Assessing 2020 Democratic Candidates
The field obviously will be crowded. If more than one runs for POTUS they will practically qcede the election to Trump.
Those most often mentioned to date:
1) - Old timers:Biden, Bloomburg, J Brown, Clinton and Sanders -
All too old with old ideas.
2) - Younger with issues/missteps: Warren, Harris, Booker, Gilerbrand and Kerry - two are flamethrowers, all five have issues that would prevent them from winning, in my opiniln.
3) - Young charismatic - Beto and Kennedy(?) - too young and too unseasoned.
4) - Others - Klobachur, S Brown and Hickenlopper - Not dynamic enough w/o charisma. Perhaps Klobachur but I see her as V.P.
So, who might emerge as Obama and Trump did? If Trump runs again, which I think is inevitable, it presents additional challenges to Democratic candidate. He/she can't be "like" the 16 he vanquished in Primary. So, that probably will require a new Dem. not identified? A knowledgeable, dynamic fighter who can withstand characterization by Trump and forcefully clever enough to beat him on the issues.
Who can meet that job description?
Chris Van Hollen
Tim Kaine
11
There is a lot of focus on "who can beat Donald Trump." What about the scenario where he has been deposed? The GOP could assume the role of protector of democracy who, when finally presented with damning evidence, rose to the occasion and withdrew their support of him. Another scenario: Dems bring impeachment charges that ultimately fail, and Trump is therefore much strengthened and further lionized for withstanding the unjust witch hunt. My point is, Dems should concentrate on policy issues relating to enabling the average Joe to make a decent living. Leave Trump out of it.
16
One thing Trump voters and Democrats of good faith could all get on board with is getting the pigs away from the trough: ie getting money out of politics. It's just obscene. So far only Elizabeth Warren seems to be hammering away at this with any consistency. The ''how to'' (details) will be interesting to hear since the courts seem to have thrown in the towel. There will have to be some clever legislative workaround to effect cleaner government.
8
Bernie Sanders is an instant frontrunner. As the NYT will discover once he announces.
18
I suggest an O’Rourke/Matiss ticket...O’Rourke has the “X Factor” and Mattis reflects stability and security. Plus, many will love voting for Mattis as VP to further stick it to Trump.
14
Team of Rivals!
Franken 2020
16
any living human who can walk and talk and breathe for more than 30 consecutive seconds without lying would be a better president than the current occupant
42
If the Democratic party continues to pursue an identity based strategy - which person might bring more African Americans, more Latinos, more LGBTQ - it will almost certainly give us four more years of Trump.
Maybe the Democrats should define ideas and policies that will not only appeal but be good for the whole country and then find/nominate the "right" person - male or female of whatever background - to try to win the election.
One can always hope or dream!
31
Charisma + voluntary enrollment, government health insurance available to all. That's all any Democratic candidate needs to rise above the pack and beat Trump. Healthcare is the one issue that transcends all partisan divisions and it is the best way to raise the standard of living of all citizens, regardless of how they earn their living and where they live, urban or rural. We have Medicare for the elders, Medicaid for the poorest, and now we need something for everyone else, regardless of income. By making it a choice, not a government mandate, the candidate can deflect the predictable "government takeover of healthcare" nonsense and sell the benefits of the government insurance plans: premiums based on income which make it affordable for all, low or no deductibles, guaranteed coverage without premium penalties for pre-existing conditions, approved drug coverage, dental and vision coverage, mental health and addiction treatment, seamless coverage between jobs and across state lines. Make it easy to pay through payroll deduction like Medicare taxes. Give employers the choice of funding their own private health benefit plan or contributing to the government plan on a per-employee dollar-match basis. Keep it simple and sell it in every public appearance and nothing else in your campaign will matter.
6
The "moment" requires that citizens get off the couch and get involved in the campaigns of any candidate that excites us and speaks to our concerns. First of all, go hear them speak in person if you possibly can. Stop letting the media filter them and screen them and reduce them to sound bites and nicknames. There is only one thing I am going to listening for as the candidates emerge: their healthcare plan. It is really the only issue that will get my vote and my donations and campaign support.
7
I want competence. I want protection from our enemies undermining our electoral process and out trade secrets. I want infrastructure restoration. A fair and equitable tax law. I want traditional alliances restored.
I’m a rank and file Democrat, is that enough?
11
Why is Al Gore not mentioned. He is 70, and younger than Biden and Sanders and Trump not to forget. He would be a strong candidate if going back to politics and in the political center; and with respect to the environment he would be the strongest candidate of all and what USA and the world need. Would create new hope for many. Trump is and was never a potitican, but Al Gore has been there and gained experience. With a younger running mate, a women? from the midwest ? it looks like a strong team.
9
As we contemplate these appealing, highly viable presidential hopefuls, let us recall the wise counsel of Woody Allen:
"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path [Warren-O'Rourke] leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other [Booker-Harris], to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
8
The Democrats had an instant frontrunner in 2016. Let’s not forget how that turned out. They should take the time it takes to select the right candidate.
10
The Democrats haven't learned anything. They have been ranting and posturing about Trump's excesses, sometimes even talking about themselves and their supporters as being an invasion.
It's one thing to carry on to extremity and preaching ideological purity from a safe district in the Bronx, Detroit or Boston. It's quite something else to win elections in Ohio, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.
What the Democrats need to confront is the reality that the vision promulgated by their left wing and focusing on minority and identity politics was NOT what won them the election in November and will not be what wins them anything in 2020. The recent election was decided by moderate voters in moderate districts in the midwest, Pennsylvania and California.
The presidential election -- no matter how much the left wing hates Trump -- will be decided most likely by moderate voters in moderate states.
The ideologues of the left are very unlikely to prevail. The Democrats must learn not to overplay their hand. They must learn to listen -- rather than preach -- to the people who work, have kids, worry about the future and the present safety and security of themselves and their families and, most of all, want to feel that someone actually cares about their concerns.
20
I don't see Warren as head of the ticket, but she can stake out the lay of the land for Dems on "Overdue, pragmatic Wall Street tax reforms." Focus less on regulatory over-reach, and more on social justice. Here are substantive planks for that platform:
Similar to the SALT cap that hit the upper middle class, put a cap on the "Trump-Kushner" Pass through business deduction at $50k. Small business still benefits, but billionaires don't deserve this loophole.
All income over $500k (joint) subject to AMT at 30% rate; except muni bonds per Constitution.
(Hedge fund managers') Carried interest should be taxed at AMT rate at minimum (open for debate about ordinary income rate).
Small (3 percent of 1 percent) transaction tax on securities sales by funds, institutions, trusts and partnerships. (We don't need high frequency, short-term and algorithmic trading to have efficient markets; these are parasites on the system)
Limit the capital gains tax break to genuine long-term investors: (As it was before Reagan) Long term cap gains rate applies after three years w/ a phase in. Holdings over one year can be eligible for a 25% rate. Qualified dividends continue to get the lower long term tax rate to minimize complexity.
Commodity trading profits/losses marked at 50 pct short term (ordinary) tax rate
These changes won't balance the federal budget, but they will restore social justice to capital markets taxation.
3
The Democrats need a candidate that will govern from the center(with a little bit of the Left thrown in). Far left progressives will never learn- the average American doesn't want that (nor do I, a lifelong Democrat). We paid the price for Democrats who stayed at home in those battle ground states or wasted their votes on Bernie, Green Party or Peace & Freedom. We need all of those people to vote for a moderate Democratic candidate to defeat Trump. We need to figure out how so many women voted for Trump despite his outrages. If progressives keep waving their flag, we'll lose and the country will lose.
11
The Democrats have a lot of "senior" candidates.
The law of averages says one of them is going to pass within one year.
If one of them does pass, all the candidates over 65 will be eliminated in one fell swoop.
This doesn't apply to Trump because he has shown unbelievable stamina and appears indestructible.
4
The worse danger of Trump is he makes any Democrat look good to many voters. That means we may still get mediocre representtion even if Dems win.
Let's discuss basics first---that our warped definitions of what's 'left wing' have led to the Trump takeover.
Millions of Americans in the 'richest country and greatest democracy' lack a secure income, affordable health care and a pension for old age.
How do we define moderate? How can moderate policies improve people's lives and restore balance to our imbalanced politics ? What's seen as left wing here is centrist in other capitalist democracies with politics more responsive to their citizens rights and needs. Like America was supposed to be.
Our warped norm is to turn our elections over to corporate wealthy elites for financing, as both parties do the fund raising dance to the tune of big donors. And the media reports on the horse race performance.
Policy operates within the limits the big donors set---or be slapped with the label of too left wing. That's why we still don't have universal health care generations after the rest of the modern world achieved it.
We the people have no clout and get little representation for our taxation. The mega donors have clout, lowered taxes and strong representation by lawmakers indebted to them.
Within this warped political spectrum our politicians are cautioned to be 'moderate?
Let's get real or else the future Trumps are swimm ing up from the swamp depths.
10
Joe Biden should run with the promise that he is seeking one term, the express purpose of which is to get Donald Trump out of the White House. He can pick an energetic young running mate and he will win in November 2020. Democrats cannot afford to go into uncharted territory lest they blow it (which they do, an inordinate amount of the time) and Trump gets re-elected. Biden is charted territory. He would win the electoral college. He would have won in 2016, too.
7
Trump can be beat by any centrist with serious knowledge and ability. Unfortunately, every high profile figure representing specific interests will run and dilute the appeal of such qualified candidates. Worse so many people will feel disappointed that they will not support the Democratic candidate strongly enough to participate in the general election. This will give Trump a very good chance of being re-elected by a united Republican voting block.
3
"A leaderless party, they are in a moment of transition from center-left politics to a more ideologically pure brand of liberalism."
I just want to say that since the Clinton "triangulation", the great bulk of Democratic politicians have been a pro-business and *center-right*. This is debatable.
This is not to say that Clinton's move to the right was not the "right" thing to do. At the presidential level, the Dems had been extremely weak since JFK. A new strategy was clearly necessary. Clinton's success was naturally copied by other Dems, and within a short period of time, most Dems were Blue Dog Dems: liberal on individual rights, pro-business but with the knowledge that some regulation is necessary.
The trouble is that the Dems stuck with Clinton's strategy for too long. It's been clear for 15 to 20 years that globalization and automation were obliterating the middle class. The Dem politicians were just too conservative in their strategies--they kept holding on to what seemed like a good political playbook, in spite of the mounting evidence. As much as Trump's rise was due to years of the Republicans stoking racism, misogyny, bigotry, etc., it was also due to the Dems' tone deafness to mounting middle class and non-cosmopolitan distress.
And now they are playing catch up to define a new strategy. Their coalition is now very ungainly. The "signal" from the primaries is going to be very muddled. But the Repubs have even worse problems-I hope.
5
I am not certain that Democrats are, or need to be, concerned with "what voters want" currently, or if the candidates (Elizabeth Warren) "match the moment." Both phrases suggest that they are incentivized to "game" the process. I hope not. I believe most Democrats know what they want even with disagreements: Stop the dystopian wrecking ball named Donald Trump, #1. Dr. Warren and other potential very worthy candidates have already stated numerous policy positions and clear ideas that most Americans will understand. My concern is that ginned up minor disagreements and sidebar issues will be parlayed by partisans
and K street lobbyists and low-media hacks into "big issues," when, in fact, "of, by, and for" is, essentially, what matters. Go Dems!
2
Right now liking Hickenlooper. Hear he's quite well-regarded in Colorado. Or Steve Bullock of Montana. Two reasonable people who have been able to work both sides of the aisles. (Yes, I know they are white men. Would easily choose the appropriate woman or POC. The person, whomever he/she is, needs to be able to win!) I have met Elizabeth Warren several times - smart woman, not the right candidate though. Corey Booker has "saved" one too many people (wonderful actions, but wonder about the grandstanding vs results); Kristen Gillibrand - a huge no! She's impulsive in her actions without first researching and understanding - we have that now. (e.g., Defending the false Columbia student; Al Franken; jumping towards the Women's March without understanding the anti-Semitism there from Day One, that many of us ordinary people knew about.) Let's win back our country and then figure ways to have a diverse field of experienced, solid, innovative and results-driven leaders.
5
Who would the current occupant of the White House most salivate over as a democratic opponent? Elizabeth Warren, first and foremost. Kamala Harris. Corey Booker. Myopia and self-absorption reign everywhere. Pardon me for being a realist, but give me a Joe Biden, who is the only potential candidate who can really get under Trump's skin like Schumer did during that infamous televised White House meeting, and who can peel away disaffected blue collar white men. Pair him with Beto O'Rourke, who can inspire the young and the idealistic, and you may have something. This is presuming that the laws of physics do not sink Trump as they very well should before 2020.
But realism does not always win the day - see 2016, where Democrats gave Republicans the candidate they had been preparing to destroy for the past twenty years. Bernie "one-note" Sanders still thinks he has a chance, along with a slew other candidates who are perfect foils for GOP scare tactics. Too much self regard can sink a party and a country along with it.
8
We don't need an "instant frontrunner." We need to learn about all the candidates' ideas, strengths and weaknesses. Please stop with the incessant horse-race coverage, what seems like constant polling and the search for a "narrative" about each candidate.
8
All the wise pundits here who say the Dems should steer towards the center should look at the data. Like polls taken in the spring of 2016 that consistently showed that Bernie with a much better lead over Trump than Clinton had. An NBC poll had him up by 12 points with Hillary up by 2.
Conventional wisdom about moving towards the center is so 2000, so pre-great recession, pre the Sanders campaign. The center has failed, which is why Trump won (though the electoral college, Comey, etc. clearly played their part).
People are looking for solutions, looking for something different. There is no longer consensus America, the center does not hold. Some go the way of fear, hatred and scapegoating (Trump, et. al.), others will look towards a progressive transformation like Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, etc. stand for. Look what happened with Beto in Texas (who ran a decidedly progressive campaign despite his previous voting record) of all places
We can't get trapped in what made sense 20 to 50 years ago. It is a different country and a different world, and the same old same old of past Democrats won't cut it any more. Wishy washy liberalism (Bill, Hillary, Schumer), with attachments to Wall Street, drug companies, etc., are not only the wrong answer for the well being of the country, but also for the support of American voters.
12
Elizabeth warren may have a chance, but it isn't strong. She's passionate, idealistic and cares about the average Joe & the poor. She'll fight the plutocrats who would vehemently oppose her. The problem with her is that she isn't impressive, unlike say Diane Feinstein - it's not the looks of Feinstein (she's pretty, similar to Kirsten Gillibrand who's much worse than Warren) but the way she utters her words which is extremely impressive. True, it's an extremely rare quality, but the female candidate should be about as impressive as Amy Klobuchar who has a significant chance.
Beto O'Rourke still has a chance but the recent loss is big drag on his candidacy.
The best candidate for my money is Mitch Landrieu. He's solid like a rock, with good gestures and non-flamboyant but impressive words. He's daring, friendly, sincere & white, male & 58, not in their mid seventies. Last Friday Shawna Thomas, a black reporter, quietly said, on Washington WK, PBS, Landrieu was one candidate she's looking at - I was so glad!
Now my fantasy: Michael Bloomberg establishes a $500 million + fund with $500 million of his own to help/fund presidential candidates who could otherwise not raise enough money. And he channels much of that to Landrieu. Bloomberg would have been a good president if he ran before turning 70.
3
OK, the dithering Democratic party for starters is or was Republican light for one thing, Yes please face the reality that though much better on social issues our beloved Democrats are part of the elite. 80 percent of them take huge amounts of money and vote for corporations and the wealthy. Yep. And they forget or have mostly forgotten about and lost touch with the working classes as soon as they win their elections. Yep.
So they are flummoxed how to win the next Presidential election. What tricks can they use to win ? Gee why not try actually listening to real people, rather than fancy talking points.What about actually delivering real solutions rather than vote for more wars or patching up Obama care and so on because they are paid so well to defraud the voters over and over again.
And thanks NYT for the backhanded compliment to Bernie for his surprisingly? strong campaign against elite Hillary.
It was not surprising to the working classes and the poor. He ran on a populist campaign and meant it, and Trump ran on a populist campaign and did not mean it.
And very sadly I say Beto is corrupt. It breaks my heart, but look at his voting record, and look at the corporate sneaky donations he took in from fossil fuel companies and did not return the money. He caved in on Medicare for all, the
strongest platform in his campaign.
The corruption whisperers got to him, probably insurance companies promised him splendor. I am sad for the Texans who believed in him.
4
I'd like to see former New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu throw his hat into the ring. He'd make a great president. He's smart, affable, honest, caring, down-to-earth, forward-thinking, and only 58 years old.
Mr. Landrieu would be my pick for the top of the Democratic ticket with Beto O’Rourke or Kamala Harris as VP.
3
A youngish (under 55), small-L liberal, fiscally-conservative female candidate with a heart, would present the traits, and the timeliness, for success and an end to Trump.
1
Considering the anti Trump campaign, Democrats should be able to nominate a generic cardboard cut out and win in a landslide.
That won't happen because they are horrible candidates and will take Democrats back to the pre President Obama days of always losing. The democratic party is still controlled by the Clinton Republican elites with some extremist from the left for show. It is a party with zero common sense that has trouble connecting even with its historical base. Maybe one or two in this bunch could be VP but there is no way any of them could win the presidency.
The lack of candidates and enthusiasm says so much about how out of touch the party has become.
4
It is inevitable is the Republican Party will continue to do everything possible to win elections by any means, no matter how corrupt. The only antidote is massive voter turnout which overcomes their wide-spread strategy to systematically suppress Democratic votes.
This means bringing forward new candidates that inspire the usually apathetic potential voting pool in America to show up at the polls. The old guard should do all they can to make sure that the public at large has excellent exposure to the "new blood" in the Democratic line-up. Let us not have a replay of Clinton, Sanders or Biden, despite their political skills.
We must reclaim our nation from the grips of Vladimir Putin, Rupert Murdoch and the right wing extremist Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court. Bring on the new leaders of the Democratic Party. Let them shine!
3
Everybody needs to step back and identify a candidate who Trump can't verbally ridicule. His ridicule fires up his base. And for a Democrat to win, his base needs to turn on him.
The only (ONLY) person who he can't beat in this way is Tammy Duckworth. She can stand up to this child-man in a way no other Democrat can. She will have instant credibility with Trump's base. She can shut him up in a way no one else can. And she will appeal to minorities and to women and to liberals.
Can you imagine what she would do if Trump tried to loom over her in a debate? She would clean his clock.
She is from a mid-western state. She is personable, smart, tough, and talented. And, personally, I want a President who has been to war--that person will be much more careful about putting our young men and women into harm's way unless that is absolutely needed for our security.
She would be a powerful world leader.
All she has to do, from the start of the race, is refuse to call him Mr. Trump and, instead, refer to him as Cadet Bone Spurs. She will unnerve him in a way nobody else can. He will shrivel up when having to run against her.
She can have hats made that show two severed limbs and that have "America IS great enough to be worth dying for" written on them.
10
I just want to win - charisma important and experience is sometimes over rated
3
One factor outweighs all others, WINNING.
The nominee must be able to beat Trump in key swing states, and that means getting swing voters in those states. The nominee must be able to convince a voter in western Pennsylvania who voted for Trump in 2016, for example, to vote for him or her instead.
I don't care which nominee we end up with so long as she or he is the most likely in the DEM field to fulfill that requirement.
EDITORS -
1. Please give all the potential DEM nominees roughly equal air time. Please let them use the NYT as a forum where they can express their ideas. Please avoid editing, paraphrasing, and otherwise altering their messages. Let us hear them unaltered.
2. Please avoid favoring one candidate over the others for at least another 8 months. At that point, please be open and upfront about your endorsement, so that we readers can factor that in when we read your reporting on others.
Thank you.
6
I'm hoping that Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, and Hickenlooper are in the primaries. I'd like to hear more from them. With respect to Trump, he is a tiresome boor and any candidate that runs against him should not take the bait. If a candidate ignores him, he will deflate.
5
Clearly, American voters have no realistic understanding of what is and what is not in their interests. The national conversation has been so constrained by conservatives and business interests that intelligent discussions of issues from tax policies to health care are nonexistent being skewed only to addressing opinions about the pet issues of conservatives. The state of health care costs and coverage in this country is ridiculously mismanaged. We spend twice as much on health care for worse outcomes to serve some moronic idea that rational policies that work around the world will destroy personal freedoms and free enterprise. Tax cuts never have any direct effect on economic expansion unless there are big surpluses which keep money out of circulation but Republicans have insisted that they do and increase national debt every time that they cut taxes. It would be smart for the Democrats to debunk all the conservative mischaracterizations of reality and then to develop a coherent plan to undo the damage that has resulted before picking the next Presidential candidate.
5
Just as I was getting over being annoyed by the annoying Republican clown car now the annoying Democrats are firing up one of their own. I mean, it's better than the contest between the super sonic jet vs. horse and buggy vs. invisible candidate in some kind of invisible (if extant at all) transport that Debs Dubya Schultz gave us but still immediately annoying.
2019 wore out its welcome in about 12 hours. Admittedly that's 11.5 hours longer than I usually manage, but still.
2
I can't believe that on the first day of 2019 I am opining about the presidential race in 2020.My New Year's resolution is not to get sucked into this discussion for at least six months! I do hope prognosticators remember a few numbers-As of 2015, the median age in the U.S, was 37.8---people under 21 were 27% of the population and people over 65 were 14%.Age matters.We need someone at least under 65 and preferably much younger.We are not an old fossilized Democracy! We need someone young, energetic, articulate, empathetic, inspiring to move us through the challenges of the tech focused 21st Century.We need someone as inspired about celebrating our Democracy as our founding fathers were when they wrote the Constitution.
82
Biden must be on the ticket. We look for statesmanship at home and abroad, which is the biggest glaring omission that people want fixing. Red or blue, it is this ability to be consoler-in-chief, a leader, a thinker and a reflective public servant, that people want and yearn for. There may be others, but a hell of a lot of people just want to return to the old days pretty quick so they can get on with their lives, away from jibes, barbs, resignations and shutdowns.
