyone is going to take that advice. Instead over the next two years tens of thousands of columns will be written and thousands of hours of TV commentary will discuss who will be the Democratic nominee. Mostly wasted speculation based on little evidence. We live in an age when communication costs almost nothing. Therefore, we have thousands of people speculating about Presidential nominations and Mueller investigations and pretty much everything.
1
If Bernie wins the nomination, the Russians will support him.
1
@klm
Why would they stop supporting their boy, Trump?
So true. Thank you for writing this.
So why are you raising the subject at all? In doing so this column simply propagates what it claims to be warning against.
Surely there are more timely subjects you could be addressing.
It's kind of like the evangelical preacher who rails against sex for an entire sermon.
2
Were the Democratic list on paper, it would have a huge black hole right in the middle of it. I, for one, not even including my shadow, am convinced Biden has bid his time farewell, long ago. Bernie's on a journey all his own, and I don't want to join him; not including being tired beyond death of old white men regardless of their political persuasion. It's time to change gears; the terrain is different. As for Beto, "Oh, no! Not him again! The Oreo filling of Barack Obama!" No thank you. What's needed is Next, not right now; and certainly not with nose hairs.
We are looking for someone in their 50's. A hardcore intellectual (you don't have to prep and prop, you have to keep up). The list of candidates without doubt should include Asians. We need to stop ignoring the very ones amongst us who understand the" bigger picture" because they've been pieces in both puzzles.
Wow, a Chinese American President! Snap!
If not a Cheerio trying to float in all-white milk, a subtlety of understanding and strength could immediately be brought to the table; and certainly a reordering and emphasis on our educational system. I mean, if I can't depend on a Chinese American President to place an emphasis on education as the number one measure necessary to convert current hostility into cooperative benefit, I give up.
Clearly, more and more women are demanding a presidential candidacy role.
2
I share your nervousness. But even the DNC will know better than to pick up cudgels for Biden. That doesn't mean they won't try to put their hand on the scale for someone, as they did with Hillary Clinton. Of course Biden doesn't need much encouragement. If one elderly lady in Keokuk says she's for him he 'll be there.
1
On the other hand, look at how the Democratic side went that cycle. The media pundits said it was Hillary's turn, and they moved heaven and earth to make it happen. And no need to recount how that worked out.
1
Good lord --first CNN's Chris Cillizza and now the NYT's Frank Bruno desperate to turn us into the republican party where we disqualify or own candidates solely because of their age, gender or race. Sorry Frank, democrats are too smart for that. If it turns out that the best candidate to do what Hillary failed to do --win Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, PA and Florida's I-4 corridor-- turns out to be a 75 year old white male than so be it. Maybe the people who participated in those early polls that you so discount have figured this out already. We don't end Trump's reign of terror by increasing the Calif, NY and Mass margins people -- we win it solely by taking back those voters in the midwest and FL that Trump lied to and stole away. There are very few democratic candidates that can speak to this critical electorate. Trump knows this. Democrats should too. So maybe we democrats should get behind someone early -- someone who can win those few states that matter in 2020. Otherwise, its four more years of Trump and everything, and everyone that comes along with it.
2
The most interesting topic to discuss today: A summary of polling from four years ago.
Dear God Almighty, another column in which a pundit tries to appear wise by reminding us how flawed all the pundits and pollsters were two years in advance of the last contest.
How about just describing whether and why these candidates' policies resonate with voters you've actually spoken with? It would be remarkable for an opinion columnist to pay a little less attention to his own temporary opinion.
2
If Beto had beaten Cruz we’d have something to talk about.
He didn’t.
As to the other two guys, Biden help give us Clarence Thomas and Bernie should stay in the Senate because it’s time for other folks to vye for the nomination.
1
In 2015, I was quite certain that our next president would be named, ‘Jeb’ or ‘Hillary.’
And I was okay with either one.
In my wildest dreams I couldn’t imagine that anyone could be hoodwinked to vote for the buffoon we now know as president trump.
1
Who is the best candidate in 2020? Whoever the Democratic nominee is.
Right now, Democrats and "educated" progressives need to get in their heads something that even the most "poorly educated" of the Reality Show Con Artists "poorly educated voters" understands.
US elections are binary choices and you are voting for the party, not the person.
That is why evangelists voted for the most non-Christ like candidate we ever had and free trade Vichy GOP voted for a protectionist. They know you have to win elections in order to govern.
While I have preferences, the Democratic nominee already has my vote. I am not going to force the candidate to take some "purity" test that will turn off "independents". I won't "hold my nose" (as if that is a good way to convince "independents" o come to our side) or "sit it out" or register a "protest vote" if I don't like the color of the candidates shoes.
Till Democrats and "educated" progressives wake up to the fact that you vote for the Democrat every year in every election (yes, there are elections EVERY year, not every FOUR years), we will continue to lose statehouses, governorships, the House, the Senate, the Presidency and now the Supreme Court for at least two generations and their planet will be plundered, their reproductive rights will be restricted and their freedom of speech will be curtailed.
And frankly, they will deserve it.
3
"We political junkies got far ahead of ourselves then, and we’re getting ahead of ourselves now."
Yes, Mr. Bruni. That is the understatement of the decade (at least). So don't tell us to ignore the polls, tell yourself, your fellow pundits and journalists, and most of all your editors, who after all are the ones who decide that presidential polls two years (or more!) before the election are front page news. We have an administration that is by far the most corrupt in the history of the country; we have a political party that is routinely throwing out all constitutional principles in order to rig or ignore elections all across the country; we have domestic terror organizations engaging in violent actions; we have police routinely gunning down unarmed citizens; but you all think that which of 30 potential candidates is up a half percentage point today is more important than any of that. Look in the mirror, Mr. Bruni. YOU are the problem.
2
I am a minority. I am democrat. I will not vote if these are the candidates. They are too centrist. They will please the centrist/conservative crowd (do Conservatives who run for Presidency ever try to please liberals?). Biden will never get my vote for what he did to Anita Hill. O'Rouke should try to win a senate seat first. I would like to see Harris & Booker. No more white folks. Enough.
2
Mr Bruni wants a good fight in 2020. One that he can gnash his teeth and tsk at. He will take down Democrats in a desire to be "fair and balanced". It is interesting that Sen Warren's statements on her genes got far more press from Mr Bruni than the Pocohantas statements from the President and his supporters.
That is apparently acceptable to Mr Bruni. In the end, Mr Bruni, like the paper he works for, will always accept demeaning women. It is never part of the argument for them. Never.
The current polls--like the 2016 election polls taken at a similar point in that election cycle--should be considered solely as a measure of name awareness among various "candidates" at a time when the election process really hasn't begun.
They are not a measure of any of the candidates ability to organize and lead an effort to win the actual nomination--an effort that requires substantially greater assets and abilities than being the beneficiary of top-of-mind awareness.
From where I sit--I think there is real opportunity for some graduate students to make a name for themselves by doing a doctoral thesis dissecting how many of the people who are currently voicing their support for a President Beto don't even know his last name--let alone his position on what they identify as their top three issues.
Conventional wisdom is NOT synonymous with common sense.
Let's not talk of the prospects of Democratic nominees for president at this early date and certainly not compare them to the 2016 Republican nomination fiasco - an anomaly that led to our present catastrophic nightmare.
Our nation should be laser focused on exterminating the Trump infection that has turned Washington's below-the-surface swamp of corruption into a Disneyland theme park of crime celebration, and a third of our population into dangerous zombies.
Please don't distract us with a political solution while we concentrate on criminal prosecution remedies.
75
@JABarry I used to vote a straight Democratic ticket. But that was before the Democrats took up support for the big-donor global investment crowd. I've watched the Democrats withhold funding for "progressive" candidates, recruit Republicans - and give them the DCCC endorsement over progressives etc. Why? Because they are in the pocket of Wall Street that supports foreign labor manufacturing for a big return for the 1%. This election cycle, a lot of Berniecrats won. There are now 100 members of the largest Democratic-voting block in Congress: The Progressive Congressional Caucus. Now That Is Change We Can Believe In.. Coming Soon.
5
@JABarry
I in no way support trump, but the republican primary season was not a bad thing - with the exception of imbalanced media coverage.
When it came to the debates and touring campaigns all the candidates made their voices heard and all of them contributed to the GOP platform, I dislike the platform they formed and find it abhorrent, but I wish the DNC had done the same.
If Hillary had whole-heartedly embraced opposing the TPP, shutting down the pipeline, medicare for all and the fight for 15 while embracing the issues black lives matter is trying to highlight (and even if she'd ignored just one of those) the election likely would have gone the other way.
The last DNC primary season was ruled by personal attacks with any attempts at focusing on issues being ignored in favour of talking more about Bernie Bros or showing Trump's empty podium, and that silence was quite intentionally an effort to keep Bernie's name recognition down. This primary season I want to see an open discussion of policy and party direction - when we get into the actual election then we can lock everything down and band together.
2020 is not two years away because preferences are baked in now and have been since 2016. This isn't a new election - it's 2016 again. Ala WWII was just WWI, let's finish it. Which Democrat? The one with most promise to win.
I am a strong progressive. I am 71. None of the three should throw their hats in the ring for 2020.
I was a Bernie supporter in 2016. I believe in his economic policies. But now he is too old...and too fraught with political history to be effective.
Joe Biden -- I would invite he and his family to share Christmas dinner. He would be a GREAT advisor, but also too old.
By contrast, I am very excited about Beto. He has many of the same qualities as Obama, and kind of charisma that fills me with hope for the future. But he is not seasoned enough for the Oval Office. If he had been running in almost any state other than Texas, he probably would have won his senate seat, and then could have gotten the experience and chops to run in 2024 or 2028.
Unfortunately, few others have national name recognition, which is going to be really important in the next couple of months. If Trump had not been a TV personality, I doubt he could have won (even with the Russian shenanigans) in 2016.
It's up to the DNC & the media (not just in intermittent opinion columns) to bring viable candidates to the attention of voters. More voters know Trumps band of bandits than with the effective, bright & competent Dems who have the experience, honesty & regard for our democracy that could garner the votes to counteract Trump as most of America is not even aware they exist.
Get busy NYT, WaPo & MSNBC --and DNC: Start getting something done instead of just asking for money!
2
What do all three of them have in common? No, not just that. Something else: Their past losses are used to bolster claims of future success. Funny how a man who loses is a future winner, while an expert, seasoned woman is “flawed.” Democrats indulge in such fantasizing and projection onto flawed *men* at our peril.
Beto is interesting and gives hope that he will serve his country ably in whatever role.
Biden and Sanders are both physically inappropriate with women, among other unacceptable traits and behaviors. They should both retire and take up knitting.
Let’s stop believing men who say they “could have won” a race in which the winner didn’t even win.
1
The results of polls this far out are polls reflecting the relative name recognition candidates have. Think about it, 23 months out a pollster asks who you think will be president, or who you support. Who do you name? Someone you know and perhaps respect. Big deal. After 20 people test the waters and join the scrum, a few emerge and then you begin to form opinion based on your choices of who is poised to go the distance.
The fact that Beto O'Rourke did not beat Ted Cruz in Texas is irrelevant to his chances to win the Presidency. He will be running in the same states Barack Obama won handily twice, not in evolving but still pink Texas. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden may be getting long in the tooth and though each brings great strengths to the table, I too doubt either will be the nominee, but hey, 80 is the new 50 so what are we talking about? Sit back, be patient, focus on holding your new Democratic Congresswoman's feet to the fire of (1) passing legislation designed to address the needs and concerns of Americans (even if that legislation dies in the Senate or wilts under the President's veto pen), and (2) hold the President and his administration of sycophants accountable.
1
O’Rourke and Sanders are not really so much alike. Sanders takes on the banks and the oil and gas industry and was opposed to that vilest of treaties, the TPP, while O’Rourke supports them. O’Rourke is just another Judas Goat like Obama. Check out O’Rourke’s donors and his legislative record, and what you will find is just another establishment Democrat using identity politics to divert from real economic reform. If the Democrats do not choose to really represent the American people, but rather stay servants of the rich, Trump will be reelected. The onslaught of mainstream media propaganda to keep the Democrat Party the way it has been, including in trying to sell O’Rourke the way they sold us the Iraq War, is fooling less and less people each month, each year.
2
I would like a Hickenlooper/Klobuchar ticket. Neither is from the Eastern or Pacific time zones. The outgoing governor of Colorado knows how to navigate the coming inevitable legalization of cannabis nationally, while still preserving basic law and order.
All bets may be off, because Nancy Pelosi may become President sometime in late 2019.
@Voter
Those names are tongue-twisters. Won’t work.
1
Trump won the election with help from Russia and Facebook and Comey. It was an anomaly.
There is no reason for Democratic presidential candidates to hold back on anything.
1
Remember this name- Conor Lamb, a new Democratic congressman from western Pennsylvania. Young, handsome, former Marine and federal prosecutor and, yes, quite the progressive,
1
Thank you, Frank. We need someone inspiring and smart and experienced, and someone who's not over the age of 70. The exciting thing is that there are a lot of Democrats who could fit that description. We just have to keep our heads.
3
Yes, we can avoid focusing on polls at this early date. But what should be clear is that the country is not desirous of another 70 year old as president. I'm in my 60s so I am no youngster, but it is time for that generation of leaders to do the honorable thing and not campaign for themselves but mentor the candidates in their 40s and 50s who look promising. Please, for the benefit of the country, no one who was born before 1953 should even think about running.
5
Two outgoing senators -- McCaskill and Heitkamp --declared that to be an effective Democratic nominee for president in 2020, the candidate needs to be competent, inspiring and have character. I agree. Sadly, the candidates who come to the foreground for both parties have become those individuals with an appealing bio, but not the ones who can do the best job. We do not need a rock star for president. No do wee need a candidate who is a flip side of Trump -- a grand-stander who appeals to tribalism. Much damage has been perpetrated in less than two years by the current occupant of the white house. I hope the next person who replaces Donald Trump in January, 2021, will be a man or woman who -- with competence, character and inspiration -- endeavors to address the needs of all Americans.
6
We need a younger candidate. Young voters don't identify with these 70 somethings. When I went to the Beto rally, he energized me the way no one else did, and I'm no youngster myself. Whether he's the right candidate or he isn't, the party needs to consider who the voters are and the demographics of America, not just the desires of the candidate. Choosing the wrong one will lead to another defeat.
7
So Frank, what are we supposed to do with ourselves for the next two years of Trump? Not hope? Not wonder? Not dream?
You're right in pointing out the obvious; that what looks likely today might look way different come convention time. But we already know a great many of the players. And it will be folks like us, those that speak up early on, that will in some ways help define the challenge to Trumpism.
I think who is going to make most of America feel good enough to toss out Trump and gang? Bernie and Warren I feel scare parts of America in ways that are exploitable. I also believe that America will not embrace fully enough a young untested candidate regardless of how impressive their soundbites are.
I think that nostalgia can win the day if balanced by a ticket that includes youth and a clear plan for transition. So for me, a Biden plus-one ticket that provides consideration that Biden would serve one term while grooming the VP, I think that would be a winning ticket, at least based on what we see and know today.
Naturally, the plus-one would be a critical factor but we know and trust Joe. And while it is most certainly early, it is our job now to help Joe make a decision and then, help Joe pick the right running mate.
Considering the gravity of our, America's current predicament, we all have a stake in the outcome of the 2020 election. Unity and focus begins now.
3
I wouldn't rely too heavily on the 2016 Republican primaries for guidance on the 2020 Democratic race. Trump's triumph was aided considerably by the fact that several of the Republican primaries were winner take all, so that by the time the field got winnowed, he already had a commanding lead. The Democrats don't use winner take all.
1
We haven't heard Bernie Sanders "specific, boiled-down case" for himself?
Maybe you haven't heard it, Mr. Bruni, but I certainly have: "Medicare for All, free college, and a living wage" just for starters. And many young and working class Americans have heard it too, which is why Bernie Sanders almost overcame the largest national primary deficit in modern history.
And he would have won the nomination if more Mainstream Media pundits like you, Mr. Bruni, had also heard (or not chosen to ignore) his specific, boiled-down case.
4
This independent - and others I have spoken to - have great respect for both Sanders and Biden. However, we also feel that it would be best if they avoid the race and mentor the eventual candidates, possibly taking high positions in the cabinet where they can continue to share their wisdom and expertise.
My friends and I are certainly not spring chickens, either! But we feel it is time to pass the baton to those who can be a continuing string of mentors, passing along reason, empathy, ability, and all of those other assets of character that the current administration - and Republican party - is sorely lacking.
I don't know Beto. There are many others out there with national experience that could be the choice. But let us not get into a popularity contest - the position is much more serious than that.
8
My Christmas wish: That when selecting our presidential candidates, we Democrats do not confuse celebrity with competence. And, as much as I support and like Bernie Sanders, he and Mr. Biden, are too old to run for President. (I am their age, and I know my limits.); Sen. Warren is too strident to have national appeal. My flooding the field with too many primary contenders, Democrats risk appearing to be unorganized and feckless.
8
@JP
Are you a man?
Very sexist to refer to a woman as “strident”. (Have you ever referred to Trump as strident? I’d say he is and then some)
Warren speaks forcefully and succinctly. I would call that good public speaking skills. Maybe you don’t like what she says, but I disagree with your characterization of how she says it.
I am a man. I have been called strident, and I have called men strident. I have not called Trump strident, because I do not believe his intellect rises to that level. (He is just vulgar and not well informed.) I don't care what one's gender identity may be, I don't like being yelled at. I was active in the last election to support the rights of transgender people; support LGBTQ rights. I campaigned for several women who ran for state office, because they were the best qualified.
1
Early polling is essentially a ballpark measure for name recognition. Does the candidate's name have a pulse? A candidate's name is not the principle determining factor in a presidential bid. Charisma, stage presence, oratory skills, platform, social relevance, and controversy all play their roles. However, names are not irrelevant either.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the US has only one elected president with a last name longer than three syllables in all US history. That's not a coincidence. The ability to say and remember a name is connected to the name's length and pronunciation. That one President by the way was Dwight D. Eisenhower. You don't have to wonder how the American public was able to remember his name.
Name recognition is not the most significant factor but we shouldn't ignore it completely. If you were to hold the Democratic primary today, I'd pick Joe Biden over Sherrod Brown on name recognition alone. However, that doesn't mean Brown or Harris or Booker or Klobuchar or anyone else can't change that outcome between now and the real Democratic primary.
Both Obama and Sanders versus Clinton are a case in point. Sanders in particular was actively denied positive media coverage and he still achieved national recognition. Clinton proves that name recognition is not necessarily a good thing when your name carries negative associations. We should also mention all the polling on Clinton was wrong even on election night. Is trusting an early poll any worse?
4
@Andy
The LA Times had the polling right all along.
My fervent hope is that the Dems can get it together early and put their full weight behind the Dem candidate. If Mueller's investigation doesn't bring Trump's abhorrent reign to a close, the 2020 election must, unless we we're willing to sell out our democracy, as the GOP has done.
4
Polls are the worst thing that has happened to the voters. I guess it give news pundits something to obsess about and distort our understanding of elections. Perhaps if we keep lying to pollsters, we can remove this aspects of our political landscape and we will stop depending on this distortion of our democratic republic and let our votes count and not the assessments of clueless professionals.When sensationalism leaves our news, we will all be better off.
2
Or rather than misinterpreting DJT's bluntness as strength, maybe they welcomed his utter candor. Maybe they're sick and tired of the euphemistic doublespeak and evasion utilized by leaders in the corporate and political worlds to rationalize their self-serving agendas. Witness Mark Zuckerberg's congressional testimony as a fine example of word choice to twist around answers, evade questions, etc. At least, DJT doesn't hide his greed and other base instincts.
2
@george eliot—Trump does too hide his greed and other base instincts! Until now I’m sure his followers all thought his foundation was truly a charitable enterprise. And by refusing to release his taxes, he has succeeded in hiding how little he gives to charity, as well as how little he pays in taxes. He often pretends to want a clean environment and good health care for everyone. He says he respects women, too!
When he isn’t telling outright lies, Trump does use evasion to rationalize his self serving agenda. I just don’t understand how so many people apparently think his plain words demonstrate his “utter candor”
Absolutely right, Mr. Bruni. Polls are nearly useless this far out and there are bound to be some unforseen surprises. I think the one everyone will miss is the late entry of Hillary Clinton in the race. She will descend the escalator in Trump Tower and approach a microphone where she will declare that, "Republicans are some very bad people - they are rapists, they are criminals," and then go on to win the Presidency, with Bernie Sanders on the ticket as Vice President.
2
Many of us have reservations about the current crop of Democratic hopefuls, for a variety of reasons. Many of us would also like to see Trump's legal problems bring him down and create turmoil for his GOP. It is too early to know what will happen on either of these fronts, but there is one thing it is not too early to consider.
The Clintons should not run again. And I use that in plural for good reason.
There is a tie-in with the Friedman column today about the French protests. Bill brought us NAFTA. It has been great for the stock market and the 1% but lousy for many workers. Retraining manufacturing workers for other jobs was not thought out properly. Americans do not want globalized wages and benefits akin to Mexican and Chinese workers. They never will. Bill writes a narcissistic book about himself as president, always the smartest guy in the room, then goes on tour and ghosts Monica as usual. He has learned nothing in the past 25 years. Meanwhile, Hillary loses in 2016 in large part because she failed to allay workers' fears about their current plight. News flash: Americans do not crave insecurity with the gig economy. It's no fun at all.
Republicans are facing long-term chaos with Trump. If Democrats have another chance to snatch defeat from the jaws, it rests in promoting Hillary again.
The Clintons are the losing ticket. Hillary: help, but from the sidelines. *No surprise announcement down the road.* Surprise us ... by not surprising us again.
2
"He delivered a racially charged, anti-immigrant message with surprising resonance"
Actually, that was only one part of his campaign. I don't know why NYT columnists and their commentariat so desperately want to portray Trump's appeal as all about racism, but take out the rapists and drug dealers part, and Trump basically left democratic candidates with a blueprint of what voters want. Democratic candidates would do well to remember how Trump's message was about American jobs, about rebuilding infrastructure, and how he even said that socialized medicine works well in some countries.
2
@Bill
Unfortuately, Bill, we cannot believe a word Trump says. He "promises" all kinds of solutions and then back tracks within the hour. He has done nothing to promote any infrastructure other than the southern border wall which will prove ineffective and damaging environmentally. He was fortunate to come into office after Obama initiated the recovery from the Great Recession. And he has not proved to be a friend of reasonable health care access, witness truncating the window of opportunity for citizens to sign up for the health care program.
1
@Joan Erlanger
I didn't say you should believe a word Trump says, what I said is he left a blueprint for how to run a democrat campaign. What one does after being elected is a different matter altogether.
1
Lies. Don't you see?
Whoever it is, must remember that it's simply not enough to state the blindingly obvious about Trumps multiple personality defects,lies and corrupt behavior as President,they must offer realistic solutions,hope and a vision to Americans.
2
As Bruni says, it was the barrage of misinformation by media pundits and pollsters, who tried to sway the public, yet got it all wrong. How could such a bright bunch of folks be so blind to the blatant reality? If the Dems don't play their cards right, and choose someone young, current, smart and vibrant, they will lose again. Which means, I'm not too hopeful, sad to say.
I tend to agree too many candidates , and too many predictions too early tend to muck up the works. It's self defeating , and confusing but let us not forget that Trump had a lot of help from the Russian trolls , Julian Assange and Wikileaks, the shadow billionaire boys club (thanks to Citizens united ) and big corporations . As each day passes , more and more is revealed to the light of day ; sure Trump appealed with his racially charged anti immigrant message but he had tons of help from his buddy in the Kremlin and others . In short they cheated and broke laws when they couldn't find the loopholes . Are you listening Democrats ? Biden and Bernie are too old and not the answer , choose wisely and forget all those polls , you need not only experience but also someone who can appeal to all the different segments of the voters . Having been taken by a snake salesman , hopefully people won't be that easily manipulated . It's not only time for a change but also time to change the way things are done that enabled the manipulation of social media of the voters .