5
As someone who never told anyone that she voted for Bernie in the primaries so she wouldn't have to face the wrath of her Democratic/liberal friends in Massachusetts, I love all this. Let's start early and take the time to thrash out our positions on issues instead of having them be defined for us behind closed doors at the DNC.
There are quite a number of Democrats I'd like to hear from, and they all have different backgrounds and focus on different party ideals. Warren: the populist always looking after the little people and protecting their bank accounts from our unscrupulous financial sector. Bloomberg: the well-meaning billionaire who threw all his support behind Democrats in the recent mid-terms and who is a major climate change accepter. Landrieu: a Southern white man with a gift for rhetoric that might convince the confederate states to get a grip on reality. O'Rourke: a guy who could turn Texas as blue as their bluebonnets.
Then, of course, Bernie.
Personally, I like Sherrod Brown. No offense to my wonderful Senator Warren--I'd just prefer she keep doing what she does so well. And, no offense to Bernie. He set this course correction in action. Perhaps he should just be an advisor now.
Anyway, I think it's good that the Democrats are moving away from being Republican-lite and getting back to who we really are. The most important thing is that we not fight with each other. I hate keeping secrets from my friends about which candidates I support.
44
oh no not Bernie again. please don't buy his song and dance. so many reasons why he is unfit. sorry folks, and I'm almost as old as he is, he is just too old to be president. it seems that many young people fall in love with his idealistic platform,the liberal trap of I want what I want and I will not compromise. this attitude guarantees Trump a second term. misguided idealists can say goodbye to clean water, clean air, Reproductive Rights, gay rights and pretty much any advances we've made in the last 8 years. but you are pure and you are all that matters. Wake up!
6
@CF
very sell said. Sherrod Brown is an excellent example of just the kind of person who should be nominated: moderate, caring and capable of relating to ordinary Americans.
Bravo.
5
@CF
I voted for both Bernie and Charlie B. I welcomed the wrath.
1
Assessing 2020 Democratic Candidates
The field obviously will be crowded. If more than one runs for POTUS they will cede the election to Trump.
Those most often mentioned to date:
1) - Old timers:Biden, Bloomburg, J Brown, Clinton and Sanders -
All too old with old ideas.
2) - Younger with issues/missteps: Warren, Harris, Booker and Kerry - two are flamethrowers, all four have issues that would prevent them from winning, in my opiniln.
3) - Young charismatic - Beto and Kennedy(?) - too young and too unseasoned.
4) - Others - Klobachur, S Brown and Hickenlopper - Not dynamic enough w/o charisma. Perhaps Klobachur but I see her as V.P.
So, who might emerge as Obama and Trump did? If Trump runs again, which I think is inevitable, it presents additional challenges to Democratic candidate. He/she can't be "like" the 16 he vanquished in Primary. So, that probably will require a new Dem. not identified? A knowledgeable, dynamic fighter who can withstand characterization by Trump and forcefully clever enough to beat him on the issues.
Who can meet that job description?
1
@Frank Leibold
I agree with CF from Massachusetts:
Landrieu: a Southern white man with a gift for rhetoric that might convince the confederate states to get a grip on reality. And O'Rourke: a guy who could turn Texas as blue as their bluebonnets.
1
@Frank Leibold
I agree and disagree.
The Democrats aren't rerunning the GOP primaries in 2016, where their primary voters are alienated and angry. They're running to try to win in a much different environment. Mimicking Trump will not serve them well, I believe. They need to project (I think) maturity, confidence and caring, not anger.
1
What is incredible about these comments is the remarkable number of them that believe Trump can win again. A criminal. Someone guilty of espionage against the United States. A man banned from serving on the board of any non profit in the state of New York. These next few months will bring the impeachment of Trump in the House. He'll be running all right, from the law.
31
@Joseph
[Sigh] You're living in an echo chamber. Everyone around you says this, and so you're convinced it's true. It may happen, but Trump's impeachment would be a strategic nightmare for Democrats. It will incense all Republicans and many swing voters, who will view it as an attempt by Democrats to do by other means what they could not accomplish at the ballot box. The parallels with Bill Clinton's impeachment would be striking. Except for committed Republicans, most voters viewed Clinton's impeachment as being a political vendetta. They didn't care about his perjury, seeing it as rational attempt to avoid having to face his underlying sin, i.e., sexual indiscretions. Unless there is some utterly damning evidence of which we're as yet completely unaware, Trump's obstruction of justice, analogous to Clinton's perjury, will be viewed by many voters as trying to protect himself from charges that are flimsy, i.e., "collusion." And absent such utterly damning evidence, he will not be convicted in the Senate. Twenty Republican Senators are not going to vote themselves out of office. Trump would then emerge more popular than ever among Republican voters.
5
@Joseph ...It was remarkable he won in the first place...the voting situation was muddled by misc. issues.. but still...why did so many of us fall for the chaotic and divisive candidate Trump? Who would have thought that so many of us would support him and that the Republican Party would follow after him like a lost puppy hoping for adoption ....all so they wouldn't disappoint his base? Oh I hope there's Impeachment and continued investigations into his businesses etc...then we'll really have something to celebrate!! Of course we as a nation..will have a lot of pieces to pick up as a result of this mess of an administration !!
3
Please don’t overlook Marianne Williamson as a candidate. She is elevating the conversation and we need to listen as well as take part in it. We need to look at the root cause of issues and get beyond tweets, sound bytes, bumper stickers and headlines.
3
Only a course of miracles would get her elected.
1
I'll say it. I'm sorry, I really am, but - Elizabeth Warren can't win against Trump, and if she becomes the nominee, it will be Hillary versus Trump all over again.
Of course I would vote for her (but then again I'd vote for a dead tree stump over Donald Trump). I think she would probably make a decent president. I am mostly in sympathy with her politics. But she can't win! Voters like me won't determine the election. That's important, people - it's really, really important.
Please, please, please, Democrats - nominate someone who can win.
32
In the long roster of would be Presidents in the Democratic Party there is only one candidate who has it all - Joe Biden. He is enigmatic, folksy, intelligent, experienced, decent not tarnished by any scandal, slightly left of center, handsome Uncle Joey looks, largest name-recognition ( even among the Trumpistas! ) and above all a great debater with his zingers and fiery rebuttals. The only negative - his age. But it should'nt matter because his brain is so sharp, sharper than Beto, Booker, Sanders, Harris, Warren who are trapped in a single, narrow, uncompromising stifling ideology. Thank God for Primaries!
7
@NNI: Another negative: His role in the Anita Hill hearings.
1
Everyone, take a look at Steve Bullock, Montana Governor. Former head of the Democratic Governors Association, now head of the National Governors' Association. Perfect age (52). Very attractive, charismatic guy (looks great on tv). Will drive Trump NUTS because he looks so good on tv. Savvy lawyer. Big issues right now are Citizens United, Net Neutrality, and health care so hits the right themes for the full range of Democratic voters. Talks about working with the other side so perfect appeal to independents. Three children, working wife who has a background in STEM so the family background hits on all theses too. He understands western issues too (e.g., public lands) so can mute Trump/the Republicans on those issues.
14
I don't believe now that Trump will the Republican candidate. I think what is coming from Mueller and the new House investigations will cripple him and he will negotiate his way back to the private citizenship of a billionaire (remember he has the nuclear codes and the ability as well to continue to destroy the country in other ways). He may think he can shoot someone in broad daylight and get away with it but wait until America sees his tax returns and the Russian money laundering become crystal clear. Day after day of revelations.
I think the Democrats will be running against Pence or Kasich who will pick up the soiled and tattered mantle of the Republican Party and try to reinvent themselves. Any moderate/liberal Democrat with an untarnished past and a reasonable plan will easily take the Presidency in 2020.
Foresight is 20-20 vision.
10
@Bill Cullen, Author
I think that is magical thinking at best. It is nearly inconceivable that Trump will not be the Republican candidate in 2020.
1
I hope that Sen. Amy Klobuchar decides to run. Every time I have heard her speak on TV, I have been impressed by her intelligent, well spoken comments and her calm, down to earth manner.
35
rhetoric and policies around race and immigration have shifted the political conversation away from matters of economic inequality
In allowing Central American and rural Mexican migrants, with no more than a grade school education, to settle in our modern country where a high school diploma is no longer enough to find a decent-paying job, we are ensuring that economic inequality will continue. The people who hire these poorly educated migrants do not pay them enough to support their families (especially since Hispanics tend to have many children). The migrant families are heavily dependent on government services and subsidies, which are supported by the middle-class taxpayer.
Children (of all races) whose parents have little eduction tend to do less well in school despite all kinds of taxpayer-supported intervention programs. Many migrant teens and many of the children of undereducated Mexican and Central American migrants drop out of school, and have children of their own, passing poverty on to the next generation.
Instead of spending an endless amount of money on illegal migrants and on those who are asking for asylum, we could be directing our resources to our own citizens who are being “left behind” by out-sourcing and automation.
12
Please no old folks. We just cannot lose this election. Everyone is sick of old conformists...and even wild ones like Sanders. From Cali, I’d like to say Beto caught our interest even if he lost. He and the wonderful Amy Klobuchar would make for a greatly energized team. 2020 is for the win, please democrats don’t be an exercise in diffusion and spread the base thin.
6
The author mentions Trump's "mockery of her roots." This is neither accurate nor fair. While it is not clear how much Warren's claim of Native American ancestry aided her career, Harvard made reference to her Native American ancestry in claiming a diverse faculty. Trump uses her Native American ancestry claim as an example of unfair affirmative action.
4
What idea will grab the attention of voters and set a future leader apart from the repetitive pack? A platform based around an entirely new set of forward thinking labor laws, one that directly benefits most Americans in major ways. Everything from outsourcing and subcontracting to the regulation of pseudo-entrepreneurial “gig economy” jobs is openly crying for 21st-century employee protections. Whenever there are no rules, those with the wealth and power to write their own will always claim more that their fair share at everyone else’s expense. It’s time to reinforce guarantees around existing pensions for the old while innovating a new generation of protected retirement benefits for the young. The candidate with the freshest and most workable ideas around strengthening healthcare and restoring fairness to the hand dealt to all of America’s wage earners will pull ahead the farthest and fastest. It’s time to forget the past and leap ahead for once. The GOP has just reminded voters how ludicrous trickle down economics really is, while Trump reminded them that any politician who runs solely on the words “trust me” is ludicrous as well. Voters are ripe for a realistic new, “New Deal” based on clearly understandable ideas. Opportunity is calling, are any candidates listening?
5
I think that the way to beat Trump is not to run against Trump. It’s to run for something that appeals to something beyond Trump’s reach - voters’ better selves. Unfortunately this disqualifies the progressive potentials, who have been animated by Trump and like Trump, are unable to deliver an aspirational message (identity is not an aspiration, but the populist agenda is good). Both parties can lay legitimate claim to ideals that unite (and can capture independents) but the current Republicans have sold out for Trump. So this election really is the Democrats’ to lose.
5
There is a very simple way to pick the front runners. IF a candidate continues to accept funds from corporate donors and super pacs, they should immediately be eliminated from that list. The only way meaningful change in America can occur is when leaders and candidates are chosen that are unencumbered by the demands of their "corporate masters" while at the same time offer a REAL alternative to Republicans.
If the corporate/establishment, "Third Way" Wall Street, Silicon Valley democrats get their way, like in 2016, "annointing" another corporate/establishment candidate along the lines of Hillary Clinton will all but guarantee another FOUR years of Trump.
4
When I think of "matching the moment", what comes first to mind is the Democratic nominee defeating Donald Trump on the debate stage. Let us not have another 2016, please.
Who would this person be?
4
Beto!
Would like Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar to run.
I live in Virginia where Terry McAuliffe was recently governor and he's a tired old hack, concerned with political gain and not with the people of Virginia. When he was governor McAuliffe made a deal to swap some legislation in exchange for agreeing to make Virginia an "open carry" state. Virginia now allows open carry of a handgun without a permit. Thanks for making Virginia crazier and more dangerous, Terry McAuliffe. He can't disappear from the national scene fast enough to suit me. Exactly the kind of corrupt wheeler-dealer the Democrats should drum out of the party....
7
Agree on McAuliffe. Not on Beto.
4
Here we go again. We discuss our future candidates as theyt operate wiithin the limits of our big money political system.
Grapple with this:
"Study: Most Americans want to kill ‘Citizens United’ with constitutional amendment"
The Center for Public Integrity May 10, 2018 ·
"A recent study shows that three-forths of respondents back a constitutional amendment outlawing the Citizens United decision.
Liberals and conservatives overwhelmingly support a constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s seminal campaign finance decision according to a new study from the University of Maryland and nonpartisan research group Voice of the People
Three-fourths of survey respondents — including 66 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Democrats — back a constitutional amendment outlawing Citizens United.
The study also indicates that most Americans — 88 percent overall — want to reduce the influence large campaign donors wield over lawmakers at a time when a single congressional election may cost tens of millions of dollars."
So NY Times, where are your articles and op ed columns on that most crucial issue? Will the media just report the fund raising horse race again, and ignore how big money poisons our politics and sets the paramenters of the candidates we stand in line to vote for?
9
@Meredith
Many, including myself, have pointed out that time and again, progressives and/or those that support progressive policies such as you make mention of, have always represented a threat to the corporate/establishment who really just wish to maintain the "status quo" and the mainstream media, unfortunately, is a rather large and influential part of that group.
They continually wish to portray(quite inaccurately) that Americans overall, are moderate/centrist in their policy choices, yet, as you confirm, are quite progressive in their choices and attitudes, hence, little or no mention of the actual reality of whats going on in America.
Unfortunately, it is the desired motive of the media to ignore these facts and not to do their job, hence, a "flim flam" man like Trump emerged which resulted in him telling people what they wanted to hear and he got elected for doing it.
3
I like the idea of Bloomberg.
3
@Nycgal
Bloomberg was a good steward of NYC, I thought. Question: Can someone who sounds like that ever become president? Yes, it's sounds like a petty point, but I wonder.
1
Cory Booker is really the only viable Democratic candidate for multiple reasons.
1. At 50 this year, he's reasonably young. Old enough for older voters to accept him and not disrespect him. Young enough (and healthy-looking enough being vegetarian) to appeal to younger voters.
2. He's 6' 4" tall and, statistically, height does matter. He's taller than Trump and that would be noticed in any televised debates.
3. He's a man of color who will appeal to minorities. Like President Obama, he doesn't have "too much color" and can be accepted by some racists.
4. He's been the Mayor of a city, Newark, which means he has real front-line executive experience addressing real problems unlike many other candidates who have only legislative experience.
5. His academic credentials are stellar.
6. He's a moderate Democrat appealing to many independents.
7. He's tough on crime. Gangs planned to assassinate him.
8. He's an actual hero. When he was Mayor of Newark, he saved lives including a woman in a burning building and a freezing dog.
9. Unlike Trump, he's not full of bluster and is self-deprecating and introspective.
It is hard to see anyone beating Cory Booker given his broad appeal to a large swath of the electorate.
7
And he’s bought and paid for by Big Pharma.
4
It is almost conceivable that Trump became president on his lie of being a populist. How is there any inevitability about his winning in 2020, assuming he’s still in office? He has proved totally unqualified, inept, inappropriate, and will probably have us in a recession by the election. Where comes this pretense that Democrats don’t stand for anything? (Ans: Fox). No matter how much right wing racists scream about identity politics, we know what Democrats stand for: working people, health care, a clean environment, preserving Social Security, rebuilding infrastructure, for starters. Who better than Warren or Sherrod Brown? Democrats cannot let the party that picked Trump dictate who our candidates should be.
2
I think that Democrats, like myself need to ask some fundamental questions- How badly do we want to get rid of this clown in the white house? What are we willing to do to make sure that Donald Trump is not re-elected? What goals and objectives are we willing to forswear to ensure this occurring?
If you tell me that Warren,Sanders, Booker, Harris, et al can 'energize the base' and bring millions to the polls that would not normally vote my reply is, but can they win? I don't think so. The democratic party and its adherents need to be energized by the idea of getting rid of Donald Trump. That may mean going to the polls while holding our noses and vot for someone we would never normally support. At this time in our history, we don't need a captain to change the direction of the ship, just one who can stop its descent.
If the Democrats are truly committed to winning we need to commit to a never Trump candidate. We need to come out in droves to vote for this candidate and we need to ensure that independents and Republicans will as well. Simply put ,the Democrats need to elect a Republican as their standard bearer. Beato? Biden? Brown? How about Kasich or Romney ? And if the answer is, I could never vote for Kasic or his ilk, then I am not sure if Democrats are really committed to to making the Donald a one term disaster.
5
1) No matter what "the moment is now," it will be something else by 2019;
2) Warren's name and accomplishments have been irretrievably damaged by the GOP and its propoganda arm, Fox News;
3) Warren's school-marm affect is a huge turn-off and reminiscent of that demon- woman HRC; and, finally,
4) Continue talking among yourselves, it will keep you distracted while the RichWhiteMen decide which candidate serves them best as decreed by the Supreme Court in Citizens United ( hint: it will not be a Dem).
4
“A leaderless party, they are in a moment of transition from center-left politics to a more ideologically pure brand of liberalism.” Blah blah blah. The GOP at least knows who their leadership is. The Democrats are a collection of faceless, program less politico’s. I know the difference in the parties enough that I despise the color red as an apostate Republican. Perhaps one of the newly enlightened “ideologically pure” Donkeys can fill me in on what that means to me.
2
Don't make the mistake of running against Trump! Debating Trump is like arguing with your TV set. (No, you're the puppet) Ignore him! The newly redecorated House is going to (had better) pass all sorts of people centered legislation. Most, if not all of it, will die on McConnell's desk. Take what the House gives you and run on that! There's no debate! Middle class tax reform, ACA reform, labor protection, expanding voting rights, minimum wage, equal pay, gun control, money in politics, DACA, immigration, CHIP, social program protections...substantive issues that republicans have managed to ignore. Republicans have tax cuts and abortion. You have a bunch of solid issues to run on. We don't want name calling, we want pro-people legislation! You win by running on the issues, you lose by running against Trump! Simple as that!
5
In this modern age of technology - it's more about how you market yourself and your party. Obama and Trump both know how to market themselves whereas others don't seem to have the X factor to appeal to, or motivate people to vote.
It's very shallow but some people don't know whom they're voting for right up to the day of the election. Elections should be about what a political party stands for and their policies and if they implement them during their time in government, not about personalities.
9
The US needs to reframe it's definitions of left, right, center. We need to achieve what are centrist norms of other world capitalist democracies:
Affordable health care for all as a right, not as a profit center.
Low cost college tuition as we had generations ago that helped expand our middle class.
Worker protections and decent min wage. Family leave as a national policy. etc etc.
Retraining and good unemployment insurance for millions whose jobs were sent to low wage countries or who lost their livelihoods due to tech changes.
Guaranteed pensions for retired employees.
Adequate infrastructure/transport spending to enable a thriving economy.
If we had these protections, common abroad, we might have prevented a Trump from taking power.
28
Hear, hear.
2
Other than Joe Biden - who ultimately I believe will not run - no one mentioned in this article - or on the horizon can rise above the identity politics that keeps the party from attracting mainstream voters - nor can they put forward a coherent or comprehensive platform that doesn't drive voters away. The DNC is living on the fringes - and will continue to push itself over the edge for the foreseeable future. This from a former stalwart Democrat.
17
@Bill Hobbs: The Democratic Party has one common denominator. All Democrats agree that the general welfare requires competent administration of a public sector, funded by taxation, that performs the public functions outlined in the Constitution by exercising the powers delegated to government by the constitution. Anarchists, nihilists, and cranks of all kinds are not welcome.
9
Why does this article believe Sanders is not likely to defeat Trump? He does well in the places that gave Trump 2016.
20
@Andrew Hong
One has to take heed of the media's treatment of candidates like Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election. and after and even up until these past mid-terms. Progressives represent a threat to the corporate/establishment who clearly, desire to maintain the "status quo".
One has to regularly take note that when it comes to policy, when citizens are asked about progressive policies such as the desire for universal health care, minimum wage, getting money out of politics, fairer tax policy, stricter gun control and others, poll after poll confirms that most Americans are quite center/left in their choices, NOT the moderate/centrist majority that the media and corporate establishment wants to portray.
Also, despite the fact that Bernie Sanders continually polls as being the most popular politician in America and would have easily defeated Trump in 2016 these results are ignored, hence, the attitudes that you refer, such as in this column, the marginilization along with the the refusal to reflect the actual reality of America, continues.
Make no mistake about it, if the corporate/establishment gets their way and another "Clinton type" candidate is the democrats choice in 2020, the millenials, minorities and many Independents will stay home and one can be all but guaranteed another FOUR years of Trump chaos.
14
@Andrew Hong - Very true. In fact, in Spring 2016, during the height of the primaries, Quinnipiac did a number of polls comparing a Sanders/Trump race to a Clinton/Trump race in swing states and Sanders had larger winning margins than Clinton.
When I point that out some people say that Sanders had not yet been the target of attacks the way Clinton was. True, to some extent. But Sanders has shown himself to be a fighter and I'm sure he'd have stood up to Trump's silly attacks in a way that would have appealed to the voters of those swing states.
That said, I haven't made up my mind about 2020 yet. It's much too soon. We (and the NY Times!) need to give all the potential nominees a chance to get their messages out.
7
Sets, I agree 100%. Well said.
2
For Democrats, it should be all about who can win, who can beat Donald Trump. We cannot count on the Mueller investigation or rational thinking. Donald Trump may very well be standing in 2020. A symbolic candidate with abstract ideals will not do the trick. This is the United States, not just California and New York.
37
@Berkeleyalive
Amen. Do not count on Mueller investigation report to ever be seen by the American people.
I will vote for whoever can beat Trump.
The American people must stand up to this tyrant and remove him from office, kicking and screaming "rigged election" as he is dragged off
3
@JM
I'm sure the Mueller report will be seen by the American people. Trump may be impeached. I hope not. If he is, he will not be convicted in the Senate and would be more popular than before (see Bill Clinton).
My prediction: Harris or Klobuchar. Smart, honest, competent, experienced. In fact, the two together would restore my faith in American democracy.