2
I don't interpret anything Trump does as "strength." He is a pathological narcissist of the highest order, and I've never understood has appeal to anyone. Nor have I ever viewed Fox News, conservative AM talk radio/podcasts/blogs, or the entirety of right-wing media nut-hattery that has emerged since Nixon was impeached as anything more than a Colbert-esque parody of conservative ideology. However, I cannot accept as its best or most logical alternative the endless blaming and demeaning of European-Americans and European-American culture for all the ills that have befallen the world. Nor can I accept the assumption that most/all European-American immigrants are better off economically, are more racist, and are more morally suspect, than any other immigrant group who has come to the United States. I really do believe that all of us, regardless of race or class or gender, struggle with the same human imperfections, and that no matter who holds elective office in the United States, we will see similar problems related to in-group/out-group behavior, prejudice, lack of empathy, etc. etc.
7
Bernie has NO chance and Beto is a flash in the pan.
The Dems better field a real competitor we’ll see another 4 years of trump without question.
2
Trump won his nomination with about 13 million votes. He was the leader in votes for a single candidate in the primaries, but the rest of the crowd beat him out in in total votes.
There were too many candidates dividing the sane vote, allowing the nutters to win. They'd fight each other for votes, then drop out.
**That** is the object lesson of the 2016 primaries. Get out and organize, and limit the number of contenders. Get behind a very few candidates, and if a toxic contender emerges, don't let him or her win with a minority of total votes. Narrow the field. Had, say, only Kasich been running against Trump, we'd have President Kasich - assuming he took a trip out to Wisconsin.
I see the Democrats doing the same as the 2016 GOP with every Tom, Dick and Senator tossing in hats. In 2016, Democratic voters hated that Hillary crowded out Sanders. And they punished the nation for that. In 2020 they'd better get both their organizations and their messages straight.
Or it is four more years of seriously damaging flaming perdition for the nation, as a very small minority puts the current resident back in place.
3
Sheered Brown and Amy Klobuchar are the two best candidates we have. Superbly qualified, experienced, progressive but not extreme.............and proven record of winning votes in the kind of states we need in the Electoral College.
Kamala Harris and John Hickenlooper (Colorado governor) are strong VP candidates. (Lately I've been liking the sound of Klobuchar-Hickenlooper! Though Brown-Harris works too.)
7
As a baby boomer I said that our time has passed. I retired at 66. An old president is and was a bad idea. Watch the left edges before they go too far. New York’s junior senator shoved out the Democrat’s best hope - Al Franken. Cut the holier than thou stuff. I don’t care whether or not Elizabeth Warren is part anything but she played into Trump’s hand with the DNA tests and looks foolish. Don’t forget the little people who forgot us in the last election.
2
"We haven't heard the specific, boiled-down cases for themselves and their prescriptions for the country's future".
Need I remind you those things don't count.
We had heard all about the Republicans and their "specific, boiled down cases for themselves and their prescriptions for the country's future". The worst qualified of the bunch won. People were not interested in qualifications, only emotion.
Same thing with Hillary. We knew all about her "specific, boiled down cases for her and her prescription for the country's future". She lost in part because of her personality and the fact she was a woman. People were not interested in qualifications.
People don't vote for qualifications. Many vote on personal values, and emotion.
3
Maybe so. But it's clear the Democrats will nominate someone well to the left of the national mainstream, and that's a problem.
1
@Mike Livingston
The majority (mainstream)of Americans want proper health care coverage, are pro-choice, are pro-DACA, are for sensible gun control, want infrastructure to be funded,are for prison reform,don’t like teaching to the test in education, want to preserve Medicare and social security, don’t want unnecessary wars, and want to address climate change.
What would be to the left of that that would upset you?
4
The recent player in the last Supreme Court confirmation showcased a few people who betting money has said are about to make the leap. All of them met at least one of the boxes the pundits say is a prerequisite for running. The gender and race boxes were all covered by Kamala, Amy and Corey. If their reaction to the perspective Jurist berating them is indicative of their temperament that all failed. They all cowered and look perplexed just imagine them countering bombastic Trump. Most people like Joe Biden and would not hesitate to set on a bar stool next to Joe and have a cold one. But! Is the field so shallow we have to retread Joe? Biden needs a straight man to play against and Trump is anything but one. One can see these two elderly men calling each out for the fight in a schoolyard after 3 o clock. I hope the champion of The Left is still waiting in the wings.
3
Can not the Times and other responsible news media get out of the horse race business until, say, after each Party's nominee is selected? It is a meaningless exercise this far away from the 2020 election, as Bruni writes.
Instead, how about focusing on key issues and do extensive national and state by state polling on "Medicare for All," infrastructure, climate change, etc. Let these results serve as the basis for candidate interviews and questions by the press on televised "debates."
It is way past time for the media to hold Presidential candidates responsible to actually discuss issues, and not let them get away with vague palaver until, in the end, no one is actually listening
2
Frank, Frank, Frank, your article does exactly what you are cautioning against. You are discussing the chances and prognostications for the 2020 election in December, 2018.
Do you see the articles about the Olympic swimmer who will win the most medals in 2020? No? Ah, there, that's how journalists avoid discussing who will and won't be in contention in two years.
They avoid discussing it.
1
If the Democrats can't cough up a better candidate than those mentioned, they'll lose. They need someone as unexpected and as charismatic as Trump was to his base. Tip: Skew younger than Bernie, Biden and Warren. And please, please drop any reference to socialism. Americans conflate it with communism, Russia, China, and not with Scandinavia.
2
Strange things are happening to me. I heard James Comey being interviewed after wasting several hours testifying before Congressional Republicans about Hillary Clintons emails. His complaint about this waste of human effort was clear, impassioned and inspiring. He now ranks along with Stacey Abrams at the top of my dark horse list.
1
I am 73 so I speak from personal experience. Biden is too old and frankly Beto needs more "on the ground" experience. Yes Obama did great with less experience, but just think if he had more. Everyone is not Obama.
1
The Great Embarassment. That’s how history books will look upon the Republican Party starting in 2016. A treatise on how a frustrated nation turn to a fool, a felon, a person who fleeced donors to his personal “charity.” And it all started with a Republican primary turned circus, with its all inclusive side shows. How voters chose a shiny object of no value.
1
Ever walked into a coffee shop and glanced longingly at the wonderful looking desserts revolving in the refrigerated glass case? When you got around to dessert, you discovered, much to your chagrin, that looks can be deceiving, and left disappointed that those beautiful frostings and couvertures were hiding an inedible truth.
Those tasty-appearing morsels known as presidential candidates are going to be on revolving display for a very long time before the 2020 elections. They'll do their best to tempt you, with eye-catching appearances that beckon. You'll ultimately pick only one, by which time the display case might have been picked over. You may be disappointed with what you get.
Presidential politics isn't dessert, to be sure, but beware of the sugar-sweet temptations offered up and the lure of the frosting that beckons. It's what's underneath that really counts, and that bad taste in your mouth will last for at least four years, and maybe then some.
1
Despite your admonitions, Frank, the Trump replacement(s) from within the Democratic Party has an enormous task before them. In a best of all worlds, a candidate would be determined and then start campaigning in such a way as to attract the Trump supporters: a tall order, but one of the greatest concerns.
Hopefully, a solid, thinking, charismatic and convincing candidate can be found and the sooner the better.
While this is taking place, Trump appears to be self-destructing before our eyes.
There is lots going on.
2
We are still reeling from the divisiveness of 2016. The online comments posted about candidates during those campaigns was shocking to the core.We do need an energetic conversation around core issues, as some have pointed out, but we do not need to start the comparisons of individual candidates that tore us apart last time. I would like to see a ban on polling by the media and profit and non-profit companies till a much later time. We do not need to be distracted. Trump already does that.
1
Great perspective and observations, Frank. But handicapping is so much fun. So, just for fun, I will predict the two nominees.
Brown and Kasich.
Trump will resign with a pardon guarantee from Pence. But Pence will be tainted if not convicted.
2
Rank-order polling would be much more informative than first-choice polling.
Suppose, for instance, that 20% of one party's primary voters rank candidate A first, while the other 80% are equally divided among the other 16 candidates running, but would would prefer almost any of them over A. First-choice ranking would make A seem to be the strongest candidates, while rank-order polling would show him or her to be the weakest.
It will be a long time before actual rank-order voting is instituted outside of the State of Maine. But the pollsters could implement it almost overnight. Even with a short slate, say Biden, Bernie and Beto, it would be much more informative than first-choice polling.
4
Biden and Bernie should be elder statesmen, not active candidates. Too old. Make the Vice Presidential nominee more important than it should be. And Warren is borderline too old, and definitely too polarizing to win.
Get out the rocking chairs for this group. Take it from this 71 year old. I am a great adviser and mentor, but I am too old to be in charge of anything. I feel sorry for Biden. He was cheated out of his chance to run in 2016. He would have won in a landslide.
13
@RM
Speak for yourself. I'm going to be 72 in a few months and am still running a department and various projects.
However, I do think that Biden and Bernie are too old to be POTUS.
2
Agreed, it is too far ahead.
What the democrats should be concentrating on is electing a moderate progressive candidate that stresses the number one winnable argument for democrats as proven by the 2016 taken the House, affordable, universal, quality health care.
Secondary should be addressing issues that Trump demagogued, like loss of rust belt jobs, common sense immigration policy etc. etc.
Last but not least, protect advancements like gay rights, women's rights etc. but don't try to social engineer society into identity obsession when the public does not want it, or is not ready for it.
Concentrate on progressive rights that everybody can agree on like not stifling the right to vote based on income, ie poorer people of all classes tend not to have enhanced ID not race or gender ie identity politics.
6
My daughter, who at one time worked professionally in campaigns, recommends that candidates stay under the radar as much as possible. In her words, you do not want to peak to early and then at the end, when it counts, flame out. All of the candidates now mentioned are already inviting a scrutiny which I will predict will undue them in the long run.
5
This--among many other things--argues for a much MUCH shorter campaign/election time, as they have in other countries. The reason we do it this way is, like everything, because of money. Campaign finance reform is critical.
Meanwhile, I will pretend I live in a different country and refuse to pay attention until 6 months before he election. I'm sure many of you will pile on this statement; go ahead. I've never been on Facebook or any other social media either, which may also have something to do with this. It's a much better way to live and to engage in elections. Plus I'm just too exhausted by politics these days.....
9
@NH. I am a strong supporter of Sherrod Brown. Many years ago (30) I had an experience with him when he was Secretary of State. He was accessible and I was not from his state, and he was amenable and forthright. I had a case in Federal Court(s) and required relevant state records for my case. Usually secretaries of state are in charge of producing and releasing their public records. He was kind and helpful. I've watched him since that long ago time. He is consistent and I could be wrong but I believe he works for, and supports, the common man/woman.
18
Sherrid Brown was Secretary of State?
@JJ
In Ohio.
1
Bernie Sanders is still out front. Suck it up NYTimes. You were wrong before. Clinton was not the right candidate. Be on the right side of history this time. Or please, at least come out for a legitimate progressive and not some corporate shill again.
16
Hear, hear.
2
@Carolyn Egeli He is too old, please, not again.
Who remembers getting bolts in inches when the screws and nuts were in metrics? Pieces that supposedly were to work together didn't fit! Frank's column raises the old bugaboo of a mismatch. His focus on the long range and Democrats omits important contemporary pieces that highlight the parts and causes of a broken system whose mismatches hide and support widespread electoral corruption. He is "surprised" that hate resonates, even after witnessing the Obama presidency sold out popular ammunition before its first swearing-in.
More, how does Frank--and every other pundit--miss the double helix of race: a population full of hate that is also blind (hence, unchangeable). How can anyone miss the coming election is about power, rule breaking; conscription rather than common prosperity.
The focus needs to be on process not personality--except when personality blocks the process! A major issue should be the unsuitability of Tom Perez as Democratic chair, a corporate Democrat out of touch with grassroots organizing, silent on progressive agendas including healthcare, wages, housing, education and justice, unable to run new media campaigns that give candidates an authentic voice.
Perez has fought Democrats with a template for winning! He seeks centralization, when strengthening states would help avoid the fiasco of the last election.
More, Democrats have a strong bench! How should it be deployed? Focus not on speculation but on the concrete: policy, fraud, organization!
4
I will not say who but the person who gets the nomination will need to be an effective messenger, will need to be able to counterpunch Trump or whomever else the GOP puts up, and will need to be a highly effective organizer if elected because there is going to be a lot of mess left behind to be cleaned up.
The 1 Trillion Dollar plus debt bomb shoved through about this time last year is going to be a thing to deal with on top of all the previously existing fiscal mess left over from Dubya's two wars on the credit card after the last ill advised Republican tax cuts. Healthcare insurance and finance is going to be a big ugly thing to deal with from Medicare on to private policies. Student debt is a drag on our workforce and is going to need addressing. Prepare for a season of serious budget/fiscal issues once in office- no lightweights need apply.
What we do not need is another cycle of NeoLiberal economics by a supposed Democrat. We need an unabashed Progressive who is not afraid of the label and who can present and defend their policies effectively.
What America needs from the press is a moratorium on the use of the term "front runner". The term is damaging to the non-political junkies that will decide the election- give them a chance to seriously hear and learn of the field of candidates. A horse race may sell papers but it is not good to let the primary process winnow out a large field and that is really important for younger names that are less well known.
8
"We don’t learn"
Do you mean the media or populous? Right on accounts. It is not a horse race and stop handicapping it as such.
What we have right now is name and celebrity leading the polls. Until late 2019 or 2020 we will not see the nominee's name in polls more than likely. We are dealing with noise generated by the media for a small section of the population.
2
Mark Warner (VA) in 2020. Former successful businessman who didn’t file multiple bankruptcies...
2
@PMD He'll never run.
1
Beto O'Rourke couldn't defeat Ted Cruz for the Senate in Texas. So how is he supposed to win the Democratic nomination and challenge Donald Trump in the 2020 general election?? The other two possible Democratic contenders are a couple of Senior Citizens whose time has come and gone. The novelty around Bernie Sanders has worn off. Joe Biden is still oblivious to the fact that he's never been able to get beyond the primaries each time he tries to run for president. What part of "NO" doesn't Biden understand?
It's just a little too early to start handicapping the Democratic field anyway.
23
Beto did great, but he does need more seasoning. What us citizens know about Beto is he is handsome, a great speaker with charisma, but he needs more experience.
Show us what you got in Congress. You have a year to do that and that won't happen by staying home on the range in Texas. Make a mark in D.C..
2
Whatever else the Democrats do, they should tweak their rules so that their choice of a candidate isn't determined by voters in states that do not support the party.
In 2016 one candidate won the primaries not just because of her support among superdelegates but because of her string of victories in southern states that voted overwhelmingly against her in the general.
How about this: each state's primary results should be weighted by the percentage of that state's vote that went to the Democratic candidate in the last general election.
4
Can someone please tell me the appeal of Beto O'Rourke?
He's a congressman who's last candidacy was a failed bid for the Senate. His prior job was as a member (not even leader) of a small-ish city council.
Is it that he's young-ish and attractive-ish?
Is it that hollywood celebrities like Alyssa Milano tweeted a suggestion that he run for President the night he lost his bid for the Senate?
Is it that he says the right things? If so, are we really content with candidates who've only said, and never actually done, anything?
14
@ML "Is it that he's young-ish and attractive-ish?"
Yes. The last two Democrats that were elected President were both of those things, so it's probably a good strategy. Heck, even Jimmy Carter wasn't old enough to get Social Security when he was elected.
Also, Beto almost beat a very hated Republican in a very red state. That's exciting.
1
@ML Tall, good looking, articulate, polite, willing to engage the public and media, a bit different, maybe the first true 21st century candidate (Obama a bridge between 20th and 21st centuries). This is not an endorsement just an answer
2
@ML
I didn't realize that 5 years as a US Congressman falls into the category of "never actually done anything."
1
I always read Frank Bruni and his column on Thanksgiving is revered in our family - BUT!
There really is way too much comment on Presidential politics, on Trump and on anti-Trump. Collectively we - writers and readers - are not getting anywhere and we are feeding the beast of political and civic illiteracy that is the scourge of our time.
I believe we need to start rebuilding our democracy from the ground up, local>state>Federal by getting more people involved in community and teaching history properly in our schools. How to make such a change ? Do not know !!!
7
@Bill Wilson
Great comment!
Perhaps the best lesson we can learn from this presidency is that we need to re-emphasize and give more power to state and local governments (in addition to encouraging the federal legislature to re-establish itself as a co-equal branch).
3
These three candidates have one thing in common: I won’t vote for them. Now, I’m not so vain as to think my vote decides the elections. If it did we would be discussing President Clinton’s latest policy moves. But the Democrats should not forget that the recent victories in Congress were handed to them by well-off educated suburban voters, primarily women, who were disgusted with Trump’s misogyny, erratic behavior and assault on science. I share many features of this demographic. And I won’t ever vote for anybody who calls himself a socialist, so Bernie is out. He will repel centrists and fail to mobilize immigrants and voters of color. Warren has all the weaknesses of Hillary and none of her strength. I have no idea what her foreign policy positions are and neither does she. The DNA flap was embarrassing and showed poor political judgment and even poorer understanding of science (DNA is not national identity). I suspend my judgment of Beto but I did look at his website when he ran in Texas and found it soul-crushingly boring. I won’t vote for Trump but if his opponent is one of these three, I predict he will be re-elected.
14
@Mor How about the Mayor of Los Angeles? Potential candidate?
Can the 2016 campaign and election really be viewed as an example of what's to come?
It is impossible to separate Trump from Russian interference.
Will Russia again be a silent partner with the GOP candidate?
Are we to expect the same for 2020?
1
Polls and political projections will all become stunningly irrelevant when Trump asks Putin to support his coup and takes over the United States government as our first president-for-life. Don't think it can't happen.
6
Polls are part of the problem. They depend on those who are willing to answer them. Personally, I do not participate in polls because they are limited in scope and they can be used to make generalized statements from their limited perspective. I also refuse to take part in polls because I believe people allow themselves to be influenced by the findings published by them. All polls should be taken with a grain of salt.
6
It’s important to remember, however, that the crowd who cheered Trump’s campaign announcement were paid extras. I talked to someone who said he was paid for half a day’s work to be there.
12
@Michael
A very minor point. This was only at Trump's "introduction" when he declared for president. Subsequent events were filled pathetically with unpaid know-nothings and hate mongers in abundance.
@David Henry, yes, but their signal that it was safe for the racists to come out started with a fake. Also, it's important because so much of what Trump does is a fraud, so he is very much a black swan.
I still think it's too early to make accurate predictions about 2020.
Biden is too bland and Bernie is too old--they have had their moments and now it's time for others. They could contribute most by helping new candidates.
25
@Victor Biden may be bland, but at least he is not old.
1
I don't get the Beto-mania.
I'm for anyone who will win in 2020. I've watched many clips of O'Rourke and I just don't see it. Yes, his overall message is good and it's one I can get behind. But, to my eye anyway, he has zero charisma and that undefinable X-Factor is critical to success on the national stage. Biden has it, Bernie has it (sort of), Harris has it. Obama has tons of it and Trump, to our great national horror, has it, too. Warren doesn't and neither did Hillary.
It does the Democrats no good to support a candidate who has good ideas but can't win. Let's not make that mistake again.
8
@W. Freen
I was in Texas in August and was lucky enough to see Beto in person. He's got the "it" factor without a doubt. He takes on any question and answers it, his answers are direct, no pivoting, what he really believes, not what the polls tell him to say. If you haven't seen the clip of him answering why he supports Colin Kaepernick taking a knee watch it.
I'm not saying he should be the candidate. I actually think he may need more experience but don't count him out. He's that good.
11
@W. Freen
I do not understand the appeal of Beto either, but for a different reason.
I do not think "charisma" and "X-Factor" are what any of us should be looking for in a candidate. Let's get away from celebrity politicians.
I'd much rather have a non-photogenic president who has a proven history of governmental executive accomplishments than a pretty person who looks attractive and has a silver tongue.
1
@W. Freen If O'Rourke has no charisma and 'that undefinable X-factor,' how you explain Betomania?
1
Trotting out Biden in 2020 would be like trotting out Mondale in '84 or Dole in '96. What a sure way to lose.
As Bruni said in a prior piece, the Democrats win when they put up a new fresh face against more of the same - JFK in '60 against the VP, Jimmy in '76 against the sitting president, Clinton in '92 against the sitting president, and Obama in '08 against an aging former candidate.
No to Biden, no to Bernie. Someone new.
58
@rlschles I want a candidate who will still be around in 30 or 40 years, someone who has a vested interest in ushering in the next 2 or 3 generations. So I won't vote for anyone over 60 (granted thats an arbitrary number). Must be someone with fire in their belly like Biden, Warren and Sanders. They need a connection with Millenials and post-millenials that only a few of the currently mentioned crop of candidates have. And they must be capable of dealing with Trumpians. I find they are no longer worthy of the Republican label.
3
@rlschles: I voted for Bernie in the Minnesota caucus and sent him money, and I wish more Democrats had his guts and willingness to speak to issues that concern everyday people and to be as bold with beneficial proposals as the Republicans are with malevolent proposals.
However, I do not want either Bernie or Hillary to run again. Never mind their ages, the 2016 nomination process created so much ill will among Democrats that there are sworn enemies of both of them among the voters.
We need someone who doesn't have that baggage.
1
Anyone who takes PAC money formulates their policies post hoc, based on who contributed and how much. Anyone who is funded by small donations succeeds because their stated positions already resonate with a large segment of the electorate. We'll find out who the Democrat front-runner is when we see a candidate who is running, sans PAC money, and is still raking it in.
21
@stan continople
That will probably be Beto and Bernie. Much as I like Bernie I think he's just too old...sorry!
1
Bruni is right.
At this stage of the race, Ryan Gosling probably has a better chance than anybody.
11
@mspelled
Except that Ryan Gosling is Canadian, so he has no chance.
Same for Jennifer Granholm, which is too bad because she would be an awesome candidate.
@mspelled Sorry, Ryan Gosling is not eligible. He's Canadian. Same for Ryan Reynolds.
1
Sadly, until we get the huge problem of citizens’ votes NOT being properly tallied/registered/ counted, in many many states, it won’t matter whom the candidate is.
14
Yes, the 2020 Democratic presidential race will likely be volatile and the 2018 frontrunners may well succumb to an unexpected challenger.
But the New York Times— at least in its news coverage— would be well-advised not to play king-/queenmaker. Remember the reputational damage that the Times incurred by trying to sell Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.
That said, the nation could do far worse than Biden, Sanders or Warren. (I haven’t sufficiently evaluated O’Rourke as of this writing.)
16
@ANetliner
Even now, you see articles in the Times which seem to be touting Michael Bloomberg as the Democrat's savior. Contrast Bloomberg and Sanders; both are intelligent men but are living in completely different universes. Bloomberg, for all his socially liberal inclinations, is a dyed-in-the-wool trickle-downist, with a soupcon of noblesse oblige. Sanders understands the travails the majority of Americans face and that trickle-down is a cruel farce. Bloomberg managed to destroy a vibrant city by trying to remake it in his wealthy-but-incredibly-insipid image yet is still celebrated as a visionary in these pages. There really is a disconnect at some level that allows the real estate and finance sections of the Times - and their generous advertisers - to dictate editorial policy. It happened with Hillary and it looks like its happening again. You guys should get outside more, speak to some real people, people who don't buy $150 can-openers, and avoid another embarrassment like 2016.
2
Ultimately, the Dems and the progressives will need to clarify for what we stand. Here’s my attempt.
Look at FDR. For what did he stand for three Presidential election wins. A strong progressive populism - people over profits
43
@Frederick Johnson Four.
4
@Frederick Johnson Can we get a 2020 version of FDR who can either keep, repair and strengthen Obamacare (like maybe add a public option, (higher ed. has a public option and Penn State and University of Michigan haven't put Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Swarthmore out of business)) or even give us Medicare for all? Getting everyone covered would help all of us. If I listed the ways, this comment would turn into a novella.