17
@Mike Byrne
Amy Klobuchar/Kamala Harris is a dream ticket of brains, experience and dignity.
3
@Mike Byrne
The only people who want Harris to run (aside from those standing to get paid for the campaign) are democrats who don't know her history and republicans who do.
6
@Randy
Lotta, lotta big donors want her to run.
If democrats keep saying that the number one priority is defeating Trump then they're making Trump the center of attention.
The next logical conclusion is that people start talking about moderating the democrats' choice with a mid-westerner and not a coastal elite; with a Caucasian and not someone from a minoritized population; with a man and not a woman; with a moderate and not a progressive. Ugh.
This is the path to another uninspiring democratic nominee that will not get the vote out. Let's aim high for a progressive president with full support of the house and senate and not just simply wallow along with mediocre candidates because of fear.
25
If by some miracle we get rid of Trump by 2020 I am voting republican. I voted for Clinton in 2016 however I am not going to continue supporting a party that is becoming this radical.
Extremely poorly thought out ideas and policies are being thrown around and taken seriously.
People who cant even pay rent or college debt, spend their time taking photos for Instagram and have no relevant experience are being championed as enthusiastic new voices. While suggesting absolutely ludicrous ideas such as guaranteed employment.
These individuals if elected to higher office will in-debt the country and collapse the economy even faster then Trump.
Trump has been largely ineffective because of the pariah he has made himself to much of America and many republicans.
Individuals far left of center have been largely accepted by the center left and I have no confidence that they wont go along with more populist policies if politically convenient. Look at labor in Britain.
Just because Trump gives every politically radical idea on the left cover from being dissected doesn't mean the harm these policies would inflict on the economy and national security of this nation is any less acute and lasting.
Whereas it is probable that I am in the extreme minority, democratic voters should beware of who they put on the ticket. I would vote still vote for Bloomberg.
5
Well, it is too bad your belef system is that way. You ought to consider that capital always wins, while labor always looses, leading to extreme wealth at the top unless government rebalances the scales. The 99 percent needs a more level playing field than the capitalist-gone-wild model presently in place in the USA.
8
wow judgemental much? have you looked at the price of rent? whose fault do you think that is? taking cheap shots at young folk not very helpful. I'm turning 70 this year by the way. hoping that we can pull something together by some concerted attempts at listening to each other.
5
I think, by now, most of us are aware that the Democrats will have a large and competitive field of candidates seeking the top job. I wish them all the best in their efforts to distinguish themselves in a crowded field. However, the big story lies with the Republicans.
I doubt the country is any more likely to embrace another four years of far right governance than it is to embrace far left governance. Therefore, a moderate serious and strong challenger to Trump would move into the spotlight immediately. Further, regardless of opinions, the fact remains that Trump will be a handicapped candidate this year and next. His ability to get out and campaign effectively will be weakened. He will be fending off Mueller reports, House investigations, Foundation investigations, possible impeachment proceedings, staff upheavals (and more we probably aren't even aware of yet).
A center-right Republican white knight against a strong center-left Democrat would make for an exciting and long-overdue competition (and breath of fresh air).
5
@Tom Q
Do you think a combo-ticket, like Jeff Flake and Beto O’Rourke is feasible?
1
@Matteo Blanc
Jeff Flake is a committed conservative Republican. And his political career is over for the foreseeable future. Right now he couldn't be elected dog catcher in his own state.
Beto is a total mistake. Trump would tar him easily for his hit and run.
2
Demanding that their candidate hew to rigid leftist standards, may be the only way a Democrat can lose this election, as the President appears to be eminently beatable. If you ignore the ideological component, (because they're all going to back the same basic positions), as a Democrat, I would look for someone who pledges to campaign with a mind to an electoral victory, instead of slicing and dicing voters up by race, gender and ethnicity. Also, one who sends the celebrities back to Hollywood, Atlanta and New York, and who will not spend the month of August in The Hamptons.
12
The 2016 election screamed that the People want real change.
Real change is Bernie Sanders for President and, perhaps, Ro Khanna for Vice President.
Wealth/income inequality and climate change are ticking time bombs that must be addressed.
A candidate with the courage to stop the US participation in endless wars, will free resources to use in beginning to resolve inequality and climate change.
Sanders has crossover appeal with many of the same people who voted for Trump but may now be turned off by his presidency.
The Establishment and its Media will proclaim that Sanders has little support in communities of color, but last spring, a Harvard-Harris poll found Sanders to be the most popular active politician in the country. African Americans gave the senator the highest favorables at 73 percent — vs. 68 percent among Latinos, 62 percent among Asian Americans and 52 percent among white voters. It wasn’t a fluke: This August, black voters again reported a 73 percent favorability rating for Sanders.
Elizabeth Warren's chosen foreign policy stance is very hawkish in the centrist tradition, and that will lose her support among serious Progressives. Also, she would energize Republicans, much the same way Hillary did.
If Sanders had won the Democratic primary, he likely would have beaten Trump.
The times demand Sanders' authenticity, bold ideas , integrity, and courage of conviction!
8
@Lucy Cooke
Sanders, great that he is, is now simply too old. I expect him to have a heart attack or stroke during on of his impassioned speeches. Sad.
3
@Lucy Cooke
12 million more people voted Democrat than Republican in the midterms.
Wake up Mitch McConnell! America is demanding Congress exercise checks on this out of control POTUS.
After Trump's self-owned Shutdown debacle, I'm sure that 12 million number will more than double if the MAGA Don is still on the ballot.
MAGA: Madness, Arrogance, Greed, Anarchy
2
A "progressive" candidate or aggressively "progressive" platform is a prescription for 4 more years of the current disaster in the White House. To win, a Democratic nominee in 2020 will need to hold together the full spectrum of Democrats PLUS a signifcant majority of independents and enough fleeing former Republicans to overcome the inequities of the electoral college. That is the only objective that matters in 2020 and the future of the nation depends on success.
16
You’re wrong. Polls show that the majority of Americans support progressive policies.
2
Warren is just not that likeable. She would be a weak candidate.
24
@Andrew Chalnick
But she clarifies the madness. She holds other candidates feet to the fire. She'll insist on consumer protections that others will gloss over.
Warren is essential for the debates!
2
Losing again? I thought you 'all' could count to 2; one we need a people president and two we need a peoples government or the choice by the masses will be trumpdydump again. Right now, the corporations and the news media is directed by " He who has the most money" Ignore Bernie at your own peril!!
8
A Harris-Klobuchar or Klobuchar-Harris pairing would clobber any Republican ticket, because the contrasts in priorities and temperament would be so stark.
7
Two candidates match up perfectly, with the moment, the current GOP, and the states needed to win the electoral college: Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar. That's the ticket - Klobuchar/Brown or Brown/Klobuchar, we win...........and can govern with progressive policies.
22
@Baxter Jones
Two current Democratic Senators ... presuming that you are right, that makes a Democratic President and a very likely Republican Senate. Forget governing with progressive policies, there will be no nominated judges approved, and nothing but debt ceiling and budget impasses.
The only truly viable candidate is Joe Biden...Warren, Booker, Harris... they are amateurs and without the seasoned intelligence and great wit of VP Biden. The Dems have no one. O'Rourke.. flash in the pan...
Unless Trump is impeached, we'll probably have this nightmare for another 4 years and if Pence gets in...God help us!
8
Sherrod Brown-a younger version of Biden without Clarence Thomas baggage.
2
@MyNYC .
It is so clear that Trump is dumping Pence for Nikki Hailey in 2020.
Unless Nikki gets smart, sees that Trump is going down and goes for the POTUS job herself.
1
Now playing on a TV or radio near you: Politics 2020, the never-ending parade of noise as Democrats in particular join the circular firing squad to see who is lucky enough to remain standing while not committing the kind of gaffe that will give Republicans a billy club with which to pound them as the build-up to the presidential election lurches forward. Just because they can campaign now doesn't mean that they should; I would rather see some Democratic successes come out of the House first so that there will be strong victories for candidates to run on.
3
Someone who can actually bring change. We need to overturn Citizen's United. We need to eliminate the Electoral College and go to a direct voting system. The ticket needs to include a woman and someone of color - but NOT Hilary - that would be Democratic suicide. Joe Bidden is another old white guy. Much as I love Bernie, so is he. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker are good choices. Amy Klobuchar is not well known outside of the Midwest, although she has a good record.
5
@IonaTrailer
Citizen's United may be overturned in the distant future, but not by this Court or anything like it. The Electoral College is in the Constitution and is not going away. Probably ever.
Second silly commentary. Governors should be ranked above WDC star(lings). Ideological birds rarely win -- and this win is a must. An article on the six best governor options, beginning with California??
3
@Richard Ganzel Strongly agree.
This time around I'm open to almost everyone except that guy from Vermont who isn't a Democrat and has such overbearing fans. The rest of them - we'll see who survives the shakeout over time.
14
Beto is NOT a liberal. Absolute no on him.
16
This article/opinion piece is another example of horse-race sports coverage presented as political analysis in the so-called "serious" mainstream media. Yes, it's a fact that Senator Warrn's established a stake in the "race." Okay. Beyond that fact, the value of such "analysis" at this point is simply to fill column inches and deliver clickbait.
6
Not which Democrat "matches the moment." But which Democrat is best for the country.
7
Booker and harris--yikes
7
I'll vote for Trump because I support his hard line approach on illegal immigration. "Asylum Seekers" .. give me a break!
7
@Aaron Under what circumstances did your ancestors immigrate to the United States? At least one of mine was fleeing the Irish potato famine, and I'm glad he was welcomed in.
4
@Aaron
Democrats have done little to dispel their image as supporters of illegal immigration. It will only get worse now that Pelosi has that leftwing freshmen class to deal with. She, Schumer and Trump would likely have reached a deal already on immigration but, now, it's too late. She will pay dearly if she concedes at all.
Remember, democrats were all for a barrier of some kind before. This freshmen class is what has changed.
2
@Aaron
I agree with Paul Smith on this one. Plus if you support Trump do you also support the absolute destruction of our planet with his decimation of existing environmental protections, his continued denial of climate change, his love of dictators? Do you support his continued kleptocracy ? The basement has no bottom. He needs to get off Twitter stop being a bully and a lout, and govern. He is not capable of sensible thought or action. He doesn't even believe in the wall and appeals to the darkest xenophobic and racist impulses.
Trump is very dangerous- he is selling out our allies- aligning with our historical enemies. Do not be a one issue voter, and look at the bigger broader picture and one that will affect your descendants and the planet. I hope that you will make a wiser choice in 2020.
2
Ugh. These candidates cannot beat Trump.
4
@Julie A Hubbard
Disagree strongly. A solid candidate with a well-run campaign can most definitely defeat Trump. Will that happen? We'll see.
2
Secretary / Senator John Kerry, Senator Bernie Sanders, please enter the campaign...but later in the year please. July 3rd perhaps?
2
Michael Bloomberg is my choice.
4
Bloomberg is awful. Look at how his company treated pregnant women, for example.
1
Can't lose to Trump? Sure we can, just tilt too far to the left or choose a geriatric candidate.
9
Elizabeth Warren showed what she was made out of when Trump taunted her about being native American and she took the bait.
Someone in the position of president can’t allow themselves to be pushed around by words alone, which is why Trump is bad at the job.
Any politician anywhere has to have thick skin and be able to take it when someone taunts them, without blowing a gasket.
We need true leadership in this country, which is truly lacking at this time.
7
Kamala/Beta please. Anyone will be welcome after the current disastrous president. Heck, I'd even vote for Grumpy Cat at this point. Now that would be an exciting debate!
5
@Andrea P well, that ticket would certainly take California. And part of Texas....
1
I'm still amazed by the fact that Kirsten Gillibrand still doesn't realize that she has zero chance of winning the nomination because of how she treated Al Franken.
Pretty much every Democrat I know is disgusted by her.
54
@Matt So true! She is an opportunist to her core.
7
Liz is not the standard bearer. She's the heavy artillery that will blast Trump before the eventual leader of the left hits the beach. She'll take all the shots, fire up the female progressive base, and expose Trump at his most vile - vulgar bullying of women, minorities and sensible thought. Maybe, just maybe, the evangelicals will finally look up to see the idiocy of their standard bearer this time around.
10
Elizabeth Warren, Rutgers Law '76. Good policies, but don't you know, "Nobody ever died for dear old Rutgers."
2
I wish Trump would lay off Pocahontas for a while. She’d be perfect to run against but at this rate he is going to destroy her (if she doesn’t do it herself) before she even gets there.
5
Any Democrat from any state is better than Mr. Trump and his Russian manager, Mr. Putin.
4
Jerry Brown in 2020.
5
Al Franken 2020!
From Politico:
Franken scandal haunts Gillibrand’s 2020 chances
11/26/2018
Just a month after Al Franken formally resigned from the Senate amid sexual misconduct allegations, the former senator met with an intimate group of Bay Area supporters at the home of major Democratic Party financiers Mary and Steve Swig.
As Franken and his wife, Franni Bryson, made the rounds, thanking supporters in the philanthropists’ San Francisco home at the February 2018 event, the conversation broke off into another subject: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
The New York Democrat had, in their opinion, pulled the rug out from under Franken, a Minnesota Democrat beloved by the group, forcing him out without any real vetting of the allegations facing him.
[...]
Today, nearly a year after Gillibrand led the charge in calling for Franken’s resignation, the anger is fresh on the minds of major donors across the country.
More than a dozen prominent West Coast, New York and national donors - many of them women - said they would never again donate to Gillibrand - or would do so only if she ended up as the Democratic presidential nominee.
The anger is at least in part a testament to donors’ fondness for Franken, a comedian who rose to fame as a “Saturday Night Live” cast member and remains in the eyes of his supporters one the Senate’s greatest champions for women — even after his resignation.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/al-franken-kirsten-gillibrand-2020-1014697
23
John Kerry , Bernie Sanders ....please announce your campaigns in summer of 2019...perhaps July 3rd would be a nice date.
@Ross Hopefully someone younger will step up.
2
Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard in any order.
4
Here we go again from the the NYTimes. Bernie "filled the void on the populist left" in 2016 and ran a "surprisinglyly strong campaign against Hillary." Bernie was unique in his focus on policy issues affecting the average person. Many Democrats have adopted these progressive stances and they have now become mainstream and part of the national conversation. Something tells me the personality politics which the Times prefers has started all over again.
8
I hope Jill Stein does not run and I hope her 2016 campaign is investigated
Inquiring minds want to know why she was at the same RT dinner with Michael Flynn and Putin
16
(No, Elizabeth.)
The Democratic nominee in 2020 should be Eric Swalwell!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Swalwell
2
A full 60 percent of the states and 84 percent of the counties nationwide voted for the Republican presidential ticket in 2016. There's your elephant in the room, Democrats, and it's not going away unless you get real about it how -- and with whom -- to win.
62
@Dotconnector Some states and counties have more people than others. Minority rule is the elephant in the room. It's a conundrum for all Americans, not just Democrats and Republicans. Minority rule cannot succeed in a democracy. It's a contradiction of terms.
34
Something new is happening among voters of all political stripes: a growing desire to see government rein-in big money, and pursue more egalitarian economic policies.
To win the battleground states, the Dems must win swing voters: Obama-Trump voters, suburban Republican women, the elderly. Simultaneously, they must turn out traditional Democratic constituencies: blacks, single women, left-wing activists.
Elizabeth Warren could be just the person to pull all that together. Her passion and commitment are obvious; they give her an authenticity that appeals across the board. And her message of greater equality of opportunity for all resonates with the times.
Frankly, I don’t see any coastal liberal winning the Electoral College—with one exception, Elizabeth Warren.
7
@Ron Cohen I don't know. Who wants to be lectured by Warren for four years? Can the majority of citizens really relate to her?
Her charisma is pretty low.
Yes she is passionate and strong-willed and a fighter.
But the Dems need a leader who is moderate and charismatic to win in 2020 and she is not that person.
5
Do the Dems want Trump appointing possibly 3 justices? Or do they want to WIN? That's the question. 7-8 Battleground states must be won or be highly competitive. The stark choice of 6 more years of Trump should be paramount. Gaining the independent vote in those states is critical. Brown-Klobuchar is their best ticket in my estimation. This election is not about ideology or who is most progressive. The ticket also has to pull the senate back. Allowing Trump 6 more years is in the Democratic primary voters hands, no complaining if we put up candidates ala Dukakis, Mondale, HRC who cannot win in those states.
9
@Northcountry - the problem with Brown, Sanders and Warren is that they’re opposed to the TPP agreement and the first two praised Trump for his pulling the US, out of the agreement. Voters in the farm belt won’t vote for a candidate who favors mucking up international trade to the point where they lose everything due to a poorly thought out plan to not join the TPP.
Trade to the
2
@adm3 Perhaps but I'm not sure that many people are following the details of TPP. Yes trade is obviously important to the farm belt voters but so many have continued to support the president despite taking a hit financially due to the tariffs.
2
Which candidate will stand up for the majority of us who are not corporations or the 1%. Who will move the party towards fairness for all? A fairer taxation system, Medicare-for-all or its equivalent, an end to endless wars and a giant "defense" budget, some solid ideas to help save the planet, plus re-institution of some of the vital regulations that have stripped away government protections (under Trump)? As politicians of both parties take corporate/1% campaign cash, does the candidate need not to do this to be on "our" side? Identity politics, in a era of such grave issues as the above, should be a non-starter - where is the present day equivalent of FDR, who wisely chose a fascinating array of individuals with novel ideas for his cabinet?
8
Spare me coastal candidates. They cannot win. Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar appeal to both coasts and blue collar red state voters because of their backgrounds and constituencies, especially Brown who won Ohio by 6% last November. Trump won Ohio by 8% in 2016. Another added plus for Brown is his Pulitzer prize winning wife, who can relate to blue collar voters because of her background in Ashtabula, Ohio. To attract voters in southern states, former New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu would be a good running mate for either Brown or Klobuchar. A Brown-Klobuchar combination would be a winning ticket in 2020.
54
@justthefactsma'am: Trump is a coastal candidate.
5
@justthefactsma'am Completely agree about Sherrod Brown. A Labor Democrat is just what we need right now...
10
@justthefactsma'am - Last October, Brown praised Trump for his trade policies, which are bankrupting farmers. We cannot bring back manufacturing through tariffs.
5
Some commenters say that only a Moderate will win in the rural states etc. Pardon me for an anecdote: Here in red, red, religious Idaho, in 2016, Bernie Sanders got a very large turnout and lots of enthusiasm at the caucus here in a high school gymnasium, while the Hillary supporters were just a few dozen in the opposite bleachers.
Of course Trump did win here, but it wasn't the moderate Democrat that got the big enthusiasm that Bernie did. Just sayin'.
19
I'd vote for any of the Dems mentioned if Trump was the alternative. It's still early days and I'd like to hear what some of the lesser known candidates have to say before I make a choice. But I have some advice for any Dem who decides to run. DON'T let Trump set the agenda. DON'T react to his every outrageous, bombastic remark/tweet. Stay on message and keep focused on what your candidacy is about. Yes, some people will vote for anyone but Trump, but not enough to win the election.
15
listen to yourselves arguing about beauty-pageant criteria and then consider all the residents of flyover country who read neither the times nor its commentators. the issues have been well-defined for them ever since the 2008 crash: inequality, mistrust in big money politics, declining standards in health & education, demographics, an environmental super-crisis, gun violence, militarized police, and a dangerous multi-polar world. now go back and listen to candidate warren’s statement yesterday, examine her record, and figure out if you’re willing to walk the walk with a gutsy woman, or prefer to keep chattering your way to a second trump administration.
5
@Robert Dannin: Many people vote for the face they want the US to present to the world. That is why the US is now represented by someone whose whole act is tough guy. A schoolmarm could have the wisdom of all sages, but she won't be the face the US wants to wear.
5
@Robert Dannin- Flyover country consists largely of farmers who have been severely impacted by the US withdrawing from the TPP, which Warren, Brown and Sanders oppose. The latter two have even praised Trump for doing so.
2
@adm3: Many people do not understand that modern farming cannot be financed without public agricultural policies that spread the risks of an industry subject to the vicissitudes of weather.
1
Frankly, I think Warren has missed a great opportunity by not running in '16. I am afraid that she has lost the freshness and her chances of defeating Trump are now slim.
We need a younger face with a lot of energy and a popular appeal bordering on populism.
The pre-DT rules do not apply anymore. The candidate has to be witty enough to take-on the rude jabs that will surely fly in abundance.
This is extremely serious. We only have one shot and we need to understand that we cannot afford another set of Clinton blunders because we will end up like Brasil.
So far no Dem candidate is visibly up to the task and this worries me greatly.
8
Michael Bloomberg needs to run for President- he can defeat any Republican, including Mr. Trump.
He has the knowledge, the foresight and the passion to face the substantive issues facing our Country.
8
Mine is definitely a "minority view" here in the NY Times--but my support is for Michael Bloomberg. Primary voters from both parties think there's an ideological war going on and will be voting that way. As long as we have a two-party system we will have two sides that get absolutely nowhere because both sides keep repealing what the other does. Like most progressives, I deeply despise the right-wing agenda. But I don't believe that condescension is a winning political strategy. And in a society as diverse as ours, neither side will ever come close to seeing it's own version of "utopia". The "rich" won't be going away anytime soon--nor will "Wall Street". It took Nixon, a vehement anti-communist, to recognize China. It took a liberal, Clinton, to balance the budget and reform welfare "as we knew it" and it may take a wealthy moral leader like Bloomberg who opposed the ridiculous Trump tax cut and spends his own money to limit guns and coal--to speak truth and seek consensus. Though my views tend progressive, for America to thrive we need the anti-Trump: Someone who views himself as president of everyone; a grown-up with political experience; and who is unable to appeal to the cruelest instincts of mankind. And I personally believe that he is the candidate that Trump most fears: Someone who is a real success and who is smarter and far more secure in his own skin. My fear is that Democrats will go into 2020 without a theme--but that's a subject for another day.
14
@Richard Winkler: Nothing ever gets resolved if it is a perennial cause of fundraising.