1
There is another reason not to get cocky. Not only did the polls get wrong the nomination of Trump. They also got wrong his election. It was impossible. She was going to carry in on her coat tails control of the House and Senate.
The debate the day before election day was about how overwhelming would be the win in Congress that She'd carry with her.
So yeah, don't get cocky. Been there, done that, have the T-shirt.
14
What's perplexing to me is how one of the biggest names in politics isn't being bandied about as a potential 2020 candidate. Consider this, most of us agree we need someone with Federal executive experience, who easily connects with people, who is considerably intelligent, not too old but not too young, and someone with a lot of name recognition. Add to that, maybe, someone whose policies go along with the liberal and moderate crowds, without being too extreme.
So all of those combined probably sounds like a good candidate, right? Do you know who I'm describing yet?
Michelle Obama. Think about it for a bit.
12
@Dan Stackhouse While I agree that she would make a great candidate, just recently she announced that she would not seek any public office, including the presidency. I'm afraid a second Obama Administration is not in the cards.
9
Michele Obama does not have national executive experience, but she has many excellent credentials should she desire to run.
3
@Dan Stackhouse. I love her too much to wish this on her and her family.
25
Most troubling right now is that a significant portion of voters, senators and congressmen continue to support Trump. The chaos, the corruption and dishonesty, the growing sense that Trump is working for Vladimir Putin at the cost of our strategic relationships, and yet some people, including those GOP incumbents, have not expressed their disapproval. Until we can understand how this can be, it's impossible to identify the right message and messenger.
28
Please, no Biden or Bernie. I voted for Hillary but please no Hillary in 2020, either. And no to Warren and Harris. Democrats MUST win the presidency in 2020. Right now, the best bet I see is a Klobuchar/O’Rourke ticket. Just imagining their win makes me hopeful that our nation can start healing itself after that ghastly election night in 2016.
193
@SYJ I conclude. But my dream ticket is Sherrod Brown and Klobuchar.
10
@SYJ
Now that might be a winning ticket, SYJ. I think folks would vote for it. Klobuchar and O'Rourke have winning personalities and a kind of confidence in themselves and their constituents. Plus neither comes from coastal America. Perfect. I hope Klobuchar will throw her hat into the ring. That'd be dandy. O'Rourke can then wait his turn. Minnesota and Texas! Wowee. Wouldn't it be nice if a Minnesotan, a woman no less, finally became president. I voted for two Minnesotans. I'll gladly vote for a third.
14
@SYJ
I think A Sherrod Brown/Amy Klobuchar ticket would be better. Brown won in a red state, O'Rourke is colorful but he didn't win.
9
The 3Bs maybe the best that the Democratic party may have to offer as front runners for now. I personally think that unless the democratic party nominates a woman there is a slim chance for a democrat to stand between Trump and his reelection. I think Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard will have the best chance for a woman presidential candidate of the democratic party. She has ZERO baggage and has served in Iraq. She is spunky and athletic and most importantly for me she is against useless regime change wars and will be fiscally responsible.
10
@Girish Kotwal
This country has proven, to my everlasting regret, that it will not elect a woman President. The people who said "I'd vote for a woman, just not THAT woman", will have to find another excuse.
1
Spare us the lecture, Frank. We understand that polls are wildly unreliable this far ahead of the election. They were even unreliable on Election Day 2016. So what are you really trying to say? You’ve already told Biden to go bye-bye. Is the poll making you look bad by showing that he has support out there?
11
Living in the conservative state of Oklahoma, I may see a different path to victory. It is essential to elect a Democrat, if you want to rescue the country from it's decline. None of the more leftist candidates can be elected. I like many of them, but don't think they can win. Bernie and Elizabeth are great, I like them. They may be nominated, but would lose the general, because they cannot reach people in the middle. Sorry, but at best, only 45% of the general electorate will support them, even against Trump. My pick at this point would be a ticket of Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobachar. I think it would be unbeatable. Also, the Governors of Wash., Montana, and Colorado, would be strong candidates. Also, I am 71, and believe we need someone younger that 70. Sorry Joe Biden, and Bernie, your time has past. I don't want a President turning 80 in the White House. And as for Tom Steyer, or Michael Bloomberg, all I can say is, it is just their vanity. Just because you made a lot of money, doesn't make you Presidential material. Evidence: Donald Trump.
116
@NH I agree. I think Amy Klobuchar is the ideal candidate. She's a very strong liberal with a history of successful bipartisanship. She's not angry; instead she's usually smiling and projects optimism and unity. She's open to solving problems pragmatically and to compromising when this is needed. And she has shown repeatedly that she knows how to be tough with her Republican opponents. Note her effective questioning of Kavanaugh. In addition to that, she's a woman from the middle of the country with a history of defeating Republicans in a swing state.
Message to Democrats: you may think the country could never vote for crazy and hateful Trump again but with the wrong candidate, you can still lose. Don't pick the most dramatic or heroic figure from the East or West coast who is strongly left wing. Instead find someone who appeals as unifying leader to a very broad constituency, including the midwest and midwestern values.
28
@NH
You can't really compare Steyer and Bloomberg with Trump, can you? Trump is a crook and dishonest business man. No one knows how much he is worth because he will not show his taxes. He started out with an advantage and failed numerous times in spite of that.
According to Forbes, Trump isn't anywhere the 10 billion he claims to be worth. Some don't think he was a billionaire at the time of his campaign, but is probably one now from gaming the system during his presidency.
Bloomberg, on the other hand took over NYC in the time of a financial crisis and steered the city into solid ground.
Still, you are correct in saying there are better choices.
7
@NH I totally agree, Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar are exactly the kind of new faces we need on the ticket. Brown easily won re-election in Ohio despite a tide running red in the state. He and Klobuchar are both experienced voices of reason who can appeal to working class voters in the midwestern states Hillary Clinton lost.
6
Just give me a fair Democratic Primary and let the best man or woman win. I'm partial to a Bernie Sanders/Tulsi Gabbard ticket, but the best ticket to this Democrat is the one that can win.
12
My preference is Gov. Hickenlooper of Colorado - a pragmatic centrist with problem-solving executive experience who isn't a septuagenarian. Sherrod Brown as V-P to help carry the Rust Belt states. We need a winning combo that isn't ancient (sorry, Joe and Bernie) and doesn't turn off a large swath of the national electorate (sorry, Elizabeth). We don't need any liberal purity tests.
22
@Phillyboy61
A centrist in today's political climate is merely republican lite (since they have pulled the political spectrum wildly to the radical right for decades now) Incrementalism crushes itself under its own weight now, since there is so much disparity, and even with the ACA, people are still going bankrupt and perishing from health costs or no health care at all.
We need fixes urgently NOW such as for said health care (Single Payer), tacking climate change (as the devastation from such is taking too much of a toll and cost), equal rights (as people are still being marginalized), and a true living wage. All of that is required including peace and an ending to all wars everywhere.
I think the Governor of Colorado has done some quite good things and I applaud him for that, but we need more direct action and as you say : '' a Liberal test'' that will see if candidates will be fearless to promote them for now and not somewhere off down the road. For too many, they cannot wait.
Regards.
11
@FunkyIrishman
Funky, I agree. No more "centrist",whatever that means these days. I am weary of the "fiscally conservative,socially liberal" crowd. We have moved so far to the right the last forty or fifty years and most open minded people can see what that has wrought. We most definitely need a statesman/woman in the White House and no more MBAs! What the Democrats should be most concerned about is taking the Senate and increasing numbers in the House.
3
@Phillyboy61
We know Bernie can beat Trump. We know the others can't. Bernie may turn 80 in office but Trump is not young either. My sense is the Democrat establishment is too beholden to finance, the legal industry, the government industry, the war industry and the immigration industry to stand up and that is why they hate the idea of Bernie. Bernie has nothing to prove at his age. He can afford to do the right thing and his track record supports it. If the Democratic establishment chooses one of the others I see Trump winning.
3
In 2016, I was a Sanders supporter and volunteer, in good part because my alternative was Clinton. With the current field as it currently appears, there are are a number of others I lean towards more enthusiastically, especially Amy Klobuchar. Fair or unfair, Sanders will probably have to deal with constant comparisons to his 2016 level of support, which, in the early stages, will be impossible for him to achieve given the number of other candidates competing for votes. Third place in Iowa and New Hampshire will be thrown into a negative media narrativen ("Has the Bernie Revolution Run Out Gas?"), whereas for many others third place would be shown as a victory.
7
I tend to group the candidates by how close they come to my views on the issues I care most about, their history of fighting for these issues and their general character both public and private.
I want an FDR liberal who will fight for people who work for a living. My dream candidate would also be a strong advocate for the environment, universal health care, a reasonable immigration and would have have a history of skepticism regarding foreign policy.
Economic Justice Warriors: Bernie comes in first both in terms of his stance on the issues and long term commitment to achieving these goals. he is followed by Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren who has stumbled lately.
Johnny Come Latelies: Candidates who have recently embraced economic populism. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke and Kristin Gillibrand. Of this group Beto gets a yeah I could support him, though he seems too green to actually do the job.
Respectfully Disagree: I don’t have to be in complete agreement with someone to support them. In this category I place Amy Klobuchar and Mike Bloomberg both of whom I think could make good presidents. Joe Biden also falls into this category but his vote for the Iraq war is a big black mark against him.
Dark Horses: Into this group I place Hickenlooper, Landrieu, Bullard Castro and anyone else I don’t know much about.
So far my choices in order are: Sanders, Brown, Klobuchar, Bloomberg with room for one of the Dark Horses to move up.
8
@Brooklyncowgirl — OK, thanks, that’s you and your preferences, one voter in Brooklyn (millennial? just a guess). Good to know. One consideration you may want to add is what are the preferences of the several million other voters in this country. Because how the rest of the country will vote ought to be an important reason to support, or not, particular candidates. Otherwise, you can feel good about your primary choice, and that person may very well lose in the general election. From what I’ve heard, defeating the Republican incumbent is the prime directive.
6
@Brooklyncowgirl
I'm with you on Sanders and Brown. I'll still go Warren third though, and as a wingman VP or cabinet position as a consolation prize. She's coughed up quite a few interesting policy proposals recently, from housing to monopolies to government-manufactured pharmaceuticals that are definitely worth some airing and debate. But the NYT and the Globe would prefer to publish the hatchet jobs that they recently did.
As to the others, i'm tired of bought an paid fors. Whether it's MBNA or BAPCPA Joe, One West Harris, Big Oil Beto, or if a commenter from the other day is to be believed, Wells Fargo Klobuchar.
@Brooklyncowgirl
BCG- In 2018 Trump’s America I tend to group candidates
by who is most likely to WIN and win by a decent enough margin that the GOP criminals can’t cry fraud!
My ideals don’t really matter. I don’t think we can afford to look at it any other way.
2
This seems like a good time to remind my fellow Democrats (and Independents and disaffected Republicans too) that we are currently enduring a presidential administration that is undermining our democracy in more ways than we can count. The current GOP is not only NOT standing up to the President and his kleptocratic cabinet, they are actively supportive of it and on the same power- grubbing, undemocratic path. The 2020 Democratic primary will probably be a fairly messy process but we are fortunate to have strong candidates of all ages, races and gender. Our objective is to defeat the current occupant of the White House and all his cohort in the cabinet and Senate. In order to achieve said objective, we all have to be united in support of whoever wins the Democratic Party primary, whoever h or she may be. Whoever the nominee is, I'm sure he or she will be too moderate, too old, too inexperienced, too young, too socialist, too extreme, too beholden to Wall Street, not progressive enough, not midwestern enough, not moderate enough, isn't ideologically pure, has made mistakes, isn't exciting. Please start getting over that now!
106
@Dianne
I agree, that once we have a candidate, that we ALL need to get behind said candidate. (look how 2016 turned out so destructively).
There are those that want the revolution now/then, and I can respect that. Get involved in the primaries now and push for your ideas. (hopefully as Progressive and Liberal as possible) Then when the ballots are cast, and we have a flag bearer, then we get behind them.
Work to make the system better from within (VOTE) and then keep pushing even after the election.
Staying home is no longer an option.
34
@Dianne Walsh
Ms. Walsh, yes, so true. And we really need to take the Senate.
16
@Dianne Walsh -- You seem to believe that Trump will run again in 2020. I don't think he will. Wishful thinking on my part? That's possible, but if he did, I don't think he would win... I mean: I don't think he would win the Republican nomination.
I could care less about polls this far out. What is far more important is the Constitutional crisis unfolding in front of us and how do we extract our country from this mess.
166
Frank, please stop. If Trump has proven anything to us, experience is more important than ever. And I’m disgusted that equality-speak isn’t really inclusive, and that it has to have some group to beat up on, and now it’s white man. Some really good white men, older white men, and with imperfections, had a hand in creating this country that allows you to start working as a food critic and now write an advice column for the world’s leading newspaper. That’s no little thing. The lesson is that inclusion of everyone, with no exclusion of anyone, is the answer. If we run around tipping the scales all the time how can we ever achieve balance?
19
It might pay to read Frank's bio. He did not start, even at the NYT, as a food critic. That's just one of many talents, including reporting on the Persian Gulf War, being White House Correspondent, and NYT's Rome bureau chief - all before writing a word about food. Always remember too: you are what you eat.
1
Mr. Bruni's column says a lot about what I hope the New York Times and its columnists will do during the run up to 2020. Speculation over the polls and who is the front runner is largely irrelevant. Don't dwell on those factors, even though speculation on a horse race always gets attention.
Instead, as soon as a potential candidate bubbles up to prominence, tell us as much as you can about the candidate. Their past accomplishments and positions and their current thoughts. Hold back on the speculation over who is most likely to win and double down on who these candidates are, the positions they have taken, and what they are likely to accomplish in office.
Resist the temptation to speculate on the winner and tell us who the candidates are.
75
If Al Franken’s past shenanigans made him unfit to serve in the Senate, how can Beto, with a DWI conviction in his past, serve as President?
Sorry, but the new one-strike-and-you’re-out policy is now in effect.
15
@K D P
Do you know who is currently President?
2
@K D P You don't see a difference there? Really?
Beto. Oy veh.
Perhaps some more experience is in order before trying to charm his way onto the national stage?
Biden and Bernie - it is time to pass on the baton.
32
Or combine a mature and seasoned Joe Biden with a newcomer like Beto.
God knows that the nation would benefit from a president who combines experience and judgment.
5
@Lydia
Pass it on to Sherrod Brown.
2
@jo miller at least that gets us Ohio.
If the Democrats focus on identity politics, they will lose the Rust Belt states again in 2020. Think strategically. The Democratic presidential candidate must be a white male and the vice presidential candidate must be a female.
7
@poodlefree How is insisting on a "white male and the vice presidential candidate must be a female" not identity politics? How about people voting on what the candidate stands for and his/her record of delivering on good governance? If we have completely lost those criteria in this Trump and the coming post-Trump era, we're really in bad shape.
6
Next year, with the riveting Congressional committee investigations of Trump and his corrupt Administration commencing in addition to probable historic House impeachment proceedings and an accompanying Senate trial, it is likely that certain political profiles will be highly raised with public reputations also greatly enhanced by an enabling, incessant media coverage. Serious presidential contenders could serendipitously emerge from all of these high-stakes national dramas, providing unique opportunities for legislators to distinguish themselves. I would suggest keeping an eye on Representative Adam Schiff of California, for one.
9
@John Grillo Adam Schaff - ugh!!
1
Thank you Mr. Bruni! I am interested in politics and governance and current events, which makes the news business' non-stop interest in the presidential horse race a continual frustration. Sadly, It distorts the race even as it "reports" on it and , worse, it distracts from actual issues and actual stories that the reporters should be covering.
5
Mr. Bruni, I am certain that Biden, Bernie, and Beto all know this already. They are, after all, politicians, and they are keenly aware that campaigns are unpredictable, and that their poll numbers could rise or fall. I think your readers know this, too. Still, we political junkies and you pundits all enjoy playing this parlor game of following the horse race and trying to pick its eventual winner.
11
@Chris
I'm wagering on WayTooSoon to show in the 5th race.
1
I hope Mr. Mueller can torpedo Trump's presidency even before 2020. That report will determine the next 6 years of this nation.
16
@Jeff
If Muller gets rid of Trump, PLEASE let him get rid of Pence at the same time! Out of the frying pan into the fire otherwise!
1
At this point in time, its really about name recognition, which helps explain Beto O'Rourke's high ranking. He had so much press coverage in 2018, his name is familiar all over the country. This inspire of having little or no political or governmental administrative experience. He has good ideas, however president might be a stretch for 2020.
4
Ask Trump to list all the possible opponents he would like to run against him in 2020. The Democrats should then choose someone not on that list.
3
I like Biden, I don't want him to run. He's too old for the job.
Bernie's ideas are not truly progressive - they're drawn inside the same box of tools we've been working with for decades. He's also too old, and I don't like his disposition - he's a finger pointer.
I don't know enough about Beto, though I am reticent because he doesn't have the kind of experience I'd like in a president (I always thought it was a mistake we picked Obama over Clinton - if he'd been VP, we might now have an experienced Obama as POTUS).
One thing I do know, Biden, Sanders & O'Rourke would make far better presidents than any of the GOP clowns mentioned here (except Jeb Bush, who I don't like, but would at least be stable and somewhat reasonable).
26
@Barbara I like the Biden ticket with a younger VP. Biden has years of experience, a "good guy" that most people like. To say he is too old is insulting to senior citizens. I believe that I read that older citizens voted more than any other age group.
What was forgotten in the news article was we need to have someone who can handle trump. Case in point, there were several republicans who, in a "regular" election were qualified.
However, the article was not newsworthy. We readers know that it is too early to predict.
In the meantime we have a liar in the WH who thinks he is above the law.
1
@KLM if the definition of “good guy” includes pawing women and girls on camera. Which is only one of the reasons he is indeed too old. He would be *78* on his *first*day in office.
We need people with maturity and experience. But there are people in their 50s and 60s who have experience and vision, who are connected to our current political and social circumstances.
We don’t need someone who first ran for president before before Al Gore invented the Internet. And who lost, and ran again, and lost.
If he were female, he would never be taken seriously in this conversation.
1
Thank for pointing out the finger-wagging! Drove me crazy. Probably not the critical factor, but bespoke his attitude towards people. Bernie knows best and don’t you forget it... grouchy old opportunist. Please someone younger. And with a better record on women’s issues...
2
I absolutely agree that any predictions regarding the eventual Democratic nominee for 2020 is nothing more than.....a prediction. The state of our federal government is in such flux at the moment that prior tools used to predict anything in the political sphere no longer hold true. My gut tells me, however, that it will NOT be Bernie Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren, 2 candidates who would fail to garner a majority in the Electoral College. I don't know who will eventually emerge but I pray that it's someone with the strength of character to fight for a liberal agenda and call out the Republican filth-mongers for what they are and hopefully, the American people, will rectify the gross error they made in electing a man devoid of any trace of morality, decency or patriotism.
9
Pffffft. Biden has ZERO CHANCE. Beto has ZERO CHANCE. Hillary, I voted for you but please STAY HOME.
BERNIE ALL THE WAY. He has been on the CORRECT SIDE of EVERY ISSUE for THIRTY YEARS. He has 8 more left in him.
45
@Danny Partridge Sorry, Danny, but Bernie is a large part of why tRump is "president." His ideas are good--his chances of getting them realized slim, and he is not, never was, a Democrat, and if he were really confident of his positions should have run as an independent. Please do some research and get over it.
62
@arjayeff
"...he is not, never was, a Democrat, and if he were really confident of his positions should have run as an independent."
As an Independent who supported him, I actually wholeheartedly agree with you. And i think if he runs this time around, he should run as the Indy that he is. The everybody is happy - both Dems and Indies, right?
5
I respect Bernie and will consider him seriously, *if* he joins the Democratic Party for real.
Biden is the real deal and the nation would be fortunate to have him in the White House.
Beto would be a good Veep. He needs more seasoning on the national stage before competing for the top job.
5
Forget the persuasive prescriptions for the country’s future, that's last millennium thinking.
Do they take corporate payoffs?
Can they motivate turnout by registering millions of new voters?
How will they destroy the global march of corporate fascism?
9
I would like the DNC to organize the primary so that ANY Dem that wins will have the best possible chance of winning the general. Here’s what they should do:
1) get rid of the “12 people on stage” debates
They are destructive and counterproductive. By boiling down everything into sound bites, they simply provide fodder for the right.
2) The DNC should organize many small-group discussions that focus on common ground between the candidates
Let’s face it: specific policies do not matter one hoot (see Clinton 2016). What matters is the candidate’s ability to relay those policies. The debate format hurts Dems because you can’t coherently explain a policy in a minute. That means candidates have to resort to jabs, burns, and exaggeration (see Trump 2016) to win.
3) Focus on building the Dem brand
Instead of focusing on marginal differences in candidates, the DNC should build the party brand starting NOW by hosting talks and forums on how to repair and strengthen our democracy.
18
@Josh
All very valid and cogent points, but the devil is always in the details. The problem of course is that the candidates all jockey for position thinking that whatever stage they are on (even if there are 14 others on it) means they are part of the primary group and have a chance to win the primary.
I agree, there need to be ''discussions'' and group settings before we get to that point, but I am of the opinion that the more the better. It is the networks that want and like the ''sound bites'' because to them a true discussion is not good television. The discussion is what we require, bit how do we get there ?
Perhaps we should take back the airwaves ...
9
Trump should offer up a list of Democratic opponents he would really like to run against him in 2020. Then Dems should choose someone not on that list.
5
Have you met Beto. cocky is not in his venacular
15
It doesn’t matter.
Trump will be handily re-elected in 2020.
5
@JQGALT Well that would be a change since, with 3 million fewer popular votes, he wasn't handily elected in 2016.
12
@Frank Actually, he was handily elected --because we democrats somehow thought winning the popular vote means you get to be president. Bunch of guys who drafted the U.S. Constitution thought differently. I'd feel a lot better if Hillary had lost the popular vote but took a trip or two to WI, MI and PA in October 2016.
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
(Gee, do you think I have a bias?)
Bernie is the anti-Trump. Everything that Trump is, Bernie is his opposite. Let's see a cage match between two who are at ideologically opposite ends of the spectrum.
This is a fight for the soul of America, and now everyone knows where The Donald stands. So, pit him against a person who is in every way the standard bearer for the other side. He is to Donald's Sauron, the humble hobbit Frodo Baggins of the shire. And the ring of power is the weight of carrying the responsibility of being POTUS. Putting Bernie forward to be the ring-bearer makes so much more sense than Biden. He will carry it with due humility of the grave weight of the office after Trump's GOP and Putin have fragmented America. It will weigh heavily on him, and it should. This election will be one of the most important in American history given the looming threats of climate change, a rising China, and the schisms that are ripping apart American society.
(See, I told you I was biased.)
43
@Nicholas: I voted for Bernie in the last primaries -- but, I don't see the humility. Maybe you could say, not the anti-Trump, but the counter-Trump: the other populist rally-master, only his populism is real. Gandalf to Trump's Saruman, maybe? (for Sauron, maybe the Koch brothers, lurking invisibly far in the background?) Biden would be Sam, right? Who happens to end up as the last one standing... hmmmm.
2
Please, please, please, don’t send me into a voting booth facing the choice of voting for that egomaniac Sanders (whose inability to admit he couldn’t win the Democratic nomination weakened the Democratic Party and its nominee) or the orange disaster Sanders’ freckles followers installed into the presidency (by playing “fantasy voting” for third party candidates or sitting out the election while whining endlessly that life was unfair, sulking because actual Democrats voting in actual primaries preferred an actual Democrat over a their “hero” and passing around Russian propaganda memes about how terrible the Democratic Party and its nominee were).
Although, not being an idiot (unlike the Bernie Bros and various other Sanders supporters who were unable to vote for a Democrat over the worst human being in the world) I would (with gritted teeth) vote for the Democratic Party nominee, but I’ve got a strong preference for anyone but Sanders as that nominee!
5
Are you Russian, Nicholas? Do you actually think WE THE PEOPLE are going to fall for your interference again?
Bernie Sanders should just retire.