1
Just one comment which is that I see no mention of the one person who has indicated that he might run and who is clearly far superior to any of those mentioned--Michael Bloomberg who would finance his own campaign and be beholden to no one.He is moderate enough to draw both Independent and Republican votes.
Wake up America!
2
@Arden Allen: Nobody know more about how Wall Street Functions than the man who was the sole supplier of fast-track quote terminals to professional securities traders for decades.
2
"Democrats are grappling with what they stand for, what their voters expect...."
Imagine in 2019 , that one of the two major parties of the USA is "grappling" with this.
Are there no smart people in this country to determine the answers to those questions?
Did the lose of the presidency in 2016 not give them a clue?
Did the gain of many House and State seats not give them a clue in the 2018 midterm? You remember 2018? Right?
Politics is not that complicated. There are more "working class" people" than millionaires. Most people, if they are not very wealthy think of financial security; health care security, safety and equal opportunity for their children.
What seems to be the problem?
Oh, yes that campaign money thing! How to get enough money to get re-elected! I forgot for a moment.
5
There is far too much analysis of who would fare best against Trump. Trump will not be running in 2020. By then he will have tendered his resignation
6
If Bernie ran independently he would win. The two-party system is rigged.
3
While I respect and admire Ms. Warren, I feel she is far too polarizing for this race. Joe Biden would be so much better… He is an established “father figure,” has worked often and successfully on both sides of the aisle and is trusted by pretty much everyone. If he runs with Beto O’Rourke as VP, they will be unstoppable.
13
Julián Castro has an exploratory committee! My dream ticket at this time would be Amy Klobuchar for president - tough, smart, compassionate, able to hold her own against DT without the baggage of Warren and Castro for VP (unless something else comes up) - could you imagine DT having to defend Texas and also what a candidate who is well liked in the industrialize upper mid west would do to the electoral map? Come on Dems! You have candidates who could win and Bernie and Warren aren’t them!
10
This isn't that complicated. Look for and vote for decency, intelligence, civility, honesty, thoughtfulness, humility, a sound work ethic, an appreciation of and stout defense of democracy, the constitution, and the rule of law, a personal aversion to social media and (I'm on a roll here) a love of reading, listening, respect for others.
If that's too much to hope for, don't vote for anyone who doesn't have a dog!
3
Aversion to big money is understandable and foolish at the same time. FDR had plenty of money come to him from Wall Street, where he had been an attorney. If the rich aren't giving to your campaign, what do you think they will do with their money? I would rather have money working for me than against me.
The best person to be President is not always the best candidate, Hillary is the most informed and intelligent choice, but she isn't in the race (so far) It creates a huge vacuum Kamala Harris and John Kerry, or some retired General, might be the ticket.
1
Bernie didn’t need Wall Street money.
2
"Democrats are grappling with what they stand for, what their voters expect, and what demographic groups will be most critical in winning an Electoral College majority in 2020."
Day 1 in 2019 and it looks like the Democratic Party & the mainstream press are all set to play demographic and identity politics, AGAIN.
This was the problem last time with the DNC & Hillary's campaign--playing to women, people of color, educated urban folks, but leaving out men, whites, the working class, the rural forgotten.
And then there is the press: Here we go again with politics as horserace, and who is up and who is down, who is in and who may be out.
Stop playing the Republicans game of divide and conquer, and get away from simpleminded, personality politics (who won, who lost) in favor of policy and issue-oriented politics. Job of the press: Hold 'em accountable
Meanwhile, the country is going down the drain (except the rich).
If the Democratic Party is smarter than in 2016, what this country needs is a presidential candidate who does not play identity politics, is smart and hardworking, tells the simple truth, is not an "insider," has a charming-disarming personality and humor (Lincolnesque), but most of all has a personality and style that unites people.
The GOP needs to be held accountable on substance, refuted on policy issues and on its massive failure to advance this country--not in a wonkish way but in a common sense, work-to-be-done way.
And that would be?? Let's see
3
The Dems have a chance to win in 2020. IMHO they should not repeat the GOP mistake of electing based on charisma, novelty or entertainment .
I worry about a cultural split in America and hope that someone can bridge, or at least get support from many factions. I dont see the split as simply coasts vs heartland. The NYT published a map showing precinct by precinct results of the 2016 Presidential election. In the heartland, in the larger cities, Clinton won. On the coasts, in rural areas, Trump won. I live in Southern NJ and Trump garnered in the 70 percent range here.
The Dems need a candidate who will be statesmanlike, pragmatic and with an aggressive comprehensive plan for America. We know what happens when you vote based on 3 minute sound bites.
3
Elizabeth Warren is hands down the only choice for the Democrats who are real Democrats and not the wishy-washy establishment types who take Wall Street money and betray the people FDR saved and HST enabled with the New Deal and the Fair Deal.
Warren is a target of Trump and the R's because they are terrified of her message and her strength. So are the wishy-washy Democrats with their Republican-lite attitudes, and limousine-liberal lives.
Watch out, guys. this lady knows how to fight and inspire, and I'm with her all the way. Forget the centrists. The country is sick of them (and from them.)
5
I think that Sherrod Brown of Ohio would be a great choice for President. He has a true populists record and the continued political success in a crucial state that could position him as the anti-Trump. Unlike Trump he has not only talked the talk but walked the walk.
16
@Milliband Sherrod Brown would rebuild that nice Blue Wall in the upper midwest. He harkens back to a time when Labor Democrats concerned themselves with working people. He could, with perhaps Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren as a running mate, roll the Trumps out of their swamp and really clean up.
3
@Milliband - Last October, Brown praised Trump for his trade policies. Brown would continue to impose tariffs snd keep the US out of the TPP. However much we would like to go back in time to the heyday of the auto industry, it’s not coming back.
1
I want someone who has been tested, someone with experience, a statesman/woman. John Kerry, Andrew Cuomo, Hillary Clinton, Sherrod Brown. Beto O'Rourke is gifted but inexperienced, however, I could maybe see him as a VP possibility. We need a serious, intelligent person with credibility to restore our reputation in the world, the dignity of the presidency, and put our country back on solid footing. No actors or business magnets wanted or needed.
6
@CJ Sherrod Brown checks all the boxes. And then quite a few more. Pair him with, maybe, Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, and that is a real national ticket. Ohio is the birthplace of presidents, and Brown has deep experience, a sterling reputation and strong credibility as a working person's statesman. His wife is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist with great eloquence, a writer who treasures underdogs and the forgotten in our country. Brown got reelected in Ohio easily in November, even though Ohio was the one midwestern state that didn't go entirely blue.... He is the real deal and he could roll the Trumps out of town.
4
@Michele Underhill
I agree, and he would be a strong moral, incorruptible leader, something we need right now. I don't want Warren on the ticket though-she is too "something", I don't know what, even for me, a loyal Democrat, so I don't know that she would appeal to moderates or conservatives.
1
The Bernie cult is no better than the Trump one. You already see it working to demean their primary threat, Beto O'Rourke. Hillary wins the nomination. The cultists withhold their votes. Trump is President. They don't see a candidate electrifying a red state. They only see and feel the Bern. Democrats win presidential elections. Independents never do.
11
Clinton lost Florida, Penn, Mich, Wisc - all states Obama won previously.
Mich 0.23% 11,000 votes
Penn 0.72% 44,000 votes
Wisc 0.77% 23,000 votes
Flor 1.20% 113,000 votes
Who is most able to win in those states.
I know 2 women in my family who voted for Trump who had voted for Obama. They say now they would not vote for Trump in 2020. They are turned off by his language, attitude toward women and what irks them most is the dying children at the border. They can't stand that. They are very patriotic and his treatment of the military also bothers them as one is a military family.
5
It is time to dump the Electoral College. One person one vote.
13
@DC
It's in the Constitution. Just not happening. Ever.
1
@DC
Agree, and it would make a powerful issue for the Democratic candidate.
2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates Are Lining Up, As They All Belong In A Lineup.
3
We need five viable parties in this country. An “us or them” approach has everything to do with where we are.
3
@RachelK
Only works in a system where you have ranked voting. Otherwise you end up with a "winner" that maybe only 25% of voters chose.
2
The headline perfectly captures the sheer idiocy of this move by Warren -- and presumably soon, others. Who can "match the moment" when the moment is two years away? It's ridiculous that we spend time and energy on this when there are so many other problems and challenges requiring immediate attention;
2
Only those who will faithfully pursue universal healthcare will match the moment. All others will be posers or even worse - centrists. Centrists are closet Republicans.
2
It may not matter to others what the race or gender of the candidate is, but it makes a big difference to me. The GOP installed Trump specifically in reaction to the success of a Black man and a woman, to tear them down and everything related to them and to reinforce the White patriarchy. They elected Trump because he is an obnoxious White man who can do whatever he wants and get away with it, because that's what they want to be, and because they want the country to know that's what they're going to do their best to be, and force us to allow them to be. The only path to gender equality goes through the installation in high places of large numbers of women. The only path to equality beyond arbitrary skin color and cultural distinctions goes through unabashedly and intentionally placing large numbers of diverse people (including Whites of diverse perspective) in high places, in resilient defiance to the GOP's monoracial, monogendered, monolingual, monocultural, and monostoried approach to the world. We just made a step forward in the election of our incoming House. Don't let the bigots cower you into thinking we can't continue forward with making this country blind to gender, color, age, or any other arbitrary distinction when it comes to the selection of our national leaders. Don't let them convince you to abandon your American values of equality of opportunity, in the voting booth, in the marketplace, in education, in healthcare. Yes, we can. Yes, we can! Yes, we WILL!!!
2
Once again, comments are suggesting that Democrats must reach out to Trump Voters; that is, conservative white- primarily rural voters. In essence the Electoral-College rich Red States.
If creating a false message just to get these votes is what it takes for a Democrat to gain the White House- Democrats will lose (again).
Donald J. Trump didn't "Play" to my demographic and 67 Million like me; but he still won. Donald J. Trump had zero interest in people like me; and still won. So the premise for Democrats (again); as virtually everyone who has been trying to figure out the mystery of Donald Trump's win is; play to Donald Trump's ardent base:
If Democrats do so they will no longer be Democrats.
Donald J Trump's message was vulgar, mean-spirited, divisive, racists and exclusionary; Unfortunately, this is what the voters who held sway in Electoral College rich regions wanted to hear and wanted to receive.
Democrats will have to develop an offensive against Republicanese- and attack and continue to attack; expose the hypocrisy of not- just this administration but the whole GOP. Democrats must show people the BENEFIT of voting for a Democrat just as the party did during the midterms.
"Tell Me What And Tell Me Why" is how you win.
4
@Candlewick
Trump's base is not going to vote for a Democrat. I assume you live in a blue state. Trump didn't worry about winning those (despite what he said). He knew he wouldn't. Politics has become so partisan that it is now simply highly unlikely that any Republican can win solidly blue states or that any Democrat can win solidly red states. So, to win the presidency now, unless one of the candidates is terribly weak (and Trump is not), you have to flip flippable states. Unfortunate, but true. And yes, you must appeal to certain demographics that Trump won over in 2016, especially non-college-educated, non-evangelical whites.
4
Democrats need to be prepared for the certainty that the party's eventual nominee will have started out as the second-, third- (or even lower) original choice of a majority of Democratic (and Democratic-leaning) voters. Stay flexible, stay open. Vigorously debate the options, but then come together to energetically fight for whoever emerges.
5
I like Klobuchar best as a candidate, but I will only support her if she supports single payer healthcare.
8
The Democratic party should not venture too far to the left or they will not win over the American people. They need a candidate who is more in the middle if they want to win in 2020. Too many of the candidates mentioned in this article are too liberal. They may win the votes of the coastal elites but are unlikely to gain favor of middle America and those living in rural parts of the country.
If they are serious about taking over the White House in 2020, they should select a moderate to run. Otherwise they will be on the outside looking in once again.
7
@WPLMMT
Can you even imagine such an argument being made about the Republican party?
Snap out of it.
2
@WPLMMT Please take a serious look at Sherrod Brown, long time senator from Ohio. He is a progressive, but perhaps is better described as a labor democrat (that is an old term, out of the fifties and sixties)-- he has concerned himself with the welfare of the working class during his long career. His wife is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist. He is from Ohio, where he has repeatedly won in that reddest of states in the "Great Blue Wall". Sherrod Brown (with perhaps Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren as veep) could win big.
1
@Michele Underhill - you're wrong. Sherrod Brown won because he was the incumbent. Incumbents almost always win in Ohio because people here don't do serious research or thinking about their votes. He's a nobody, with no experience,and seeing all these commenters recommend him as a candidate is both ludicrous and terrifying.
Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US. He can galvanize youth to work tirelessly to elect him. He speaks to issues that most concern Americans, health care and education.
I will not vote for any candidate who does not support Medicare for All.
8
We love to hear from people who would rather sit home in an adolescent rage because the Dem candidate doesn't agree with you on a single issue Perhaps you get away with that in the Bronx, but in the rest of the US that is, in part, what gave us Donald Trump
6
Eric Swalwell surely deserves consideration as a viable candidate for the 2020 Presidential election. Even before he graduated from college, when he was acting as an unpaid intern for his representative, Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, and so was on Capitol Hill on September 11, 2001 he made his first legislative achievement: using his Student Government Association position to create a public-private college scholarship program for students who lost parents in the attacks.
He is noted for working hard on bipartisan cooperation on various bills, and has set a record on already having two of his bills passed by Congress.
So he's a doer, not just a talker, and he has already demonstrated that he is inclusive when dealing with Republicans. What's not to like?
10
@Elizabeth Bennett What's not to like is any politician--particularly a member of Congress without a lot of seniority--who finds time to get his mug on TV almost every night of the week He has primarily "worked hard" on his own name recognition and political career
For heaven's sake. Can't we stop the continuous election finance problem? All we're doing is propping up TV and preventing people from paying attention to important current issues.
People are suffering, but all we can talk about is the next election?
Come on!
Not one penny from me until November 2019.
9
What Dems need to win in 2020 is what they needed in 1992 and 2008. Not a flamethrower like Sanders, nor an entitled candidate like Clinton. They (we) need someone like Klobuchar, a quiet midwesterner, who liberal, but doesn't shout it from rooftops; who seems down to earth and approachable; who is smart and knows the issues--and the Constitution. Clinton didn't lose, in my opinion, because she was a woman. She did not connect with everyday people.
61
@kathleen cairns
Very astute observations and you characterized Klobuchar correctly. I like her and she reaches across the aisle. But, I'm not sure she is "dynamic" enough in today's political enviroment? But best of the 12 so-called front runners already mentioned.
17
@kathleen cairns
As a republican I like Klobuchar. She understands the importance of competitiveness in business. Her roots are in the real world in that regard. Obama seemed to eschew this, and I thought that was a very big mistake. Business is what makes our economy strong. A democrat who understands this would be very attractive.
9
@Frank Leibold And that is one--maybe the- major problem with politics today: One needs to be a flamethrower to get the media's attention. Serious and calm exploration and debate of the issues just doesn't sell, apparently.
2
I have said numerous times in these comments boxes that much of Hillary's 2016 loss was a result of reduced African American--particularly male African American--turnout, compared to that for Barack Obama in 2008/12, in the battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Florida, all due respect to voter suppression tactics and Russian disinformation campaigns on social media.
So turnout matters. And, much as it pains me to write this,
even when all the ground game and phone banks and carpools are in place, there's still a lot of tribalism to it.
Accordingly, at least one member of the ticket likely needs to be non-Caucasian in 2020.
Now, as for the rest of it, I admit I am unsure whether the better appeal is to the progressives or to the more socially conservative who might appreciate economic opportunity arguments. I think a mid country Democrat like Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, or John Hickenlooper might make a formidable cross demographic vote getter, but so might a Kamala Harris or a Tom Steyer.
We will await the shakeout--at least we're pretty certain of getting a lot of varied views heard.
13
@Glenn Ribotsky Do you actually think that Tom Steyer-who epitomizes an out of touch rich white guy playing politics--is going to motivate minorities?
4
@davdr
No, but Steyer certainly has a democratic socialist constituency. Of course, that is just one of many, and if he made it to the ticket, he would need to be balanced with someone from a different constituency, probably someone of color.
1
Joe Biden is a National Treasure!
Give the man some ink in these who-is-the-best-choice articles. He deserves it.
Charisma, experience, wisdom, leadership, a truly tough negotiator.
And the only one in this field that can wipe the floor with Trump.
7
@Terry
Joe will have to explain and apologize for his vote in favor of the 2005 bankruptcy "reform" bill - a reform which protected credit card companies from their mistakes but not ordinary Americans from the burden of catastrophic medical debts.
If only Biden hadn't been representing the credit card companies who shelter in Delaware - and instead had sought to protect the struggling American middle class.
11
@Terry
I like Biden, too, despite the fact that he can sound pretty goofy at times. I especially like that he understands blue collar voters. The democrats have drifted away from them over the last decade.
4
@Terry strongly disagree, as a chairman foreign relations committee, he handed over the war in Iraq completely to Bush with the statement that here is nothing he could have done. We still suffering from the end result of this war and the deception about weapons of mass destruction. He stole speech excerpts from a British politicians. Never had a real day time job, is the proverbial Washingtonian. He championed war in Central America. If anyone beat Trump, it has to be Bernie Sanders. Biden cannot bring any changes. He is tested and had failed.
4
How about telling us what one of now known candidates thinks and says? Lots of words - not one devoted to presenting any of the candidate's views on the issues.
17
Let's stop the melodrama pieces ("blood soaked" adjectives are a reckless distraction) and focus on actual achievements to elect a president who will turn around Trump's fiscally, morally and environmentally irresponsible reign.
Senator Klobuchar (only mentioned in this piece in a nod about "flirtation" with running) got more bills passed than any other senator in 2016, and she has a 72 percent approval rating from her Minnesota constituents. She's smart, hugely effective and diplomatic, like a real leader should be. Pair her with Colorado Governor Hickenlooper for his economic bonafides and effective bipartisan negotiating, and you have a winning ticket - unless the 3rd party and stay-home/non-voters hand the election to Trump.
Get Trump OUT.
54
In Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren 2018 underperformed Hillary Clinton 2016's result. In 2012, she underperfomed Barack Obama's result. This does not suggest a strong candidate. It suggests another Dukakis, Kerry, or Mitt Romney.
23
@CS
Warren also did not get as many votes as our Republican Governor. She is liked, but not really all that popular in Massachusetts. She would not be a strong candidate.
1
I am suffering from severe Trump fatigue syndrome. I think Elizabeth Warren is smart, savvy and is able to take on the Trump ogre. I think she is pro-American. I think she will appeal to minorities. And I think she will make America great again.
12
@Truthinesx
And I think that she would lose to Trump, decisively.
I think that not only will she not win over non-college-educated, non-evangelical whites (who are essential to Democrats' winning, especially in the Midwest), but she will in fact cause them to vote Republican, coming across to them as a shrill, hectoring, Northeast elitist. And yes, I know all about her background and her policy positions, almost all of which I agree with. I would vote for her, but my vote doesn't matter (I'm in New York). I'm talking about how she will be perceived by voters in certain essential demographics, which is everything.
14
@Dan, it agonizes me to agree with you, but I do. We will very likely wind up with the most popular candidate, but not the best qualified for the job. That said, I will vote for any Democrat over any Republican in this current political climate.
6
@CP
I'm sure you will, as will I. But your vote in New Jersey, like mine in New York, doesn't matter. Our states will be blue no matter what. What matters is Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, etc., etc.
5
I want a not too old, middle if the road, well educated, and not religious candidate (it’s OK if he/she pretends to be religious).
6
Direct democracy, in the form of Brexit in the UK, and our Presidential primaries (and caucuses) and State government by referendum (See Prop 13 in California) have dumbeddown government. We have forgotten the lessons of Athens—which our founding fathers were seeking to avoid through a well-crafted Constituton.
The primary elections are much loved by the moneyed classes, corporations and the 24 hour news channels. Since 1992, we have been reaping the consequences of poorly prepared Presidents—especially on issues of foreign policy. We have grown dangerously more divided as a country.
Since the Democrats have now returned to the rules that led to the nomination of George McGovern in 1972 , they may get a McGovern -type result in 2020. These rules led to our present system o primaries and caucuses—and came out of “the McGovernCommittee” that changed the nomination process). (McGovern won one State!
Examples of the wisdom of wise and experienced party leadership in the selection of Presidents was demonstrated in 1940 and 1952 when the GOP nominated Willkie and Eisenhower-and in 1944 when the party leadership got FDR to drop Henry Wallace from the ticket.
In 2020, we desperately need a third party that can select a strong team of a disaffected Democrat and a disaffected Republican (or a strong national leader like GeneralMattis) to lead a ticket sans primaries. Such a ticket might actually defeat Donald Trump and Beto O’Rourke.
1
@REM I think there is a lot of revisionist history in this comment. What the Democrats were trying to do was to avoid another disastrous 1968 Convention with a candidate who did not win one primary was the nominee. There were many other reasons for McGovern's defeat, but thinking that a cabal of party leaders in a smoke filled room could have produced a winning candidate is way off the mark. Many of the reforms of the McGovern Commission would be adopted by the Republicans after a few years. I wrote my thesis on the McGovern Commission a year after it was published.
1
A Democrat who is 180 degrees opposite of Trump would be the starting point.
4
Anyone who is in Congress now will spend 1 1/2 years campaigning, and the people who voted for them will no longer really be represented! Whats wrong with tihs picture? The campaign should be very limited to time and finance; this reform is essential and could start with the new democrats majority in the House. Unless a dynamic, credible, new voice is heard, one with the vision and guts, perhaps Beto, the dems cannot prevail. The best brightest should be the candidate..that being the only qualification.
9
I am sick and tired of the media covering politics like it is a sporting event. Which team is winning, which is losing, who on the team is a rising star who is in the party doghouse. That is simply lazy journalism.
The media, the free press, exists to serve as the eyes and ears of the American People who can't directly observe what our representatives are doing to us and for us. That should be the story. Not petty partisan politics.
I blame the media coverage for our devolution into partisan political conflicts instead of aiding in our nation's pursuit of a more perfect union.