2
In the next two years, let's hear ideas and vision rather than candidate recognition polls.
Let's hear ideas about how we address soaring health care costs, fund Social Security, and our climate change and environmental legacy to the future.
OK, I know that front runners traditionally hedge their positions to maintain a broad base. Trump upset that applecart with vast populist promises that turned into a dream agenda for the 1%.
Maybe that is why front runners don't finish well.
16
@Look
I agree. It is the ideas and values that we need to promote, and those candidates that are unequivocal and fearless in relation to them will garner the most votes in the end.
Let it all shake out .
6
What
You not rooting for your beloved Mayor Mike anymore!
2
Yes, a month is a year in politics.
Buuuut...analogies only 20 - 50% correlating at this point.
Biden / Bush: Jeb clearly didn't want the job; any middle manager could see that. Biden does and he has a personality too, at that.
He's too old, too" old school image. Maybe VP leader statesman. And hh has Anita Hill. Do not underestimate that this point in time, or that it will be used to show Dems are hypocrites.
Sanders / Christie: high correlation - anger and ego. Not
enough appeal to win, but plenty to cause chaos.
O'Rourke / Carson: here's where we disagree, Carson had a very high opinion of himself, little empathy and said some plain weird, spacey stuff.
O'Rouke is the opposite- charisma to burn, inspiring, concern for all his potential voters, concern for jobs, the little people.
It's more like O'Rourke/ Bobby K
Moving on to the lesser examples:
John Edward...slick taking lawyer, had an egotistical aura, and...poor judgment, ahem.
Guiliani: mini Trump before his time; tweaked lots of folks' A-dar: loose cannon then and now.
Howard Dean: just... weird.
Last: Hillary: We need to include her to learn. Competent and
unlikeable, political to the core, rather than passionate to the core. We are electing a leader, not an accountant.
All Of Us: you, me, your mother: work on some aspect of the Dems campaign, phone trees, donations, canvassing - what you can afford or can do, even a bit, it all counts.
6
@Dr. M
Why do you find Dean weird? I think of him often - I'd vote for him. I bet he'd be a far better candidate now than he was years ago.
5
@Barbara
Sure, if you think a Big Pharma lobbyist would be a better candidate than the guy who ran against the Iraq War.
1
Biden and Sanders are too old. Veto needs some seasoning.
8
Why can't you call Trump's candidacy announcement what it was? It wasn't "racially charged". What does that ridiculous euphemism even mean?
That speech was racist, period. You're not helping when you soft-pedal it. In fact, you're promoting denial and a lack of true dialogue about a critical issue that - far from going way - is actually getting worse, in politics and in society generally, thanks to Trump and his Republican apologists in Congress.
I read the NYT regularly, and the use of this phrase offends me every time I see it. It is an example of ongoing cowardice by the media. You want to still be polite and to "both sides" it. But to me, this is not journalism. It is capitulation.
68
@Judith
Bravo. I completely concur. Whenever the press (or pundits) dance around the English language and do not use actual and precise terms required, then the disservice lessens us all.
26
The pundits, the press and the parties are always telling Americans who we need to support. After Trump spanked Bush and Hillary, you’d think they’d have learned occasionally we voters might like to decide ourselves.
3
@Rational Thinker Trump spanked Bush. The general election was a completely different story, unless you consider a significant popular vote win a 'spanking'. The nation got spanked by Putin.
17
Since we’re getting out our crystal balls, I’ll call it, now.
Sherrod Brown and Stacey Abrams.
Think about it, then think some more, and smile.
14
@Phyliss Dalmatian
Brown's on my very short list, but i'm afeared he'd go with Harris.
2
Biden and Bernie have too much baggage, and Beto is a lightweight. Brown is the best candidate.
11
@Mal Stone
I am in total agreement.
I predict neither will get the nod. Or Castro. Or Kamala. Or Swalwell.
Who will? Nobody on the horizon. It depends on how, and how soon, Trump self-destructs, and if he takes our country with him.
6
How do you reconcile your advice not to jump the gun with your employer's endorsement of Hillary Clinton before the primary voting had even begun in 2016?
Who jumped the gun? Look up from the computer, sit back and swivel your chair180 degrees.
14
@Billy It’s possible for Mr Bruni — or anyone else, for that matter — to have a different perspective than his employer. In any case, he doesn’t speak for them and they don’t speak for him.
6
@Paul Mr. Bruni--and all of the Times's columnists--supported Hillary Clinton throughout 2015 and 2016. The Times and its columnists all missed the two seismic political stories of the 2016 campaign: the popularity of Donald Trump's populism and nationalism, and Bernie Sanders's socialism.
2
Dear Frank, the operative word here is “ cocky “.
Just saying.
6
Contemplating a roster of Democratic candidates for the 2020 election is merely an illusory distraction from the reality of the GOP right-wing, dark money funded takeover of our democracy, complete with gerrymandering, suppression of voter rights, decades of conservative judicial appointments, dismantling environmental protections and consumer protections and limiting the power of Dems even if they manage to get in office. We now have one-party rule with the GOP rigging the system in every conceivable Machiavellian way.
If it helps to ponder future Democratic candidates as a means of feeling less empowered about watching our democratic institutions being destroyed by a GOP bent on domination at the expense of integrity, truth and the common good, I say keep pondering. It beats feeling hopeless.
14
I have an idea - how about just doing journalism, instead of handicapping? How about sticking to actual news that's important, right now, instead of empty prognosticating? How about waiting until a candidate actually declares he or she is running, and THEN covering her or him? Media bears a great deal of responsibility for turning our elections into circuses of mindless drivel, by what and how you choose to report. You bear a great deal of responsibility for our current Presidential debacle. How about you do your job. Give us the relevant information we need in order to do our job as citizens. Don't waste the next year of my time with more of the same old stupid nonsense, PLEASE!
579
@PatriciaRIGHT ON !!!
57
@Patricia
These are columnists not political reporters, giving their opinion based on what they know and hear. There are plenty of news report giving other facts. Before you criticize the writers for not doing their job, you should find out what their job is.
69
@Patricia
One thing I've learned about Washingtonians (the state) since moving here 11 years ago from NY (the state & the city). They love the outdoors & they have their political opinions but a sense of humor is a rare attribute.
13
Agree! We hardly let the ink dry on the ballots (metaphorically) before we start looking to the next race. Let some governing happen.
A new Democratic majority is going to Washington in January - let's see what/how they do.
Democrats running for the 2020 nomination - I know they have go be available for interviews to get their names out but I hate it. I want some relief from a contact election cycle. There was down-time before 24/7 cable news? I would love some of that now. Please!
3
What I would much more like to see is a new sophistication among American voters. The Democrats now are a party of chaos, not coherence. The same holds for the Republican 2020 nominee who is now the president but he is a known quantity.
I have long thought that the surfeit of polls waters down the importance of politics and politicians and platforms and programs. I don't need to see Kamala Harris's face or Cory Booker's voice or be besieged daily by Elizabeth Warren's DNA vicissitudes. I would much prefer someone who is not so absolutely hungry to replace Donald Trump in the White House who has, you know, an actual center-left agenda that will find some appeal--however limited--on the just-right of center. I want someone who can build a coalition and a consensus. Not more of what we have now.
But I fear that the divisions that define our politics now--and have since Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy ripped a fragile racial dynamic in America wide open--remain open to subtle and not-so-subtle persuasion, particularly by Republicans. But since their 2020 candidate is known, we need to know who on the other side might find the golden mean.
Polling doesn't tell us much; it failed us miserably in 2016. Either that or those polled were never honest with their questioners and their true selves were revealed in the booths on Election Day.
Every Democratic candidate will have a mixture of the (maybe exciting) refreshing allure of the new as opposed to the predictably time-worn.
6
@Red
''I want someone who can build a coalition and a consensus. '' - I do too friend, but there is no one there. Every single republican (except for a very few exceptions) votes in lock step for one another, and for the extreme right.
What is required is a massive Liberal super majority to implement policies that reflect all and not just all of one kind. THEN we will be able to reach out and compromise and some conservatives ideals. - not before
Just a thought ...
8
@Red Sox, '04, '07, '13, ‘18,
What a refreshing comment! It's not Trump's fault this time. It's Nixon's fault!
Maybe we could blame it on Millard Fillmore? He was, after all, a Whig.
In support of your case, don't forget Jimmy Carter. He was so little known at this point in the race, that he made the remarkable decision to work the Iowa caucuses. Before Carter, the only politicians who worked the Iowa caucuses were ones who lived in Iowa and aspired to offices in Iowa. Carter didn't even win Iowa. He came in second to undecided, but that novel decision of Jimmy Carter and his second place finish made him an almost instant national frontrunner. Where is this year's Trump or Carter and how will he/she secure the nomination? There are no certain routes.
8
It's a chaos cloud this early, and as everyone knows, "a week in an eternity in politics".
That said: There are reasons to give credence to some more than others. I will use Sanders as my example because he had an incredibly successful run - despite the DNC biases and dirty tricks. He has already been inspected, detected and accepted by a very significant group of people many of whom are fiercely loyal to the cause, and probably the man.
So, as I am obviously in Sanders camp, just remember that moment with the bird. It was a magic serendipitous moment that will resurrect and play. The Sanders bird is the type of branding that others would love to have, and his baggage is all but certainly known. (Any candidate better come clean early because these days it will come out. Just assume that nothing will remain hidden, and get it out and in front of you early.)
49
@Nicholas Sanders was very helpful in getting Trump elected.
24
@Nicholas - The DNC feeling more positive toward one who had supported it over one who had criticized and fought it?
The dirty trick was Sanders, an independent, using the Democratic party to get himself elected as President because he couldn't do it as an independent. It was a cynical play that didn't work out for him as well as it it did Trump who ran as a Republican.
14
@Mike
Please. Every Sanders supporter I now voted for Hillary. I have a feeling the stories of the Sanders voter who refused to vote for Hillary are (1) very few in number (2) probably from people who were engaged in politics for the first time and wouldn't have even been involved if Sanders hadn't run.
Hillary was extremely qualified and yet still a bad candidate. This is not an interview for a private company. This is politics. You have to be able to politic.
4
Good, Better, Beto.. Bet Best. Bet Beto--(Biden|Bernie/Beto)
6
Maybe polls and predictions are premature now but now's the time to test the 2020 waters. Joe Biden has some baggage and age but he may be what America needs at this time. If Beto couldn't win Texas how can he win the White House? Has Bernie's time come and gone? And let's not discount Amy Klobuchar as a candidate or a running mate.
44
@silver vibes
Abraham Lincoln lost the senate race of 1858 to his Illinois debate partner, Stephen Douglas. I seem to think he won the presidency in 1860. Now I am not comparing Lincoln to Beto, merely pointing out that a close loss to Cruz in a very red state is not necessarily disqualifying to Beto.
63
Nice work getting an early "Pick!" I think that now is a moment to try building momentum. I am most inclined to support Biden; he is experienced, he is relatable, he is a fighter, he is a known entity. That's the best mix in a Democratic candidate - not to mention, he would make a fantastic president! That's the bottom line, right? ;)
14
@silver vibes
How about Biden/Klobuchar? Biden promises to serve 1-term and cleans up the Trump mess and prepares Klobuchar to run in 2024. I read that somewhere and I'm liking it more and more.
42
The "only" polls against President Trump are liberal polls based on "nothing" but hatred for the man and they have gotten to be quite laughable.
4
The only defenses of Trump are fact-free statements that can't point to anything real, and they're extremely laughable. There are no polls showing a majority approving of Trump's silliness.
31
@WT Dufrane
He's not laughing - he's manic-tweeting, when he's not on the golf course that it.
And I don't hate the man - he's too insignificant to hate. I used to live just outside NYC so I'm well acquainted with him through his tabloid escapades and multiple bankruptcies (he bankrupted casinos in Atlantic City when casinos in Atlantic City were as close to a sure-thing as possible).
He was always on Howard Stern - always good for a laugh. Really Donald Trump was a joke, I'm not laughing now. I'm frightened with what he's doing to my country but you don't have to be liberal to be upset about that - you just have to have half-a-brain.
21
I don't pay much attention, actually none, to these polls. For me it will be, listen to the candidates looking for key positions that support my beliefs, then vote in the primary, then wait until the national election where one is nominated, and then vote Democrat.
P.S. Would love that to be Stacey Abrams.
6
Stacey Abrams might be a good Veep.
To Be B or not Be B. Why Biden, Bernie and Beto Shouldn’t Get Cocky. Nor should Bruni.
26
Biden and Bernie are both old enough to be Berto's daddy. Unlike Berto, Biden and Bernie were elected Senators from Democratic states. Unlike Biden and Bernie, Berto has never run for President..Neither Biden nor Bernie nor Berto are the color aka race of the most loyal and long suffering Democratic Party base aka black African Americans particularly black women.
4
@Blackmamba
Beto. It’s not difficult.
#Beto
1
It’s nearly two years away. Debating it now is just hot air.
21
Bernie is the most popular politician in America. Polls in 2016 showed him beating Trump easily, whereas Hillary was almost tied. This is what I call evidence.
Many of Hillary's early primary voters, who gave her initial momentum, were in states where their votes wouldn't count in the general election. Later, in states like New York, independents, who would have supported Bernie, couldn't vote in the primary. Before California, the primary was decided by Reuters, largely based on superdelegates.
The Democratic Party must pick up progressive independents, not try to pick up Republicans, as Clinton did.
38
@dr. c.c.
I like Bernie - voted for him in the NY Primary. I think Republicans are ready to run against him, like they were against Hillary.
I think Biden has a built-in advantage because he was VP, he's real, he has a terrific story. He can run as a clean-up candidate (we're going to need major cleaning up after the mess of Donald Trump and his band of thieves). And he choose a younger VP who will acquire experience to run on their own in 2024. Could work.
3
@dr. c.c.
I love Bernie too but I'd bet a lot money that more than enough Bernie people refused to vote for Hillary in the end - and helped elect Trump.
1
A man who lost in 1998 and 2008 — not lost but clobbered lost should not run period.
19
@SR
Exactly right!
2
@SR
If you're talking about Joe Biden, he was on the winning ticket in 2008 and proved to be an exceptional VP.
7
@SR 1988!! Even more reason!
1
Who knows? I just can’t see Biden. I like him. He was born in Scranton. He’s Old School but.......... The Party’s getting younger and more female.
Beto’s Got the juice but it’s along run.
having said that, please no Dem Trump.
7
'Dewey Defeats Truman' didn't quite turn out to be the case, as we know. So we all know how we can't put our faith on polls.
Of those who are running, it is hard to predict who will be the nominee or ultimately president. Winning Iowa or NH doesn't mean much either. It is a marathon and so we'll just have to wait and see.
That being said, Beto's chances can't be discounted considering how well he did in a Red state like Texas.
The Houston Chronicle said, "Democrat Beto O’Rourke exposed a blue spine across the middle of red Texas." Whether Beto's appeal in other states will be as enthusiastic as it was in Texas and whether his showing in Texas is ephemeral or longer lasting remains to be seen.
7
Right now, I put my money on Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
She's a woman. She has the best legislation record. She's new.
Voters want new hope, for the future, not the same old thing.
Obama had his "Audacity of Hope." Trump has his audacity.
Now, I think we want, both hope and audacity and so I think we need a new beginning, with someone like Amy Klobuchar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
138
@Harry Pearle
I like her too.
13
@Harry Pearle
Consider Sen. Amy Klobuchar for president or vice pres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The lesson of Hillary's loss may be that the nation does not want "retreads" from the past. She was soo boring. Biden, Warren and others may also become boring, fast.
As much as I hate Trump, he is never boring.
America needs to wake up each day, interested in politics, and that is why we need freshness and interest.
Democracy does not run on "autopilot".
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". (Att. Jefferson)
---------------------------------------------------
7
Totally agree
3
None of the above. Somebody will rise out of the pack. The Democrats must pick someone who can bridge progressivism and disaffected voters alienated and dismissed by the obsession with identity politics and the money-turned, inequality-enabling coastal elites. Someone smart and honest, stable and forthright, strong and open, down-to-earth and possessing leadership, with enough government experience but no victory-disabling baggage from the past. There's only one who fits the bill that I see, Amy Klobuchar.
57
I, for one, am looking forward to the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
Remember just a few years ago, when Democrats bemoaned that the bench was weak, that there weren't a lot of potential candidates out there? Seems kind of silly now. The bench is deep, and wide.
Bring them all on, I say. Let them debate and compare and tussle in public. If nothing else, the need to sharpen and focus and communicate will mean that the eventual winner, who may well be someone who hasn't even popped up on the horizon yet (it's happened before), will be that much more battle-tested and ready to take on his Orangeness (who I believe will still be there by then, unfortunately, unless said Orangeness succumbs to a primary fight of his own, which given current circumstances, may not be as far fetched as you think).
I have my own current preferences--I do think there should be a person of color on the ticket, due to the unfortunate tribal nature of turnout, and a woman of color optimally--but my preferences are certainly not everyone's. And all of our preferences can, and probably will, change as the months pass by.
In the meantime, build the political infrastructure--register people, prepare the phone banks, text, and email chains, organize the vehicle pools, hold the forums and discussion groups. When that person comes out of the pack, we want to make sure we can throw maximal support behind them (and that non-agreeing pronoun is used on purpose).
15
@Glenn Ribotsky
I'll be delighted with a full slate and many debates - ALL COVERED by the media (hopefully will keep Donald Trump off the front page). BUT I hope the candidates take a pledge not to go negative on one another and to support the winner (of course). I would hate to see a candidate hurt by a brutal primary campaign.
4
Uh, when someone tries to tell me who's going to win one week before the election, I won't believe it. Remember!
15
@Richard Mclaughlin Who was thinking the electoral college would have to decide?
1
The criteria for supporting a candidate seems to have no relationship to character, intelligence, or experience - look who is president. Who could possibly predict how our dumbed-down populace will respond to anyone or anything? It's one big crapshoot.
14
So correct. Anybody who puts stock in punditry and prognostications about anything political in our current state is like a confident bettor at Santa Anita on a rare rainy day.
5
Worse than that, I remember pundits and party insiders in 2008 forecasting that Hillary would be the Democrats' nominee in 2012. They were sure that Obama would lose, and an old hand like Hillary would surely win.
How did that work out?
O'Rourke is a candidate from central casting--tall, good looking, and a blank canvas for most of us, upon which just about any image might be drawn. Biden is a steady hand and a bridge back to a better time. And Warren, if she wants the job, would be without a doubt the smartest candidate--since at least Barrack Obama anyway. And the one best able to motivate young voters.
But there's a long way to go.
15
I've seen a lot of people talking up one or another candidate for 2020, and I try to remind them that we've got over a year to make up our minds, and that a lot can change between now and then. It's not a popular point to be making, people are really cheering on their favorites.
However, there are a couple of good things about discussing the candidates this early. We can start to get a handle on what we'd like to see in a candidate. Like, I refuse to consider anyone with no relevant experience, like Oprah Winfrey, Jerry Seinfeld, LeBron James, and the other wildcard candidates. I don't want someone with not much experience either, like Beto O'Rourke; if he'd won and gotten two years of Senate time in, I'd be more amenable. Ideally, the Pres/VP ticket cannot be two white Christian men, and it'd be terrific if one or both were women or minorities.
But the other really good thing about discussing this now is that it keeps us focused on a time when Trump will lose his position of power. It's only two years and one month away, hopefully, we will be done with his arrogant, bigoted nonsense. So it's nice to contemplate that, and to stay energized and involved in politics. Here's to Trump being overthrown by someone, and just about anyone will do.
306
@Dan ('owdy mate - long time)
I agree with most of what you said, except for not contemplating Beto. He does have experience, but not at the federal level.
Having said that, it would be very nice to see someone of color, and even more so a woman, but if the candidate lives and breathes for issues that reflect those demographics, then I am fine with another white male candidate. I would not want two of them on the ticket, and as far as religion, I could not care either, for I am an Atheist.
As long as all of us become engaged and vote. (especially the 100,000,000 that sit on the sideline any given election)
We need to wake THEM up.
61
@Dan Stackhouse If the Democrats nominate minorities for both President and Vice-President they will confirm the impression that the Democratic Party is all about identity politics -- and they will surely lose.
78
@Dan Stackhouse
We also don't want those who "have run" either. That is sending out recycled cards. Not going to work. I love Joe but please, not Joe. Ditto for Bernie and Elizabeth. That leaves the new folks on the block. We need to be very careful.
51
I mean, yes, you are right, it's silly to be working the horse race angle now. But that's how the media works. It's so easy to frame it all as a 24 month long horse race. Why waste so many words pointing out, yet again, that our media does us no favors by doing this?
7
It's hilarious that the journalist (now pundit) who declared himself bored by policy in the person of humorless Al Gore and was a merry player in the "rather have a beer with Bush" crowd (and besides 4 years of Bush would be so much entertaining for journalists!) now thinks to offer advice to the Democratic candidates.
No soul-searching, Frank? And no hesitation this time around?
220
@jrd So right. But to expect any soul searching by smirky pundits is to expect too much. They could be dead wrong (as he was about the 2018 election results) and come back like Jason Voorhees to predict again. Never too early. I wish Bruni would go back to being a food critic sometimes.
1
Trying to pick a winner (candidate) this early is of course silly. But it helps to keep this in the conversation regularly... And while Biden is certainly old, he has the respect of a large segment of America, and I believe he can not only win, but help bring America back on track. So yes, keep saying positive things about these potential candidates.
12
My hope is that the DNC won't try to pick our candidate this time around, gaming the system so their presumed best candidate isn't badly damaged by a contentious nominating process.
I didn't blame our parties elite for throwing cold water on the Bernie candidacy last go-round- why should the party support an independent that had done little for the party before joining it to run for president?
However, making so many Democrat Bernie supporters feel cheated created a public relations disaster, and in hind-sight, it probably would have been better to have a fairer contest anyway.
Let the Dem voters decide this time around- the party elite should organize this nominating process impartially.
163
@alan haigh: The party rules that favored Clinton over Sanders were created years before, to democratize the process. Any set of rules, in practice, will favor one candidate over another. I agree that Bernie is a "Democrat of convenience", and his Pure True Believers made it clear they'd see Trump elected before they'd support Clinton. Thanks a lot! We Democrats won't forget.
Beto is terrific, as is Landrieu, but neither is ready yet. Biden is, to me, a not-unlikeable cypher. What does he really stand for? Warren is tough and smart, and she's fought the good fight for years. I don't care if her great-great grandfather was Cherokee, or Kubilai Khan. The Fox folks will say she's "unlikeable", because, well, they have to say something nasty, right?
44
@franko
It was not the "party rules" that favored Clinton over Sanders. It was a never ending set of dirty backstabbing behind the scenes collusion among the Dem ruling elite to sabotage Bernie's campaign. To borrow your phrase "We Democrats won't forget". In fact, literally millions of voters quit the Democratic Party after seeing how the Democratic Party elite maintains an iron grip on the processes.
You are also wrong about Bernie being a "Democrat of convenience". He happens to caucus with and is highly respected by the Democrats in the Senate, and to have any chance at all in our two party duopoly system he had no choice but to run as a Democrat.
Apparently you have also believed the lies about Bernie's "Pure True Believers" supporting Trump instead of Clinton. After conceding to Clinton, Bernie went on the campaign trail for her and encouraged his supporters to vote for Clinton, many of whom contributed dollars and time to her campaign.
The truth is, Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate from the beginning. She was despised by a huge percentage of voters and ran a terrible, mismanaged, uninspiring campaign. If the Democrats repeat their antics in 2020 then they are again doomed for defeat.
155
@alan haigh
Please explain how the DNC caused the great majority of us to vote for Clinton in the primaries.
I get tired of seeing this ad hominum argument constantly. The DNC did not pick Hillary we the voters did in the primaries. It was Hillary who raised the funds that helped the other Democratic candidates run, Sanders contributed nothing, he was not a member of the Democratic party, he ran as one, did not raise any money to help, and did not help Hillary when she became the people choice.
Yes we will not forget his contribution to Dishonest Donald, he will not be a candidate.
49