31
All the Democrats need to do is present a less dark worldview to be a vivid difference.
3
@John
That is true, in New York.
For the country as a whole, it is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.
2
Who the Republicans run is the more interesting question.
3
@Blue in Green
Gallup's weekly poll continues to show Trump's job approval rating among Republican voters between 85 and 90 percent, where it has been since his election. At this point, a different Republican candidate is simply inconceivable. And yes, that includes even if Trump is impeached, which he may be. That, IMHO, would be a huge tactical mistake by Democrats (see Bill Clinton). He would not be convicted in the Senate. Twenty Republican senators are not going to commit political suicide. Trump would then emerge more popular than ever with Republican voters (again, see Bill Clinton).
4
A Dem presidential candidate can score a few points by occasionally taking shots at (individual) right wing donors or specific corporations But the idea that a candidate will win in an all out attack on the the US corporate system is ludicrous Who does Warren think her voters work for? Obama had 10 times the political savvy and popularity as Warren How did his "you didn't build it" comment go over? About as well has his attack on those who rely on "bibles and guns" or Hillary's rebuke of the "deplorables" The most interesting aspect of Warren's decision to run is how she could conceivably believe she has a chance to win? The only conceivable answer is that she is living in an echo chamber of her supporters, who like Trump, probably add up to 20% to 30% of the voting population If possible, this is even more self centered and dangerous to the Dem's chances that was Hillary's decision to stay in the race after her State Department email debacle was made public
6
Many here in the comments worry about Trump trouncing the Democratic candidate in 2020 - be they Warren or Harris or Bernie or whoever. That’s giving Trump way too much credit. His bullying, racist, misogynist, pompous schtick won’t work so well next time. That is, if he’s still in office, which is hardly guaranteed. As the midterms showed, Trump has lost women (even white women). He’s lost minorities, city dwellers, college-educated voters and most of the suburbs. Come 2020 even some of his gullible base will have tired of him, and the economy will be dragging. He pulled off an electoral college “inside straight” in 2016, with the help of Russia dealing off the bottom of the deck. His win was incredibly unlikely, if we ran the 2016 election 10 more times, he’d only win the one. Trump is not going to wipe the floor with anyone in 2020.
10
Who ??? It's doesn't matter, quite yet. Here is the underlying problem : Democrats play nice, play fair and are oh-so Polite. Republicans Lie, Cheat and Steal. It's in their contract, and DNA. Enough. If WE want to actually Win, it's time to unleash the hounds. I want a rumbler, a street fighter a brawler. Male OR Female, or preferably one of each. A Tag Team. Someone younger than the usual suspects, hungry and energized. Someone to slay the Creature, and to cowl and shame his Collaborators. An impossible Dream ? NO. An overdue, necessary, genuine Yankee Doodle American turning point. Happy New Year.
14
Senator Jon Tester. He could beat Trump if Trump is the man to beat.
2
@Deanna
I love Jon Tester; he has a ton of integrity. But he has the charisma of a brick wall and would not play well outside of Montana and maybe Wyoming.
1
The Democrats need a center-left political program and candidate to begin to heal the divisions. Going all in for far left populism (Warren, Sanders, etc.) will just add poison to the well. Sure, the country has been raped and pillaged by the oligarchs, but a frontal attack will turn off too many centrists - which actually represent the majority of the country - and possibly allow another wacko Republican to squeeze in on oligarch money and Republican voter manipulation. Skillfully handled, the health care issue could be the Democrats' equivalent to the Republicans' immigration issue in rallying the voters. Everyone has health care concerns because of the rampant cost inflation. It should be an easy sell.
4
The NY Times and candidates like Elizabeth Warren refer to and reject the notion of corporate donations and super PACs. funded by wealthy donors. How about the large donations made by unions. Will Warren reject and denounce those as well?
2
To all of you clamoring for Beto, Beto, Beto, what has Hit and Run O’Rourke done to even remotely be qualified? What are his positions? Policies? How is his voting record?
12
@JJ
“If Beto O’Rourke wants to go and run for president, God bless him. He should put his hat in and make his case. But he lost. You don’t usually promote a loser to the top of party”
- Rahm Emanuel
The challenge for democrats will be managing their progressives' tendency to fall head over heels in love and disregard all reason.
6
Elizabeth Warren may have good intentions but she has zero executive experience and the personality of a rattlesnake. The last time we elected a Senator with no experience it took him 8 years to figure out how to do the job. Then, in an historic over reaction to Obama's incompetence and foot dragging we were stuck with the ludicrous clownish Trump.
I hope Democrats don't line up behind the candidate of the status quo again, as in Hillary 2. The last election I had to hold my nose and my breath as I voted for Clinton, a first class self promoter, who, again, has zero executive experience. If Warren is the Democratic nominee I am not going to vote for anyone next time and Democrats need to understand that Independents might not vote for another "anointed" candidate - just like in 2016.
9
I think the best candidate that the Democrats could have is Chuck Schumer. He is a highly intelligent, moderate Democrat who has great good common sense and projects an image of calm reasonableness. And, too, he got a perfect 1600 on the SAT--Jed Bartlet only got 790 and 800!
4
@jdvnew With Democrats like Schumer--the Senator from Citibank--we don't need Republicans.
1
My head still hurts from article after article during the mid-terms and now here we go again. Maybe I'll find a nice long long book to read until the 2020 election is over.
10
Warren and Sanders should stay in the Senate and be the voice of the little guy and the middle class. They have no appeal as presidential candidates to moderates and the heartland. Trump would chew either one up and spit them out.
Only Biden has the capability to challenge Trump and show his unmatched experience. Biden and Klobuchar would be a winning ticket with Biden agreeing to a limit of one term
11
I’m looking forward to the presidential debate moment when Trump tries to bully Kamala Harris.
3
I would not call it a ideological pure brand of liberalism. I would call it a massive shift towards the left extreme where liberalism has not place and elements of communism, Marxism and their side effects rule. As stated - the center will not hold.
4
I feel the question for each would be president, is how do you handle the gorilla in the room? I think there is only one answer, and you ignore the man and expose and clarify the Republican policies. There is plenty to expose and haul down. Stick to the facts, and have policies to vote for. Impeachment is off the table, the people must send him packing.
4
Some of us in Minnesota are all-in on Al Franken and all out on Kirsten Gillebrand, who led the coup that forced him out of the Senate when two-thirds of Minnesota women wanted him to stay in the Senate (most who didn't were Republicans) and face the odd allegations made against him. He was basically accused not of groping but of putting an arm around the waists of women who wanted their photographs taken with him and later claimed his hand rested too low on their bodies. Franken it is for many of us who will write in his name.
19
I like her, but she will not win, nor will Biden or Bernie (please go away). I think a Kamala/Beto ticket might give Democrats a win.
5
Biden/Harris for 4 yr and then Harris/?.
Biden needs to help the country heal from the Republicon and trump damage. He is the one person who can do this while being a President in all the other ways, too.
Harris is smart, dedicated to our country and a very quick study who cares about ALL of us.
3
I couldn’t care less about this horse race at this ridiculously early stage. What I do care about is the Times’s making a commitment not to repeat its bizarre performance in 2016, glorifying Hillary and stepping on Sanders. All the while acting as though the DNC knew what it was doing.
13
Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker.
Sherrod Brown and Kamala Harris.
But mostly, REAL policy discussions and ideas. A coherent plan. (Ha; yes I know; Democrats....) and discipline enough to cut through the Repub/Trump noise machines.
7
The only reason Elizabeth Warren is "polarizing" is the same resson Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are "polarizing". ( and when she first came into Washington politics with her husband it was the same with Michelle Obama). That reason is that the GOP routinely attacks smart, powerful Democratic women who they deem to be a threat.
Don't fall for their misogynistic Trump-like demonization of these highly competent, qualified women. Whoever the Democratic candidate is, we have to fall in line and support them, just like the Republicans did with Trump.
11
The only Democrat who will have a chance against Trump is one who can win in so called "flyover country." And that's probably not Elizabeth Warren.
15
@Dave
The real reckoning needs to happen among progressives. They need to come to terms with the entire middle of the country. And they need to stop insulting everyone there. That behavior is a liability to the Democratic Party.
5
This may be another replay of 2016 when the voters end up getting the candidate that wins, instead of the candidate they say they want. Voters need to learn the lesson of their consequences in their rhetoric, their polling preferences, their social media rants, and especially their ignorance of the laws of the land and their gullibility to believe fake news and lies. The world has changed since 2016 but even sadder is the fact that popular opinion remains as foolish and stupid as ever. People continue to only want to hear what they want to hear. People continue to ignore facts and continue to refuse to change their opinions based on facts, even when they are clearly presented in the public media. Another dysfunctional factor is that cable news is as much distraction and distortion of truth as ever before. We don't need Russian or other foreign manipulators to destroy our democracy when we do it so well on our own.
My first take on Warren's announcement is that it's a good thing and maybe there will be more intelligent examination of just how far left she is and how many independents are really turned off by her. I have generally always liked and admired her and appreciate her exposing the hypocrisy of Wall Street and the rules and regulations that prohibit financial mobility of the less affluent and powerful. All of the current potential Democratic candidates being discussed have significant liabilities, and I don't see any of them doing better than Warren.
4
The only Democrats “grappling with what they stand for” are those who are too concerned with self preservation. As someone once sang, You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
4
Democrats need to get their ducks in order. None of these experienced, well spoken and well mannered politicians will stand a chance. You don’t win a game purely on hopeful thinking.
3
This will be a classic 'shoot yourself in the foot' scenario if the Democrats choose wrong. They need someone not too old, not too radical, but assertive enough to face down Trump as needed.
If they let Warren dominate the next two years, like they did for Hillary in 2015-16, they have problems.
6
It already appears as though the Media is giving O'Rourke the most attention. Quite a few articles about his ability to inspire but few articles about his falling short of winning against one of the most pathetic republican opponents. I don't see him correcting his mistakes that were glaringly obvious in his campaign against Cruz and to me that is a major failing. I think democrats need to go with smart, not sparkle and learn more about Kamala Harris who I believe can win the White House.
2
The good new and the bad news: in the United Stares of America anyone can run for President and be elected provided they meet the US constitutions criteria. Because of this two-sided coin, two years ago we elected a rich fool who never worked a day in his life that wasn’t substantially subsidized by the wealth of his father and those in his economic sphere, meaning he has no concept of what it would be like to live from paycheck to paycheck, or no paycheck. Because, if he did, he wouldn’t be so cavalier to deny workers who live with that daily life experience, especially at holidays or any time. If he were stripped of his inherited wealth, he would definitely see how long his rich friends and family would be around, which, I suspect would be a New York minute. Elizabeth Warren couldn’t possibly be worse than he, because of her own family financial history and life experience, not to mention the ability to express genuine sympathy and empathy from a sincere and real aspect. Greed, personal grandisement and gain at any cost (legal and illegal), exacerbated by extreme narcissism and sociopathic traits coupled with a horrid sense of selfishness and self-worth doesn’t seem to be in her lexicon of behavior and thought. Therefore. Elizabeth Warren run, and anyone else who has second thoughts before committing sexual assaults on anyone, lying, cheating, backstabbing, tweeting, repeating eighth grade level verbiage, treason, impulse behavior to ideas/concepts past comprehension
3
Who ? It doesn't matter, quite yet. Here is the underlying problem: Democrats play nice and play fair, and are polite. Republicans Lie, Cheat and Steal. ENOUGH. If We want to actually Win, it's time to unleash the hounds. I want a brawler, a rabble rouser, a street fighter, along with intelligence and perseverance. Male or Female, or one of each. Someone younger than the usual suspects, hungry, tireless and ready to Fight. Someone to neuter the Creature, and cowl and shame his Collaborators. An impossible dream ??? NO. An overdue, necessary and genuine American miracle. A girl can dream on New Years Eve, Right ???
Happy New Year.
2
Elizabeth Warren is the Donald Trump of the left. The article below shows why she should never be president. Warren did eventually issue a grudging non-apology-- not so much about the fact that she was wrong about literally everything, but about her tone:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/business/dealbook/elizabeth-warren-whitney-tilson.html
This, coupled with the whole DNA debacle, are all excellent reasons for why she should be thrown off the 2020 Democratic bandwagon at the earliest opportunity without first slowing down.
2
The Dem who would make me the happiest would be Joe Biden.
I say NO to Sanders, Warren and Beto. The first 2 are 'old news,' and it's too early in his career for Beto.
If Biden doesn't run, I wouldn't mind seeing Kamala Harris give it a shot.
But for me, the perfect ticket would be a Biden-Kamala Harris pairing.
I agree 100%!
Great... Hillary Lite. The Democrats seem intent on self-destruction and losing pathetically. We so desperately need a centrist, moderate, intelligent, compassionate, efficient & effective third party. The Republicans and Democrats have failed us miserably.
5
I can't believe it, but there are Democrats that will vote to reelect Trump, if they don't get the exact Democratic candidate they require with all the "correct" policy positions and personality traits. These people are nuts. The point is to get Trump out of there. No Democrat is as insane, damaging and self-serving as Trump is. Literally any Democrat (or any other Republican, for that matter) will be better than the lying, conniving, criminal currently in the job. Don't be so picky. Get Trump out, should be the mantra. Not whether Bernie or Elizabeth or Beto or whoever is the more perfect candidate.
7
Biden should be picked . Hillary lost to Trump. Another liberal woman will lose for Florida is very important and Hillary lost in Florida. Trump has been a disaster as President but the people in Florida and Texas love Trump for he is a red neck. Democrats need someone not only to put him in his place but to attract new voters who want change.
1
Of course not, the only Lemmings are the Republicans and I am enjoying watching them go off the cliff with the corrupt Trump Family. This is why monarchies don’t play here...
If Democrats want to have blue-collar mid-westerners on board (and they should!), they need to pick up 'their man': here are '3B' candidates in alphabetic order: Joe Biden, Sherrod Brown, and Steve Bullock.
Beto (B4) would be great as VP.
1
As with all things, compromise is the answer. No matter who is elected president, they will have one heck of a mess to clean up. That requires some experience! Also, no one seems to address the likeability factor. Face it, there have been many times that someone is elected because of how attractive they are, and possess a great personality. Warren doesn't have it, but frankly, either did Hillary. I didn't vote for Trump because I always thought he was a jerk. I would vote Biden for experience; Beto or Harris for VP.
1
Honestly, I would take almost any of them over Trump.
1
People tend to over analyze the reasons why voters support candidates. It’s a visceral and emotional draw to someone’s persona, not specific policies, ethnicity, smarts or experience. Think Kennedy, Obama, even Trump. So far, the closest I’ve seen is Beto.
5
Beto would be better for VP - give someone with more experience like Amy Klobuchar the Presidents slot. Run Amy!
2
And that’s a terrible way to pick a president.
2
Despite my admiration for many of their positions and their courage, I firmly believe that Warren and Sanders are unelectable and age is also a factor here. That includes Biden. I don't believe Harris is electable either. Booker would at least be in the hunt. Bottom line, the Dems need to win. That means someone not overly moderate but not stridently anti-business either. That brings us to Brown, Klobuchar and O'Rourke, though Beto will have a no-solid-experience factor. Brown is in his 60s but he appears to be the only one of that cohort who can have a calming effect while still being tough. Klobuchar could prove formidable, even with her Minnesota niceness. Just win, baby!
20
@RDG
I like Brown, but who's going to be his VP? Klobuchar maybe? But that's a lot of Midwest. Beto? No president wants a VP who's younger, taller and more charismatic than he is. But biggest problem with Brown is, and this is serious, Democrats lose another Senate seat, which they can ill afford to do. Taking control of the Senate is a long-shot for them as it is, without taking away another seat.
2
Democrats can contrast a positive message of good government serving the people with Donald Trump's angry rants. Of course, members of the news media will ask the candidates to respond to every Trump outrage. They should respond to his policy actions with their own proposals, with an explanation as to why theirs is better. They should refuse to respond to his ad hominem attacks, except to say that attacking others will not be the practice of their administration.
Democrats can devise their own strategies to co-opt the news cycle with their positive messages. They don't have to sit back and cede the stage to Donald Trump, a sure recipe for losing.
Finally, the news media, and the Democratic Party, should stop focusing on whether a policy position or a candidate is "left wing" or "centrist" or "progressive" or "liberal." That just plays into the hands of the Republican naysayers. Instead, the focus should be on the merits of the policy itself and the candidate's ability to govern effectively.
2
Let's view this like other professions. When looking for a doctor or surgeon, do we look at race and ideas or do we look for skill and credentials? Do we choose our accountants and lawyers based on op eds written and ideas, or do we look at skill and prior success?
We need to apply the same standard to the president. Resume needs to be considered. Proven performers who understand government and governing need to sought and supported. Focusing on ideas and excitement based on Facebook posts and photo ops promises vacuous individuals without the ability to effective meaningful change. Obama struggled early due to minimal connections and experience. Trump fails on many levels. Yet, they were both voted in as outsiders to the political system.
Democrats have failed to develop young talent. The old guard is all that remains with young exciting newbies with little experience. I blame this on Pelosi and Obama who all but have up on state and local races.
Let's choose the candidate like we would other professionals. Let us see a strong resume with experience and training that can effect change rather than submitting to a cult of personality.
4
Warren can't beat Trump. It's as simple as that. The D's had better take off the rose-tinted glasses this time. If the D's get caught up in identity litmus tests, or ideological hectoring, we risk an outcome similar to the last time that was imposed, 2016.
That said, Klobuchar's the shining light, regardless of her gender (which is as it should be). She can unite Democrats and former Democrats and independents - and the heartland, where this next election will be won or lost - and beat Trump. Her combination of smarts, strength, honesty, credibility, empathy, stability and sober-mindedness, as well as bridge-building capability, is unmatched.
And I don't see any baggage with her, as I do with most every one of all the possibilities raised so far. Is she as progressive as I'd like? Not quite. But she's not alienated anyone with daftness or rabidity or special interest coziness or snarky personality, either.
Sum: Klobuchar has my confidence. I don't have that with any other (though Bullock's an unknown quantity). And I think she can gain the country's confidence, more to the point, and I don't think the others can.
14
We are in constant election cycle. This is a big industry that benefits the media, the consultants and all the other cottage industries associated with it and no one else. It is perennial campaigning and precious little governing. Democracy at its worst. May be a solution is one six term limit for president, senator and congressman with mandatory limit on campaign spending.
6
"A leaderless party, they are in a moment of transition from center-left politics to a more ideologically pure brand of liberalism."
I'm not sure I'd describe the Democrats as moving left. I think they are still very much a centre-left party and certainly not moving to the far left (despite Republicans' attempts to brand them as radical socialists). The real difference is that they are now openly embracing centre-left policies like universal healthcare coverage rather than trying to "triangulate" and pretend to be a centre-right or neoliberal party in the vain hope of peeling off some of the ever more rightward moving Republican voters.
2
I have a concern that there will be so many candidates running that the primary process will not select the best candidate to defeat Trump. We saw this result in the Republican presidential primary.
1
But didn't that chaotic "process" give the Republicans the candidate who won the real election?
1
Two thoughts on the Democrats:
1) What does it mean, they are "grappling with what they stand for"? Either they stand for something, or they don't. If these Democrats can't decide who they are and what they believe, how do they ever expect us to support them?
2) Whatever they believe, be ready to govern for the all Americans. We don't need another president who tailors his message to only one group, ignoring the rest of the country, and only governing to please that group. That's what we have now with Trump and the Republicans, who are so invested in their "base" they seem to have forgotten that they also represent the other 60%, whether they like it or not--even Democrats. Please, no more government that's only for the minority. Once elected, the idea is government for the people, not just for some of the people.
3
Neither Trump or Pence will be the Republican presidential candidate in 2020. The radical right-wing media will not allow an old-fashioned conservative like Kasich or Jeb Bush to emerge and will promote an alt-right conservative who will be soundly defeated.
The real issue is will Democrats deliver after winning it all in the 2020 election? Will they squander their time in power, or will they return to their roots to serve the middle class and most disadvantaged? They must work in earnest to reverse income and wealth inequality, restore job opportunities, ensure everyone a livable wage, provide affordable health care to every resident, and enforce regulations that will remediate climate change? Democrats serve all Americans! Let the Republicans wage the war of identity politics - it's a losing argument.
Government is integral to economic prosperity. Republicans and their wealthy donors believe the opposite. Democrats must make a case that government is part of the solution, not part of the problem. That shouldn't be hard to do if they are focused on serving the 99% and not the 1%.
IMHO, far and away the best choice for president is Amy Klobuchar and for V.P., Adam Schiff. Klobuchar excels on domestic issues and Schiff is very strong on foreign affairs. Both are rational, smart, educated and articulate. Eight years of Klobuchar, followed by eight years of Schiff is what I would like to see for America.
The Republican Party is in permanent decline.
4
"Who matches the moment?"
The headline says it all.
Instead of planning wisely for the future, seizing brief short-term entertainment.
Instead of carefully considering options for a new checked-and-balanced head of the executive branch in Washington DC, a thrilling, always late-breaking, clash between celebrity showpersons.
Instead of working for a functioning national government, sitting numb watching a reality TV show.
Instead of sober practical issue-based discussions within a nation of citizens, pointless cyber-torrents for a country of attention deficit slaves to hand-held gadgets and social media scams engineered to addict teens (future voters) and spy 24-7 on victim-users.
America and its mainstream news media have yet to learn the most basic lessons of the ever-worsening Trump disaster. I would like to imagine that Elizabeth Warren's levelheaded clarity might help wake up slumbering nation. But that will be a difficult mission, if not a forlorn hope, if we have to endure yet another rarely questioned and totally unabated 24 month-long soap-opera-based presidential election campaign cycle.
3
Here's a thought for Democrats. Just nominate THE most popular politician in national polls, Bernie Sanders. Ditch the identity politics and go with the issues that Americans care about.
6
If democrats don't nominate a candidate who genuinely cares about bringing working class voters back to the party we'll lose again. Warren has been all about the middle class, yet I don't see her getting much traction with them.
It is alarming to think that we may nominate someone like Kamala Harris, who cannot possibly connect with anyone who isn't living in a deep blue state. So much baggage, so little to show for it.
4
Just a few days ago the NYT was declaring that Biden, Sanders, Harris and O’Rourle were the favorites according to some poll. Maybe the best idea is to stop polling and wait until everyone who is interested announces they are running. So far Elizabeth Warren is the only one forming a Committee.
Why not concentrate on what she brings to the table. Then as others throw their hat into the ring, do the same for them.
Anything can happen between now and 2020 and it probably will
I would prefer it if all of the media would concentrate on the very important issues that need to be covered. We, as voters, need a much greater understanding of these, before we can decide who to vote for.
5
The good thing is that the Dems don’t have a “it’s my time, my turn” candidate. No pre-ordained heir to the Oval Office. That should help. But it would be wise to think about moderation with a strong progressive balance. This is not Warren. Biden, Bloomberg and Sanders would be so much better in advisory positions. Not on the ticket.
2
Trump will make mincemeat of her, and she will continually take his bait every time he decides to play.
I was never a big fan - we do not share political visions, but originally she didn’t much bother me, and She seems to have done a good job at CFPB. However, with every successive botched interaction with the president, she grows smaller in my eyes.
2
I think Elizabeth Warren is wonderful. She is the real deal. I would have supported her over Clinton in 2016. However, I don't think she is the best bet strategically now. Unfortunately, she really ruined things with the handling of the native American issue. Strategically, Sherrod Brown is the way to go along with Warren as a big part of his team. I could even see her as a VP.
4
There are so many Democratic candidates in the 2020 election. With robotic and AI coming to age, one candidate stood out to fight the future income problem for less job society. Mr. Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur, declared his intention and suggested that Universal Basic Income (UBI) should be adopted to lessen the coming problem. Young, rich, and energetic should help him in the politic arena in the near future.
1
This just isn’t the race for a senator. I encourage everyone to think back on how desperately we wanted to beat W. in 2004. We went with the one who looked best on paper and we lost. The 2020 race is going to require someone who is the antithesis of Trump, and a senator, any senator, is going to struggle to be that person.
1
Elizabeth Warren should not run. If she were the Democratic Party nominee, Trump would win. She is smart and she is experienced but she is entirely too left for most Americans. I see her as a cabinet member.
4
Task number one is figuring out the country's needs and what holds it back from bringing as many as possible a decent life.
It is not hard to enumerate what is missing: Universal affordable health care, unfettered access to education that betters the nation, comfortable diverse neighborhoods, and wages that reflect worth and peace of mind. These are neither left or right issues.
If they are opposed they reflect self centered thinking and blindness to national well being. From Thomas Paine:
" In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and
his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same."
2
Elizabeth Warren is far too much like a rerun of Hillary to be a viable candidate. She has already put herself in Trump's sights with her unfortunate decision to take his bait and do that DNA test.
And Bernie and Joe, though strong progressives, are too close to Trump's age, and we are seeing what it is like to have a failing old man in the White House. We need someone with a strong appeal to the Midwest, possibly Sherrod Brown, but with a more charismatic Kamala Harris or Castro or even Beto on the top of the ticket.
5
Whomever emerges as the frontrunner, let's hope that hard lesson of 2016, which cost the country so dearly, won't be forgotten: if there are two "camps" and a bitter primary fight, can we please ensure the sides reunite after the votes are cast at the convention? The only way Trump remains (after he weasels out of impeachment) is if he faces a divided Democratic Party.
1
I hope the voters can get to know Elizabeth Warren. She truly represents the new progressive side of the dems. Bernie laid the groundwork in the last election convincing so many of us that we can take back our democracy from the 1% who only look out for themselves.
Elizabeth Warren is cut from the same cloth, challenging the would-be masters of the universe to look around and see what can be done for their country with the huge sums they keep for themselves. She has been at it a long time. She set up the Consumer Protection Bureau, only to be shunted aside by those who charge huge interest and keep so many in debt.
If she should become President, she'll have a lot of support in the new congress, but big oil and the military/industrial complex with all their clout will be arrayed against her. She'll need everyone of us progressives behind her in what you might call a revolution to take back our democracy for the good of the common people. And she and Bernie will have to convince the voters in the middle and even some on the right.
Their message has something in short supply in this world of mad, mad media--the ring of truth.
3
The veep games begin. Warren would never beat trump. The best she can hope for is perhaps a spot on the Biden ticket. OR, trump gets booted and she goes up against pence who has the qualities of a statue covered in white lacquer. All these vice presidential hopefuls coming out of the woodwork in 2019, are exactly just that and nothing more. Still hoping for mike Bloomberg.
1
This article misses what is unfortunately “the point” in today’s politics, which is 90% personality driven and only 10% driven by issues and ideology. Trump wasn’t ideological but just enough swing voters in Ohio and Florida liked his “tough talking” personality to vote for him over Clinton. I just hope the democrats figure that out for 2020.
1
2020 is not the time for a bipolar election of Trump Republicans versus progressive Democrats. I have respect for Senator Warren and the others, but they can not win against Trump. I have the greatest respect and admiration for Bernie Sanders and believe he could have won the last election, but it is time to move forward. Find a steady Democrat and bring this country back to equilibrium.
3
@Concerned Citizen
John Kerry? Michael Bloomberg?
1
It is very sad that Democrats continue to end up with moderates to appeal to the swing voter, who lets face it, doesn’t know much about policy or they wouldn’t be “swing”. What this country really needs are bold ideas to bring us into the 21st century (i.e. universal health coverage). But can it happen? I fear not, especially with the outdated Electoral College determining too much.
2
Who matches the moment? My senator, Sherrod Brown. As Ohio turns from purple to red, he was the only Democrat to win a statewide office. Why? Because he connects with the working class, the very voters that the Democrats need to win back. If he's nominated he will dominate Trump across the crucial blue-collar tier of states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin -- that Trump inexplicably won en route to this catastrophe we're all suffering through.
On a personal level, Brown relates. He's a Yale grad but gives off not an iota of elitist haughtiness. His dog, a mutt, is named Franklin. I know that because Franklin appeared in a Brown ad in which a veterinarian praised Brown for his work in getting tainted pet food off the shelves.
His appearance is also a plus: Tousled hair, rumpled, five o'clock shadow ... it all works. As does the gravelly voice. Perhaps his greatest asset, however, is that he's a fresh face. Political scientists have posited that freshness of face was a major factor in the Obama and Trump victories. So, a trend?
The Democratic nomination race will be akin to a WWF cage match free-for-all, but once working class voters as well as most other Democrats -- Brown is strongly progressive -- I believe he will emerge as the Democratic nominee. And Trump's hind quarters will take a severe beating.
3
@Paul Facinelli
I like Brown, too. Unfortunately, he would lose Democrats a Senate seat that they can ill afford.
Timing couldn't be better. Progressives deserve to showcase their selected candidates. Likewise, progressive proposals deserve to receive full exposure. Let every American know exactly what they plan to do. The only question is who they blame when Americans don't embrace them completely. After all, it's always someone else's fault when progressives don't prevail.
1
We have 24/7 news, now let's admit we have 365/4 election cycles. Like the prosecutor's first question, "who benefits?" Answer: The media in all forms.
Super Pacs, communications directors in place about 400 days before the first primary becomes grist for the mill on the daily handicapping of the candidates.
On a personal note, why is there a concession that the opponent to these worthies will be Trump?
If we read the other news of the day the cognoscenti predict he'll not be POTUS on the first Tuesday of November.
What columbium is right< A or B or C (none of the above).
2
Big news: major mainstream news organisation shows it has learned something: "if the Trump phenomenon proves anything, it is that making any assumptions about candidates is folly"
Well done - keep observing. Thanks.
5
A good number of commenters express the concern about any candidate running against Trump.
I don’t think that will be a concern. I just don’t see how Trump will politically survive the massive onslaught of investigations that are about to befall him.
He has a legal team most would say possess a Mickey Mouse level of quality. I’d rather have Cousin Vinny represents me any day over Rudy G.
He has a rabid base, but they’re dying off, literally due to age & opiods, but figuratively to some degree as walls aren’t built and factory jobs don’t materialize. And 401k portfolios plummet.
As Trump begins to face political pushback and defeat with a Democratic House, he’ll be further diminished. He’ll be weighing down the GOP like an albatross, bloated by Big Macs and double scopes of ice cream.
Elizabeth Drew wrote an Op-ed piece the other day. She talked about how so many of us have a static view of the political situation. It is now in flux, it’s dynamic.
Unlike the Manhattan towers built on bedrock, Trump’s political tower is built upon sand. Come later this week, when Speaker Pelosi recovers the gavel, the sands will begin to shift.
1
It's not just the Democratic party that's moving to the left. The Republicans elected Donald Trump, who ran on a fake populist platform (and Trump is hardly a conservative. Of course, Trump isn't a populist either, but the people who voted for him believed he was).
People are tired of the influence of money in our politics. They're tired of living paycheck to paycheck while corporate titans and Wall Street bankers control almost all of the wealth and power in our country. They're tired of living in a country that doesn't care about making sure they can get affordable health care, good paying jobs and a decent education for their children.
Elizabeth Warren's message addresses all of these issues. It's been her message from the start.
3
@L
And, yet, Trump's "fake" populism managed to get prison reform passed and take a tougher stance against China, which everyone knew was robbing us blind technologically. It is also extricating us from Syria, a position most of his critics held before he initiated it.
My point is that blind animus towards Trump makes people, well, blind, causing them to miss what's important to tens of millions of Americans. The most obvious case is immigration. Trump is closer than democrats to most Americans on this issue. In taking oppositional positions, for opposition's sake (now a deeply etched leftwing line in the sane), the democrats risk losing Americans.
The best chance democrats have to beat Trump is to let go of their hatred so they can see clearly again.
Why do we need to decide who "matches the moment" almost 2 years before the election? Let the contenders make their cases and see what resonates with the people. Tired of the pundits telling me what to think.
3
I am many decades old and I have only been truly "electrified" by one candidate, Bernie Sanders, and he was a primary candidate. For most of my life, I was basically handed a general election nominee, regardless of who I Iiked -- regardless of whose ideas interested me --who had effectively been chosen for me by the Democratic establishment and the establishment media. Was John Kerry really the best we could do -- and why? I wondered. Was it because he was "experienced, well-liked" and with a good temperament as one commenter below described Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar? Is that really how we are to choose a President? Never mind their ideas. And Obama -- hope and change? When the Kennedy's got behind him I knew. He had been chosen. Forget Kucinich's progressive ideas and Edward's concern about the two Americas, the have's and have nots.
Right now, there are two putative candidates I am excited about, Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, because of their ideas. Tulsi isn't even mentioned in this article. She is against interventionist wars -- in part as a result of her military service in the Middle East. She's been there and done that literally. Kamala Harris is mentioned, but why? Is she the one who will be chosen for me this time? Is Beto O'Rourke? Neither has plans to end fracking or oil drilling, and neither has ideas that will stop the climate crisis. Same for Biden and Booker. Well, who cares,right? Someone will be chosen.
7
@jack Hmmm! Tulsi Gabbard, yeah, I could get behind her! Thank you for bringing up her name. Bernie Sanders with Tulsi Gabbard! I like it! And I too think Kamala Harris is the one the establishment has chosen, but I will not vote for her. Beto is the new Kennedyesque candidate and I won't vote for him either.
1
Well said.
Large percentage of our citizens favor environmental regulations, universal health care, and reducing the impact of corporate money in elections and legislation. These are goals of what some call the “progressive wing.” Same old same old ideas of moderates may not really reflect what the country wants but do reflect what the corporate donors want.
Our Oregon Senator, Jeff Merkley is the anti-Trump. Humble, hardworking, honest, smart, courageous, and aware of money’s ability to corrupt.
4
As a democrat, i am super excited about having many people running for president. It is a unique opportunity for many to see a democratic process within the process. That’s why we have primaries, debates, and ultimately the best will prevail. All of them are decent, prepared at some level and don’t see the government as an enemy. We don’t want large big bureaucracies but we do believe the government has a function and a place in a free, developed society. My only thought for those democrats in power who are listening, the message needs to be simple and consistent. And as much as i dislike to say this, the message shouldn’t be just about the man in the White House but about the enablers who have supported horrible policies in the last two years. There is plenty of material out there for the case. Let them come. And i hope all of them have been registered democrat for at least 5 years. That should be the only condition.
1
Let’s not forget one thing: a wonderful Democratic candidate who wins NY and California by huge margins cannot afford to lose Ohio and Pennsylvania by even one vote. Meaning, you ultimately need a candidate who maintains traditional Democratic positions while signaling to river valley and exurban folks that he/she is at least somewhat culturally attuned to their values. Biden, Klobuchar or Hickenlooper all fit that bill.
I heard Michael Bloomberg being interviewed last week. He said he is considering tossing his hat in the ring and will decide during January. From what I heard in the interview I believe Michael Bloomberg would make an Excellent President and I hope he will decide to run for President. How about it? What do you think?
@JRM
I think Michael Bloomberg is a very smart man with lots of policy positions I agree with. I also think, for lots of different reasons, Trump would beat him badly.
1
So far the only potential candidates that I would happily vote for are Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown. I love Bernie and he's the one that had the courage to challenge the establishment candidate and run as a Progressive. But, age! Elizabeth Warren did not have the courage to endorse his candidacy; although his ideas were more inline with hers than with Hillary's. And we all wanted her to run, but, again, a fear of going against the grain. She missed her moment. She could have won, but she can't win now. Gillibrand, Harris, Booker, Biden NO!! And Beto, no as well. He's young and charismatic, but what has he really done, where's any substance? I want someone solid and someone with experience. Klobuchar or Brown!
4
The Democratic Party has been resisting it’s “moment of transition” for several years now. Most Americans want some form of nationalized health care, that’s abundantly clear. And immigration reform, and campaign finance reform...
1
Seems like most commentators forgot the lesson of 2016. People are talking about the Dem candidates that should be moderate, from Midwest, appeals to wide swap the voters. It is like 2016 never happened. But it did and the brush, rude New Yorker, inexperienced in the governing and insulting a big chunk of the voters won. Moreover, he went from 'unelectable' in 2016 to formidable force in 2020 without changing his style. And yet, people think that old style will work magic. With such huge failure in 2016, you would think people will more careful in their assessments, and at least wait for primaries to form their opinions, Personally, I love to see a wide variety candidates in the primaries. It will show people a full specter of options and then we can see who is more electable based on their performance in the primaries. That what Reps did, and that did pay off.
1
I just want a candidate who says things that make sense. I'm tired of Trump's constant blathering about nothing and I think the rest of the country is also. Whoever runs has to have the ability to convince the third of our voters that do not show up at the polls to do so, and vote.
although it's still early in the cycle, I think two things are beginning to be quite clear: first, nobody can make a stronger case for a Democrat in the White House than President Trump himself, and second, a well-known candidate, coming from outside the realm of politics (or at least, of national politics), much as Trump did, could prove more appealing to the vast middle, including Republican voters, than anybody already tainted by Washington's political antics. much as we like to think presidential elections turn on policies, today they're more like the popularity contests of campaigns for high school class president. the exercise is more emotional than intellectual. proof: Trump.
Wow "shades" of the GOP in 2016 when 18+ lined the "stage" with best man for the job, John Kasich, "shoulda" been the nominee & won - so I wrote him in over disdain for extremely flawed Clinton & Trump - but alas, Kasich (his own words) was on the "Siberian" end of the stage and did not garner interest from the (sadly) largely obtuse American electorate. NYT says "30 possible" candidates - and counting? - If the Guv John Kasich does not run, I would vote for Biden or Bloomberg - none other - and so this senior citizen voting since 1962 might have to do another "write-in"
So many people are discussing who can beat Trump. But my hope for the new year is that Trump will not be running again. So the question of who will be rnning on the Republican ticket is also up for grabs. No?
@BSR
No. Trump's approval rating among Republican voters almost literally couldn't be higher. At this point, a different candidate is almost inconceivable.
1
Let's agree that the only single goal of 2020 is to defeat trump and stop trumpism in its anti-American tracks.
Which candidate has the unquestionable ability to beat trump?
More likely the Dems need a great combo between the President and Vice candidates.
The best set up would be for a third party republican (Kaisich like) to siphon off trump votes who just can't vote D.
I don't know who the best Dem candidate would be but I am sure if they play around with universal healthcare and free college education they will be cut to pieces. FOCUS! Winning is all that matters.
2
First and foremost, no Democratic candidate 70 years old or older. I am over 70, so I am allowed to say this.
Second, Kirsten Gilibrand, never a favorite of mine, disqualified herself when she launched an attack against Al Franken before any inquiry or facts had been presented. Perhaps, Franken should have resigned (although I doubt it), but Gilibrand's knee-jerk reaction was uncalled for.
Third, Kamala Harris disqualified herself during the Kavanaugh hearings. Her behavior was anything other than lawyer-like and certainly not presidential. It is possible that, with more time in the Senate, she will mature into a viable candidate in the future, but she is not there now.
There are a number of potential Democratic candidates who appeal to me: Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, Corey Booker, Julian Castro, and, yes, Beto O'Rourke - if he can demonstrate that he can win his own state.
Most importantly, who will be able to defeat Donald Trump, if, in fact, he does run again, which is not necessarily a foregone conclusion?
2
Whoever "matches" today's political "moment," it is not Elizabeth Warren. This is sad because she is smart and qualified but the progressive opposition must be smart and cold enough to pick someone who can win in 2020.
The country will not survive four more years of GOP-Trump mismanagement.
1
It seems obvious to me that James Comey would be an excellent candidate. He would provide a ethically strong alpha male contrast to the 45th President. And he is more famous than many of the senators. He is taller and better looking than the current chief, so the optics are strong for Democrats. Let's encourage Mr. Comey to consider running! He could totally crush the opposition!
1
The Dems will produce a long list of aspiring candidates, new names most people never heard of ("fresh faces"), but will eliminate most through internal fights, dirty tricks et al (just as before), leaving one anointed, but unpopular favourite standing, causing a huge split in the voter base, leading Mr. Trump to a comfortable victory, just as W. did.
You wanna bet?
1
Hey , how about a break so we can digest and assess divided Congress' progress. Let's be a bit Zen and focus on the moment.
1
First and foremost, no Democratic candidate 70 years old or older. I am over 70, so I am allowed to say this.
Second, Kirsten Gilibrand, never a favorite of mine, disqualified herself when she launched an attack against Al Franken before any inquiry or facts had been presented. Perhaps, Franken should have resigned eventually (although I doubt it), but Gilibrand's knee-jerk reaction was uncalled for.
Third, Kamala Harris disqualified herself during the Kavanaugh hearings. Her behavior was anything other than lawyer-like and certainly not presidential. It is possible that, with more time in the Senate, she will mature into a viable candidate in the future, but she is not there now.
There are a number of potential Democratic candidates who appeal to me: Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, Corey Booker, Julian Castro, and, yes, Beto O'Rourke - if he can demonstrate that he can win his own state.
Most importantly, who will be able to defeat Donald Trump, if, in fact, he does run again, which is not necessarily a foregone conclusion?
Fringe candidates who appeal to our (Democrats) most far left yearnings, turn off those flyover middle class voters we have ceded to the GOP.
Warren, Sanders, Beto and Booker ALL represent ideas and ideals we embrace for the future BUT we win from the Center outward and then govern (slowly) back to the left, OTHERWISE we empower pariahs and repeat the past victories of George W. and Orange T.
Stop. We have two years and a lot of work to do in the House, browbeating 45 with investigations. Campaigns take oxygen (air time) from that.
2
Who matches the moment? For this rural, white over 50 Independent he is the declared candidate whose name fails to appear in your article. Richard Ojeda. He's genuine, he's a veteran. He's got the cred to pull some of Trump's base- the ones who voted for Bernie then unfortunately gutted Trump's hook when presented with H.R Clinton as the flip-side of the partisan coin. The "Blue Team"needs to win the popular election by about 8% to overcome the gerrymandered electoral college. I question whether a long time member of the political class who was professor at Harvard Law can do that.
I predict that the "blue"" media will do all they can to silence Ojeda as they did Sanders when his message caught fire in 2016 , and we'll have 4 more years of our current so-called President.
Its instructive to review these posts ts to identify the potential candidates that do not draw strong negative comments Amy Klobuchar stands out as the only one who has uniformly drawn positive remarks and is often proposed by someone who has found fault with the Warrens, Sanders, Bidens, etc
2
Would many candidates jump in for the dem nomination?
My guess is yes.
Odd on betting markets are up for a generic dem to win 2020 and even without the Mueller and other investigations Trump his reelection is hardly guaranteed:
The rust-belt phenomenon that delivered, by small margins, his win 2016 is unlikely to be repeatable. Polls show that the Obama-Trump/let's-try-something-completely-different voters there have soured on him a while ago.
Also the midterms (and already 2016) showed that the southwest is trending more and more democratic -- which, for Trump, is exacerbated by his all but overt pandering to racist sentiments.
It is also all but guaranteed that the next two years will be ones of legislative paralysis, exploding deficit, and further international isolation and stand-still. Traditional conservatives and those who actually believed in Trump's deal-making skill or, more generally, the funny idea of shake-it-up-make-it-work-outsiders (cherished by people who watch too much TV) will be disillusioned.
If dems can resist impeachment chances in 2020 should be pretty good. Someone like Sherrod Brown could pull in a wide range of voter with both progressive ideas and blue collar appeal.
CANDIDATE MATHEMATICS
Beto O’Rourke is a shiny object that looks better in the distance than up close. Yes, he is likable, and fresh, and authentic. He is also inexperienced, regional more than presidential in appeal, and comes across as more of a star than a statesman. Nothing against him, but enough with Reality TV politics. And once the avalanche of fake news attacks his shine, he will have little of practical substance to serve as a shield.
Elizabeth Warren’s time has passed. Her brand has been defined, and it is not a brand that Middle America is likely to support. Again, nothing against her; she too is likable and authentic—and, unlike O’Rourke, accomplished. But she voted against the TPP, which demonstrates a dangerous blend of naïveté and ideology, and, more importantly, once the Trump base attacks her she may only be able to muster a crumpled paper response.
Kamala Harris? Smart but divisive, without accomplishments, and—it is terrible to have to Hollywoodify this—with too thin a voice to ever appear presidential.
Cory Booker? Gooey, overwrought melodrama pretending not to pose in the mirror. Important in the Senate, completely wrong for the presidency.
Kirstin Gillebrand? Al Franken. Say no more.
2020 needs a smart, capable, accomplished, likeable, morally unifying, psychologically profound, practically progressive candidate who can work across the aisle and who is also a formidable woman.
America needs President Amy Klobuchar.
5
Amy Klobuchar as the presidential candidate with a young up and comer like Beto or someone from a ‘red’ state like Julian Castro would be an excellent ticket
1
My New Years wish, resuscitate Al Franken in the political field and persuade him to run. Double bonus he would not be taking time from a current congressional seat as he campaigned. Because, he's good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like him! A man with a smart, witty, likable sense of humor, and humanity, could cripple Trump, and also unite us in a more wholesome way.
3
I'm relieved the Democrats don't have a presumptive candidate whose "turn" it is to be president - someone who plays it safe and runs not to lose (i.e., Gore, Kerry, Clinton II). Those kinds of candidates haven't fared well.
In the end the Democrats will need to unite to defeat Trump, but behind a candidate who (I hope) is more than simply the Anti-Trump - someone who can appeal to core American values.
I can't bring myself to believe that the party of the Trumps, the O'Connells, the Ryans, the Grahams, the Pauls, the Pences, the Cruzes, the Giulianis, the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, the Levins, the Ingrahams, the Coulters, the Carlsons, the Flynns, the Manaforts, the Walkers, the Arpaios, the Pruitts, the Wheelers, the Zinkes and the Bannon represent the real America.
The Democrats cannot surrender the Heartland to the heartless. That doesn't mean bum rushing the center. It doesn't mean trying to run out in front of the crowd. It means leading. It means fighting for every single vote with passion and conviction. It means articulating a vision of this country that people can believe in again.
It means not just winning a single debate but redefining the *terms* of the debate.
It means not just winning a single election but shifting the goal posts.
It means changing the paradigm.
It means remembering who we are and what values are embedded in our basic documents.
It's about the values that have nurtured us and have the power to unite us, even today. And tomorrow.
1
The single most capable person the Democrats have is not running - Governor Jerry Brown of California.
He pulled the state back from the brink of financial catastrophe, is a fiscal conservative but supports Progressive policies. He has been a city mayor, the governor of our largest state, and a state Attorney General- that means he knows how to organize and run the Executive Branch.
Governor Brown is the anti-Trump, they very polar opposite of The Donald. The problems are he is old and a "white guy" in a party obsessed with identity politics. Were he to run I would sign on right now. I doubt he will.
3
Please all, consider asking Al Gore to run; he would be our Winston Churchill in the unfolding effort to combat climate change. And someone with all the necessary, valuable traditional experience, knowledge and skills to be an effective president.
This is not unexpected. There's a simple process to what's happening and well, here goes.
For us Democrats, lets just hope we get out in front on the issues and not let the Republicans beat us to the punch 'defining issues' like they typically do.
2
In my opinion, Senator Warren has limited appeal outside the Northeastern U.S. If Democrats want a fresh face, she is not it. Readers will remember the weak run made by ex-Governor of Massachusetts Mike Dukakis in 1988 who carried only 10 states. He even lost California. Liberal Massachusetts is considered elitist and anathema in many areas of the country, including the South and Midwest. Biden may be the only acceptable candidate in those areas, but I doubt the Democrats, many of whom have demonized white males, would ever nominate him, even if it means a second Trump presidency.
1
Elizabeth Warren will push the Democratic platform in a progressive direction, and her presence will fence out Bernie Sanders and his one-note make-everything-free speech, thank goodness.
I think Warren is jumping in early to stake out some positive, progressive positions. That in turn will help to set the terms of debate and discussion on substantive issues, and hopefully fence out the sort of superficial journalism that Messrs. Martin and Burns present in this silly puff-piece. Although I do understand that it's difficult to field a newspaper with news on New Year's Day.
Happy New Year, to one and all!
I’d like to see a Booker/ Gillibrand or Bloomberg/ Gillibrand ticket. I think either one of those are winners against Trump. I know people might not like Bloomberg, but he’s got a few things going for him:
1. He’s got political experience.
2. He’s not intimidated by Trump.
3. He genuinely cares about people’s well-being.
4. He’s from a humble background and his wealth is self-made.
5. He’s got more money than Trump and has no issue in proving
I’m just hoping whoever the candidate is that we don’t see a repeat of 2016 and people sitting out the election. Shame on all of you that did. Your vote matters!
I'll settle for anyone who is polite and has a professional demeanor. Along with a sense of humor.
2
Of course Sanders is the front runner with his huge database of donors, activist infrastructure ready to back him & polls consistently showing him to be the most popular politician in the country. But the Establishment media have already made their choice--as this cynical horse race treatment boosting the latest empty Democratic suits--including Senator Warren, the self described "capitalist to the bone"--clearly indicates. . . . Their favorite candidate is A.B.B. . . . Anybody But Bernie. The sad truth is the Democrats would rather lose to Trump than win with a Socialist!
3
Can't we draft Robert Mueller to run?
Yes, he's a lifelong Republican (though you'd never know it if you glance at Fox News for more than five seconds) but he'd be the perfect candidate against Trump.
Bloomberg all the way! Moderate, pragmatic, does not need to shill for anyone/thing. Also not in office and weighed down by conflicts between legislating and campaigning. Oriented towards results and driven by brains. This is not the time for charisma, platitudes and red meat.
The Times failed to mention the first Democrat to announce -- Richard Ojeda of West Virginia. Ojeda is a war hero who made great sacrifices for his country. He has devoted his life to helping the downtrodden. He attracts Trump voters and tells his truth is a powerful, sincere way. In the house race he gave his opponent a solid challenge in a bright red district. And he campaigns on a Harley.
Please don't dismiss a candidate just because he's nobody's darling ... yet.
Look at all the Democrats falling over each other trying to be the one with the most radically left ideas. Ideas that will play well on the east and west coasts, and fall flat in middle America. Personal financial responsibility, the work ethic, and national security have been jettisoned by these big spenders in favor of more big government programs and more government dependency. They never learn. And they will fail, as usual.
Please, just make sure the DNC stays neutral and make sure the DNC is able to assess the will of the people without preconceived assumptions, the Democrats have an excellent chance of winning.
1
How about Senator Elizabeth Warren? She was a distinguished law professor who has taught various schools; has experience teaching across the country giving her familiarity with different regions; academic and author who is the third most cited on the subject of bankruptcy and commercial law (of the two experts who are more cited, neither of them is named Trump); former moderate Republican back when there was such a thing; consistent and tireless advocate for low income and middle-class Americans and a proven politician who got her job by beating an incumbent.
I hate to sound like a campaign ad, but it makes me want to scream when she is obviously the best candidate in either party, and yet, I don't see her in the top three or even five of many candidate lists.
1
In 2016 the Sanders campaign ran on the issue of money ruling politics. The Clinton campaign was a corporatist boondoggle that suffered one of the worst election upsets in the history of the country. Now the Sanders model has more validity than in 2016. The Democratic establishment had so much to do with Clinton winning the nomination despite all the warning bells about her vulnerability as the candidate. The Trump campaign will not have the surprise social media racist anti immigrant sludge to ride in on. He will be beatable in 2020.
22
@c harris Right, he will be beatable in 2020, perhaps even by a corporatist Democrat. But he will not be beaten by Hillary Clinton--gods help us all if she demands to run again--or by Elizabeth Warren, who has managed to run up all too many strikes against her in the last few years. She was a better candidate about three or four years ago. Kamala Harris may surprise all.
1
The Dems are going to need an exciting, energetic, and optimistic candidate to emerge. None of those mentioned, with the possible exception of O'Rourke, meet those criteria. If the party is savvy enough to jettison its pre-occupation with identity politics and focus on the broad swath of voters looking for a way out of this mess, they have a chance.
Workers, younger voters, and those concerned with healthcare, education, and the environment will vote in favor of the next Kennedy or Obama. Running another Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore or McGovern will seal the party's fate.
7
@Rick Spanier
This is an opportunity that may not come again for many years because most of America is sick of the Trump presidency. You are right about the identity politics. It divides a voting block that could unite voters if not for personal, even selfish, desire for recognition. "United we stand, divided we fall."
My wife and I canvassed for Bernie in Iowa in 2016. We found significant numbers of people undecided whether to go to the Republican caucus for Trump or the Democratic caucus for Bernie. The one thing they agreed on was that they wanted to give voice to the those who feel left out of the general economic progress. Economic inequality has not gotten any better. The successful candidate will be one who deals with that issue most effectively. Senator Warren is aiming squarely at that issue. Aside from Bernie himself, she seems the one best positioned to do that. (I say "Bernie" not out of disrespect but out of affection, the way many of us in Illinois used to refer to Senator Simon as "Paul".)
32
Just as Trump voters are not monolithic, the same is true of us Democrats. There are many out there, like me, who run left of center but are not extreme left. The Democrats need a candidate who can appeal to people like me AND people who are far left.
I believe the Democrats also need to run a woman for president. But she needs to be someone who can appeal to independents and Warren does not fit the bill.
My money is on Amy Klobuchar. She conducts herself with great poise and is precise in her comments and insights. She is calm, very smart, and erudite in her understanding of issues plaguing the middle class. She is the perfect antidote to the likes of Trump. Her ability to remain coolheaded during the Kavanaugh hearings, despite being on the receiving end of invectives from Brett, was impressive. I have heard her speak and she knows her stuff. A candidate from the Midwest is also an important aspect as a counter point to Trump's appeal.
Let's hope she decides to run.
92
@EB
How about Amy Klobuchar and Mitch Landrieu or Landrieu/Klobuchar --either way, a very strong ticket with broad appeal. I'd support that pairing enthusiastically.
1
Klobuchar is interesting. But how progressive is she?
3
I don't see much support for a presidential run Warren in Massachusetts. As a senator she's interesting, but not as president. She's too far left and too polarizing to help heal America after Trump.
39
Too far left is exactly what we need.
2
@EPB "too far left" is not the problem.
4
@EPB
Warren would be an excellent member of the cabinet. What we don't need is a cabinet stuffed with guys from Goldman-Sachs.
2
Just under a month ago well-respected political pundit Bruce Springsteen (yes, that Bruce Springsteen), stated that the Democrats don't have a candidate who can beat Trump in 2020.
I think this article supports that point.
As for Elizabeth Warren, in a recent college commencement speech she publicly admitted that she is "not a person of color." That is, not a Native American. I predicted at that time she would soon announce her candidacy for President. Voila.
Look at all those Democratic candidates who are certain to re-energize Trump's base.
Can't we do better?
29
The 2016 election was about change and Donald Trump sold the voters that snake oil, and failed to deliver. Voters still want change and this time "Change, they can believe in." Health care is clearly a winning issue as the Democratic wave this past November showed with a massive outpouring of support for new, diverse largely female faces that promised Democrats would deliver it at least in the House. Part of the change is also demographic meaning that any ticket will have to reflect it. The ticket must balance age, sex, and race along with unifying the party with a progressive at the top of the ticket and a centrist as her/his running mate. Given the importance of the Midwest, especially swing, but mostly red, state Ohio, I personally would like to see Sen. Sherrod Brown enter the race. How about a Brown-Obama (as in Michelle) ticket in 2020?
10
@Paul Wortman
I was thinking Brown and Klobuchar. I think voters would be more open to a female vice president, but I think there are too many voters who are not yet comfortable with the idea of a woman president in this country. I really hope Sherrod Brown decides to run. He and his wife appear to be the real deal. and I like the fact that he isn't hungry for the presidency. He views being president as an important job that needs to be filled by someone who can unite the country and move us forward in the right direction.
5
@Paul Wortman I like your ticket, but don't think Michelle Obama will run for anything.
3
Michelle Obama is gorging at the paid speech trough - as is her husband - a la the Clintons. And they were already far wealthier than the Clintons when the Clintons chowed down. She’d be skewered. She’s disqualified.
3
What great news that so many Socially Responsible Women and men are willing to compete for the job of OUR President of OUR United States of America.
Let's listen to and hear all of their great - and not-so-great ideas. Let's separate ego from reality and research what they stand for at their core being. Let's find out who is paying them to run. Corruption has no political affiliation.
Let's send a few dollars to the candidate(s) of OUR choice to help them get elected.
Let's show the POWER OF THE PEOPLE in America.
21
And, so the games begin. I don't think Sen Warren will last long. Sanders isn't going to be a leader either. I'm still on the fence with Sen Booker. Biden has the credentials to fight with Trump. Although I liked Beto O'Rourke I don't think he can fight well against Trump. Kamala Harris looks like a good fighter in the trenches, as well as Sen Klobucher. We'll have to wait to hear what all of them have to say. And, as they say in the tv commercials, But, wait, there's more! Welcome to the campaign's of 2020.
10
@Dan O
Sherrod Brown could take OHIO, the most important swing state in the midwest. Democratic Party candidate MUST win Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan if they want to beat Trump.
Any number of the names out there would make fine chief executives, and that person could assemble a terrific cabinet from the rest. But I believe strongly that the choice should fall to somebody who can appeal to the Midwest and to states lost in the 2016 campaign. These include Klobuchar, O' Rourke, Brown (although a little radical for me), Biden (yes, East Coast and establishment, but a hit in Pennsylvania and with the common touch). The only trouble with the last name comes in age: we need a new generation for new challenges, especially since Trump's vision places him somewhere in the 1950s
15
All the potential candidates mentioned by commenters are 1000 times better than Trump. But if Democrats capture the White House, they also need to turn the Senate blue to make progress on the key issues facing the country--health care, the economy, taxes, voting rights, climate change, infrastructure, education--so it's important to nominate a candidate who can help elect Democratic Senatorial candidates in states where vulnerable Republicans hold the seat. Let's add that qualification to the mix.
32
@ Barbara Or, here’s another idea if Democrats take the White House. They work hard to build true bipartisan communication and negotiation skills so that we can all move forward as a society and do the greatest good for the most people.
Yeah, I guess I’d rather err on the side of hope!
2
@Barbara you are 100% correct! Great point!
1
The Democrat whom I believe to be most competent AND who could beat Trump will get my vote in the primaries. Getting Trump, a dangerous sociopath and corruption machine, out of the White House is job #1 for the health and future or our democratic republic. Thus far, a Sherrod Brown/Kamala Harris ticket sounds like a winner to me.
31
I think you have the right ticket, but the wrong order.
1
Ideals and Ideas.
The former should be what the party stands for regardless of candidate. The latter is what will distinguish the various candidates. If it is to be more than an "anti-Trump" party, Democrats should be loudly and consistently communicating what ideals they stand for, but, even two years into this administration, their messaging has lacked this focus. If they are having a difficult time thinking of a single word that encompasses what they stand for, let me suggest one: Fairness.
40
@Steven Skaggs
I would suggest a second word, and one that has proven ability to rally both the center-left and far left, as well as independents: healthcare.
3
@Steven Skaggs: I don't know what papers you read (apparently the NYT is one of them), but I am pretty sure the Democrats won the House by being very clear in their messaging to their constituencies. Affordable and universal health care is the number one priority that resonates with all Americans. That would be fair as well. The 2016 Democratic Platform is also very clear and still relevant, but unfortunately the media focused on Trump's antics instead of what the parties stood for.
1
So much for the meme touted by the Republicans and mindlessly picked up by the media that the Democrats don't have any younger generation leadership material.
13
They have little experienced, young leadership material. Most have only a few years in government. We are getting too focused on demographics rather than experience.
1
We have no idea what the political landscape of this election will look like at this point. Who knows what the Mueller investigation will bring? Whatever it is, it will surely have profound implications for which candidates get public exposure. For instance, the Kavanaugh hearings allowed many of us to see for the first time how poised and well prepared both Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar were.
Seeing as healthcare, immigration, and income stagnation/wealth inequality will still be front and center issues in the campaign, the candidate will have to be well versed in these issues and, more importantly, be able to articulate how these policies will improve the lives of both women and men, of minorities and whites, of rural, suburban, and city dwellers. They will also have to be skilled at debate, being able to call out lies on the spot, from Trump/Russian TV.
After the Republicans have botched healthcare so royally, I think a Medicare-for-all plan stands as a clear beacon of what Democrats stand for (thanks Bernie!). While Obamacare was a monumental task which was done with good faith against heavy Republican opposition, it has since become extremely evident that Republicans are disingenuous (and have no plan other than to lie). The ideal candidate will be able to translate the complexity of the system and what both the benefits AND risks of their plans would be.
None of us have any idea how this will shake out, but I at least have hope it may turn out very well, indeed.
65
Yes, thanks, Bernie! For refusing to except that only incremental change can happen. Medicare for All!
4
@Scott Keller
I agree that the Dems should run on Medicare for all...but it needs to be explained: It is that "Everyone should be allowed to BUY IN to Medicare".
Every one who is on Social Security pays for their Medicare coverage. Yes, it is subsidized, but it is not free, we pay for it. The slogan "Medicare for All" sounds as if it would be "free" and idea of the cost of free Medicare that scares a lot of people.
It would likely save Trillions of dollars when overhead and administration is taken into account. In other words, single payer, not single source of delivery like the VA.
2
I like how so many comments on this page already know who can or cannot run,based on whether they think Trump will call them names or whether or not they are a woman. What if Trump is out of office by 2020? We shouldn't be picking the candidate for the general election until the primaries.
31
@Mark Good point, but Pence has all the electability of Ed Markey.
(Who? Yeah, we ask ourselves that here, too!)
1
@Mark
Yes. Running against Mike Pence would be a completely different cup of tea and need a diferent type of candidate.
Elizabeth Warren is great - I especially like her anti-big money agenda - but I'm afraid Trump will eat her for lunch.
A ticket of Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar would have a lot going for it. They would appeal to crucial mid-west states (Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). They are experienced, well-liked, and both have an even temperament that would be hard for Trump to rattle. They are able to work with Republicans, while pushing for a reasonably progressive agenda.
Much as I love Beto, post-Trump the country needs a steady hand at the helm. We don't need to be inspired. We just need to win, start to heal the deep divisions in the country, and be able to work with enough moderate Republicans to right the sinking ship that is America.
Other top choices: John Hickenlooper or Jeff Merkely for Pres, Kamala Harris for Veep.
163
@Eric
I do not think she is great, I think she is too far left, but I do agree that he must be salivating at the thought.
Your third paragraph is right on!
1
@Eric Klobuchar at the top of the ticket. She can unite more than Brown. But they're the two at the top of my list. No Beto - he's another big-talker Rockefeller Republican in drag - we've had a bunch of those in the past few decades and they're poison.
No Harris - still hasn't explained why she gave Mnuchin a pass for his foreclosure scams. And too snarky, anyway - she will NOT be the necessary bridge-builder to win. And govern...
7
@Eric President Hickenlooper ??? Late night talk show hosts would hit that one right out of the park !!
I would love to see a McRaven/Yates ticket myself. In either order.
6
@Ralph Hardy Sally Yates? Yes, she's good. But does she want it?
Let’s not forget that Sanders will be running as an independent given that he sits in the Senate as an independent. Surely he has more integrity that carpetbagging as a
Democrat and expecting the Democratic Party to support him.
7
I don't know, but somebody who was on the road for Democratic candidates in 2018, because he was way more popular than they were might have earned the right to run.
30
Bernie has my vote, whether he runs as an independent or a Democrat.
2
And just to add to Sheboygan’s comment: The Democratic Party owes an enormous debt to Bernie Sanders, who brought young people, independents - and many Democrats back - into an active role in the Democratic Party. The sooner they get with his message, the sooner they will be winning bigly.
2
I stand with Joe Biden until he wins or declares his non-candidacy.
* More experience than all other serious candidates-to-be combined. Many years in the Senate gave him mastery of how that branch of government works. As VP, he was in every important meeting and read everything that Obama received.
* A genuine guy who can honestly relate to blue-collar workers.
* A personal story of tragedy and rebound that strengthened him.
* An intellectual ability to slice and dice Trump in any encounter.
* Etc.
Too bad Biden was barely mentioned in this article, while "shiny objects" get a lot of (virtual) ink.
38
@Leading Edge Boomer
I would hardly call Biden an "intellect". A street fighter, perhaps. And, face it, Trump has changed the rules. Those who mastered the art of DC politics, including Obama, have a new game to play. Hillary was a master of the old game. She didn't even realize the rules had changed.
1
@Leading Edge Boomer - yes, and with Beto in the ticket. Both have guts to talk to unfriendly crowd and win them over.
@Leading Edge Boomer Too old. Period.
1
Above all, the Democrats need someone who is willing and able to go to the mat and challenge every single lie that falls from Trump’s mouth (and yes, doing so will keep that person very busy).
Elizabeth Warren is not the right person. She’s great in the Senate and should stay there. Biden and Sanders, please, no. No. Gillebrand? Nope, the one who was first to kick Al Franken would not get my vote. Booker? Unless he can come up with a wife and family, stat, he’d have a very unpleasant run.
Harris? Klobuchar? Brown? Getting warmer. The next few weeks should be quite interesting.
95
the presidential campaign, although it seems endless, is not nearly long enough for any Democrat to challenge all of President Trump's lies, misrepresentations, and bait-and-switch cons.
1
@Charlemagne
Money seems to talk. Michael Bloomberg has money and I think he'd make an excellent President. Rick Scott paid $63 million out of his own pocket to buy his Senate run in Florida. Didn't matter than he earned his money through ripping off Medicare years earlier. I think Bloomberg has been an honest business man, UNLIKE TRUMP. Listen to Bloomberg's ideas, he is a rational, honest man worth considering.
5
@Charlemagne: In that case (going to the mat challenging Trump's and Republicans' lies), I'd recommend Cuomo or Bloomberg. They can both eat him for lunch and dinner too. Mueller or Yates would be good too, but they don't strike me as political animals and interested in running. Cuomo (or Bloomberg) / Klobuchar, or Cuomo (or Bloomberg) / Abrams would be a good fit, imo.
3
This article and some of the comments accidently make a good point—everyone on the list has drawbacks. And, these drawbacks will be magnified running against an extremely nasty incumbent in a very divisive environment, where the old rules of civility have been abandoned. Rather than say what's wrong with each candidate, how about making a list of the characteristics that a successful candidate would have?
1. Younger (I’m 68, so I can say that out loud)
2. Minimal personal baggage
3. Understands the plight of the disaffected middle class, and…
4. Can go beyond tribal appeals to reach swing voters, especially the 10% or so who voted for Trump in 2016 despite being very unenthusiastic
5. Can avoid advancing “too-far-left,” socialistic solutions
6. Can remain calm when dealing with President Trump’s attacks, and…
7. Can rise above being obsessed with his awfulness, and can concentrate on a positive message
8. Can address our ills and paint a vision for a positive future
So today Senator Warren is in the spotlight. She’s easily the top candidate for #3—she’s written books about this—and is pretty good with #2. But #1 is an issue, and I worry about her regarding #6 and #7.
But so it goes with all of them; there will be no perfect candidate, and it’s just a matter of picking the person with the best fit. And by late 2020, our people will be desperate to get rid of Trump. The biggest challenge will be to not mess it up, and we did in 2016. And please, please, no Hillary repeat!!
69
@Jerry Schulz
"The biggest challenge will be to not mess it up, and we did in 2016."
I.e., please, please, no Bernie repeat either.
4
Regarding #5: can’t Democrats explain “too far left socialistic” solutions in a way that counteracts that label? That’s a disingenuous, vacuous Fox-news-AM radio label like “tax and spend,” “soft on crime” or, the latest, “open borders.” Public governance and regulation of healthcare, education, the environment, energy, corrections and many other institutions which serve the common good is not automatically socialism. It’s solid common sense, followed by every other industrialized nation and we need to vocally fight that label. It scares people away, as it is intended to.
5
My two top picks - in this moment - are Kamala Harris and Sherrod Brown. The former because she is smart, articulate and appears able to unite the emerging elements of the Democratic coalition. The latter because he seems able to wrest large segments of Trump's base from the Republican column. Also I invite Bernie Sanders to never ever again disrupt Democratic presidential politics or American presidential politics for that matter. He should throw his weight behind whichever Democrat emerges from the pack and otherwise be happy he had his moment.
105
@Tim Nelson
Bernie did not cause Hilary’s defeat. It was the Electoral College
6
@Tim Nelson, Would any democratic candidates even be considering a run with PAC money if Sanders had not disrupted presidential politics? Medicare for all? College without debt? Sounds like disruption with a purpose!
6
is it reasonable to expect a person to support 'whatever' Democrats. while denying him/she influence on the party's policy? Sounds like taxation without representation to me.
3
Sure, there are lots of names. Many who may throw their hat in the ring. But the one I’m excited about is Senator Amy Klobuchar. Reasonable, steady, and whip-smart. There are other candidates, and some may campaign better, but none would govern as well.
93
@MH
Absolutely right. And go for Texas. Klobuchar-O'Rourke, or Klobuchar-Castro.
6
Democrats have to get over their petty bickering over who’s liberal enough and who’s not....it’s not about left vs right anymore. Reformed conservatives like Steve Schmidt are more appealing to me than many traditional democrats. It’s about sane vs insane, facts vs lies, science vs conspiracy theories. We need someone who is focused on addressing the problems of this country and some of those solutions may be conservative. Trump and Republicans have defined the game and we need to change it. The main thing is not to fight each other but instead focus on attacking Trump so we can take his dominance of the media cycles starting right now.
38
@Roscoe
Amen. Dems must rebuild a coalition.
The right candidate should appeal to the Dems' diverse voting bloc, but drop divisive and often times absurdist identity politics.
Embrace ethics (the anti Clinton) logic and science based ideas (the anti Trump), universal healthcare, and a sane economic message.
@Roscoe
Steve Schmidt is a brilliant, moral, insightful man. But lets not forget it was Schmidt's job to keep Sarah Palin under control when he managed John McCain's campaign. it would have been a smart move for Schmidt - and Nicole Wallace who directly managed Palin- to tell McCain the truth about Palin and tell him he had to get her off the ticket - Palin was Donald Trump in a skirt. Maybe worse if that's possible..
Just the worst....
Every four years, following mea culpa upon mea culpa, political journalists vow to self-cure their addiction to incessant horse race coverage and give us more pertinent knowledge about where these presidential aspirants stand on crucial policy issues that, one way or another, affect all of our lives.
So here we are, more than 22 months before Election Day 2020, and what are we getting? More incessant horse race coverage than ever: politics as soap opera ad nauseam.
It's like a broken record, or white noise, providing what the digital intelligentsia cheekily call "content," which isn't to be confused with substance, unless that substance is cotton candy.
Neil Postman presciently described it as "amusing ourselves to death," and look at where it has gotten us: Trumpistan.
119
@Dotconnector:
Agree completely, my thoughts exactly.
4
@Dotconnector
You nailed it.
The political "journalists" are addicted to the horse race and will not cover the issues- even the New York Times.
8
I think the majority of the comments here are right on. We need serious candidates, someone from the middle of America not from the East Coast or West Coast. We need someone who can appeal to the middle and has a grasp of the issues that face America. We will be in quite a mess when this Administration is finally over and we need someone with the experience and gravitas to heal our wounds and really make an attempt to bring us back to together. We need the media to hold ALL candidates accountable and not be blinded by the 'shiny objects' and spend valuable time and space fawning over all their comments.
24
Please, all, stop castigating candidates from the East and West Coasts. The majority of people in this country have gathered themselves along our great oceans. They live in the economic and cultural hubs of our country. Our needs and desires should be respected as much, if not more, than the smaller number of people in the center of our country.
1
Please aspiring Democratic candidates, let yourselves and your plans and dreams be known but please do not "bad talk" your fellow Democrats also seeking nomination. Those ugly words will come out in the general election and be used against the nominee. We can't afford any of that. We are all in this together, to reclaim the country in 2020.
68
Here’s my demographic. Old white guy moderate Republican. Now to shatter some folks’ assumptions. I gladly voted for President Obama twice, and reluctantly for Hillary in 2016. I am still shocked that any thinking Republican could vote for Donald Trump.
Now for my advice to the Democrats (not that anyone is asking). Please play to the moderates in this next election. I get it. Democrats have the very vocal progressive wing on the left, and it is a legitimate concern for the party to not alienate this group. That said, I think most Americans are desperate for a candidate who can beat Trump, and those odds drop dramatically the more the Democratic Party drifts left. I’ve frequently made this point by making a simple statistical observation. Fully 84% of the population will fall within or - 1 standard deviation from the mean. A candidate who can communicate meaningfully with this huge proportion of the population will have to be moderate. The statistical fringe of both parties keeps driving our politics to extremes, which in turn leads to the loss of any capacity to achieve compromise or build consensus on the problems facing our Republic.
I would propose that the most important consensus among the majority of thinking people in America is agreement that Donald J. Trump must be voted out of office in 2020. This reality should result in those same thinking people being willing to compromise in the service of achieving this shared goal.
The alternative: 4 more Trump years.
451
@David: Bloomberg / Abrams, or Cuomo / Klobuchar. Harris / Brown or Brown / Harris would be a good combination too. Those tickets would represent the largest intersection of American voters in terms of geographics, gender and ethnicity/race, and the spectrum of moderate to fairly progressive.
12
@David
Only 68% of the population falls within plus and minus 1 standard deviation from the mean; and, those are the people who are not interested in politics, it is the tails of the distribution where the ideas and the passion lies.
12
@David
Agree, a presidential candidate should listen to and earn the vote of swing state voters. Otherwise, in 2020, Democrats are on track to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote again. Just like 4 out of 5 of the last presidential elections! In 2018, Republicans gained Senate seats; Senate races tend to reflect the presidential electoral votes, while Congressional races tend to reflect presidential popular votes. Based on 2018 midterms, DT is on track to win 2020.
A Democrat presidential candidate must be strategic about earning electoral votes. Over and over, I hear from friends/family in flyover country/swing states that Democrats most not run an East/West Coast candidate. They are perceived as elitist (and DT is an anomaly who beat HRC, as well as 16 Republican primary candidates). Steve Bullock, John Hickenlooper, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar potentially could earn those crucial electoral votes. Other candidate suggestions please?!?
13
Since the Democratic Party has basically written off the blue-collar labor union vote since the 1990s, I take it that most of the young liberals today are champions of the so-called gig economy?
And they look up less to Walter Reuther and George Meany than they do Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. Do I have that about right?
12
@sthomas1957 No, you don't have that right. Here, where I live in Westchester county NY, we count on corroboration with unions to get Dems elected, which we have done in the past 2 years in red and blue districts alike. We took the NY Senate back , and got rid of those Dems who caucused with the Repubs, the IDC. This was done knocking on doors with union members. We are with them in their fight. Nationally, the chipping away of unions, beginning with Reagan in the 80's, has left the Dems without a coherent plan to deal with the manufacturing job sector, true, but I think that has begun to change. Renewables can take the place of those jobs once the stranglehold of fossil fuels leaves a vacuum and all those miners and auto workers realize they need to train in a different field, with government help, ...for a start. Manufacturing will never be the driver of the American economy again though, and we have to accept that. Some folks are going to have to get out of their comfort zones and learn new trades/skills in order to move ahead in the new economy, with some kind of protections that unions offered in the past. I'm not sure what that looks like, but it is necessary. BTW, everyone hates Zuckerberg and Bezos...Darth Vaders of current economy, robber barons of this new gilded age.
3
@sthomas1957
Follow the money. Tech money likes the Dems, a lot.
1
@sthomas1957
You take it wrong. The Democratic Party is in full support of workers' rights and labor unions, and actively seeks the vote of blue collar voters of all stripes. Young liberals, most of them not the privileged white East Coast elite of right-wing caricature, know better than anyone how difficult it is to make ends meet flipping burgers or driving for Uber. They are leading the charge - from partnering with the United Steelworkers to elect Lamb in Pennsylvania, to the fight for $15 and unionization for workers in low wage industries across the country.
2
Why is it that what appears to be so blazing obvious gets lost in analytical minutia. IMHO this country will elect: a moderate, caucasian male, who is not too old, is from the geographic middle of our nation, with governmental experience, and a proven across the isle negotiator. This description narrows the field and could potentially promote unity within the Democratic party. Of course it sounds very exclusionary. However, one must read the pulse of our nation as it exists today. The time for a minority or female is not now if victory is the goal. A split vote equals a lost election (2016).
29
The pulse of this nation indicates that Americans want and need Medicare for All and free college education.
3
What makes the current moment historically so different from previous struggles is the direction of its energies: revolution, emancipation, suffrage, civil rights were aspirational movements. They were about a better world that needed to be brought into existence with hard work, confrontation, information, calculated actions. The current fear based right wing populism and its progressive cousins (me too, black lives matter, occupy WS) are reactions to a perceived or real decline in relevance, dignity, opportunity. Its about preventing a negative. As such these movements are more desperate, less strategic, less predictable and thus harder to address than earlier struggles. But it would be a mistake for Dems to think just because the “deplorable from the opioid states” have no answers or useful skills and hardly a perspective for their future that they do not demand all these the same.
Ms Warren with all her achievements is not the politician for this job. She does not reach that huge subset, for she has no answers for them.
20
Now, whoever wants to entertain the idea of running for President has to go against Warren. Whoever gets the nomination has to go against Trump, a very tough and brutal opponent, who lies all the time or replaces lost memories with fabrications although not intentional, but as a result of dementia he is suffering from. His opponents ask the people to forgive Trump for his comments, because he has dementia. The opponents of Trump must stay on that message, otherwise Trump second term is ensured.
We would benefit from someone new, fresh, and unexpected coming from out of left field and sweeping the country off its feet. Can any such candidate afford to compete now that California's primary comes so much sooner?
2
Let's get out the popcorn, recline in our seats, and stretch out the legs while the race is unfolding!
Personally, I don't like show boating, hence Amy Klobuchar is on top of my list of candidates. She has, like Sherrod Brown, the advantage to be from fly-over country and comes across as a sober, no-nonsense Minnesotan. The current president seems to have so far gotten the upper hand on Elizabeth Warren. (BTW it's funny how what outside of the US someone like Elizabeth would be considered a moderate center-left politician seems to be considered extreme in the US.)
A lot will depend on whether Amy can convey during the campaign that she speaks softly and carries a big stick, whereas Individual-1 ─ well, you know what I mean The biggest drawback is ─ with all due respect towards county attorneys ─ her lack of executive experience but Obama did a pretty good job with comparable holes in his vita. Obviously, sober and measured for the young might not come across as energizing but I'd suggest that the senator does not try to be who she is not; the contrast with the presumable Republican nominee, Cadet Bone Spurs, will do the trick.
Many people might think Amy Klobuchar to be an excellent choice for the No. 2 spot where she could prove her chops for the higher office. But she then in 2028 might have been too long around Washington plus provide the outlook on a dangerous third term of the party in power, so It's Now or Never ...
16
I think the Democrats should pass on Warren, who already showed her lack of political savvy by letting Trump get under her skin, and look more seriously look at candidates like Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar. Even better, perhaps, could be a Brown/Klobuchar ticket or a similar one.
84
Wishful thinking on my part, but my dream democratic candidate would be someone young, brilliant, articulate, charismatic, and scrupulously honest. This candidate would be able to communicate with, and convince the public that:
> American prosperity should not be all about unrestrained consumption and high GDP growth, but more about a less stressful life for all, and greater work-life balance, with time to spend with family and friends;
> We are not the only species on the planet, or the last generation on the planet, and that it is our responsibility to help control world human population (while growth rates have come down, absolute growth is still around 80 million per year), and to take serious measures to reduce the damage we have already caused to our beautiful Earth and to the other creatures that inhabit it;
> We need to institute strong measures to curb illegal immigration, without being wishy-washy about it;
> We need to have a 5-10 year plan to significantly reduce our defense spending (currently it's 35%-40% of the world total), with those funds re-allocated towards education and heath care, and for infrastructure improvement in our major population centers;
I feel that we - humans - have lost our way, and that we need a true leader, who is not beholden to Wall Street or to big business, to lead us to a more moderate path of living.
24
It is too early to start placing odds on those who may run. Obama and Trump are perfect examples from the recent past that one can and will emerge over the long haul.
I hope the candidate pool is large and diverse and even includes a few billionaires. I find the notion that being wealthy is seen as a crime or a debilitating weakness somewhat awkward. Apparently many despise that "the kind of capitalist wealth" even if these rich folk are "aligned with liberals on important issues like climate change and immigration."
It is such thinking that will limit the pool of candidates. What we should be interested in is whether or not the candidate has a strong liberal record (if s/he has been in public office) or embrace strong liberal positions (that is believable) in their policy and stump speeches.
While coming from a poor family background makes for a compelling story, I don't think being rich ought to eliminate a person from the get go.
Just my 2-cents!
8
I am committed to supporting whomever the Democratic candidate is, and, at this point I'm not concerned who that is.
32
She will be a refreshing and much-needed adult as president, and it will greatly please us citizens and our allies that we have backed away from the petulant-child paradigm of executive leadership.
2
I feel that Democrats have not done a good enough job of depicting the ignorance and misdeeds of the GOP to the average Americans. The GOP stole an election in Georgia, denied thousands of minority voters their voting rights and curbed the powers of their victorious Democratic opponents when they lost elections, not to mention individual Republicans gladly bending over backwards to satisfy the bigoted demands of President Trump. House Republicans knew that the Paul Ryan and Trump-endorsed Obamacare repeal bill would inflict catastrophic damage on the health insurance of millions of Americans, yet they still voted in favor of that bill, leading their constituents to retaliate by expelling them from Congress this November for trying to steal their healthcare. Dan Savage said that if Democrats want to be successful in elections, they need to stoop to the Republicans’ level and fight dirty and cheat. Taking the moral high ground, he said, will not always let them win. If Democrats can communicate the wrongdoings of Republicans to constituents effectively, then elections may swing in their favor.
4
If the democrats truly want to stick to their guns and nominate and actual progressive, Sherrod Brown is their candidate. Unlike some other true progressives, Senator Brown has to campaign in an actual purple/red leaning state. Truly, truly impressive in the political/Trumpian age we live in.
31
I'm conseving my energy until after the shakeout when the field narrows.
7
Bernie and Beto will be the ticket for 2020 — and they’ll win together because of their Anti-Empire platform.
Bernie will play the part of social democrat FDR, and Beto will play the part that socialist Henry Wallace was supposed to take over.
7
Wishful thinking. Bernie needs to step aside and not sabotage another election.
1
Please stop the criticism of Senator Warren's response to Trump's heckling about "Pocohantas" She called his bluff about donating 1 megabuck to the cause of her choice if she could prove any native American heritage. She did, named a center for care of battered women, and branded Trump a welsher when of course he welshed.
I'll bet you never hear Trump say Pocaahantas again. Will Democrats please stop ignoring Senator Warren's brilliant move?
6
I'd love to see a Democratic candidate who proposes a plan and sticks to it. Healthcare, immigration, economy, defense, Social Security, Medicare, etc. A plan for ordinary people that moves the needle to improve their lives.
Just present the darn thing, and don't worry about Trump's name calling TV trick bag that he relies upon.
Is it possible to win with a real plan, or are "death panels" and conspiracy theories insurmountable?
200
@Martin
Congrats! You have the right idea. But the party is being pulled hard from the extreme left towards free college, health care and isolationism foreign policy.
Looking at the described potential candidates:
*Biden, Bloomberg, Sanders and J. Brown are too old.
*Harris, Booker and Kerry all flame throwers with missteps
*Beto and Klobuchar too inexperienced
*S. Brown and Hickenlopper solid but not with dynamic demeanor required to win
So there's ten, and the Bench is very, very thin?
So without winning candidate and a solid message there will be a lot of scrambling in 2019.
And if more than one runs for POTUS it's like giving Trump his second term.
6
@Frank Leibold
So while I might have the right idea, why are the exact opposites the "right" ideas for the occupant of Office of the President as well as the Freedom Caucus of the Senate?
By the same exact standards, Trump is too old. Trump is pulling from the hard right. Each day Trump he lacks experience at almost everything except tweeting. The Freedom Caucus works to destroy Government.
At least the Freedom Caucus has been marginalized in the House.
17
Bernie Sanders may not run, but if progressive populist issues are not promoted by both or one member of the Democratic ticket, I’m sure the enthusiasm level of the progressive voters of our party will mirror 2016.
25
Great. That way they help trump get elected just as their lack of enthusiasm did in 2015
11
@Sooner Susan, I never understood that mindset: it sounds like you are saying that "progressive populist" voters would rather stay home and give Trump another term than get out and vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, even if that nominee is not a "progressive populist"? Isn't that (coupled with protest votes for Ralph Nader, particularly in battleground states like Florida) what gave the presidency to Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016? How is that helping advance the goals of progressive populists?
25
@Sooner Susan: And you'll end up with Trump again if you decide to sit it out because the candidate "isn't pure enough."
I'd love to have a progressive or progressive leaning candidate, but no matter who the Democrats finally choose it's a moral obligation to vote for them.
47
Money cannot be separated from politics. Maybe we can in the long run, but definitely not any time soon. The Dems really need to play this carefully. They can’t ignore centrists and other moderates across the political spectrum. America is not made of extreme liberals. As for centrists and moderate liberals like myself, we should cast our votes carefully and not get carried away by all the dramas that follow presidential elections. Another emotional election is on our way. It’s going to hurt many and cause turmoil. But if we don’t reform the way we cast our votes, America will perish at a much faster rate. Stick to your principles, actively listen to others carefully, and cast your votes with caution. We cannot afford to go down this road for another four years.
13
Warren is impressive and has the right policies and knows where the financial bodies are buried. If she can demonstrate an ability to connect with voters, and work with the plutocrats that run this country, she would be formidable.
Jeff Merkley, senator from Oregon, is also considering running. He has all the ingredients for a great president: humble beginnings, good connection with people, and plenty of experience guiding successful legislation. He would be a great president too.
14
I do hope we avoid another case where 'the people who write the seven figure checks' think they can pick the eventual candidate and with the cooperation of the party leadership tolerate only a managed show of a competition for the (decided) nomination. In any case, I am inclined to hope for a candidate with elected experience who is still young enough to have much more of a future and not just a long, long past no matter how distinguished that past is. I also am concerned about perpetuating the extreme partisan party rivalries and hope for a candidate who can and will represent more of the country although that will be a struggle starting from where we are now.
11
I myself am very liberal but I want to make sure that Trump and a serious conservative do not win in 2020. The democratic party need a leader who is MODERATE, yet populist and is an excellent orator. Where is He or She
153
Didn't we hear this song before? in 2016 to be precise. How well did it work?
11
@Beverly What many coastal Democrats seem to still not understand is that the center of the country is MORE progressive, not less. This is the mistake of democratic voters in 2016 thinking Bernie Sanders was too liberal and assuming a moderate would be more palatable to swing state voters. Independent voters, who decide elections, want someone who comes out strongly against politics as usual. Sadly this meant Trump in 2016, who instead of speaking truth to power spoke lies to power.
I traveled the Midwest and can tell you the disgusted attitude people have towards politicians, banks, and centrism.
Let us not assume (again) that centrism appeals to the middle of the country and the independent voter. It is some kind of extremism, ANY KIND, which wins today.
29
@EG
Absolutely not true. Here in Montana, a bright red state, we have a Democratic governor and one Democratic senator. Both are centrists. Progressives have utterly failed here.
6
Female or male, young or old, should be of no matter. I want a candidate prepared, educated and experienced enough to speak to the issues of our pocketbooks, healthcare and immigration, while also having an informed world view. I want a candidate that has both the gravitas and fortitude to stand on stage with Trump and expose his ignorance, racism and anti-democratic notions about America, but with a populist voice. Our world is getting more complicated by the minute and we need more than good intentions and a fresh face to turn this ship around. This is no time for an experiment. And though I said "female or male" shouldn't matter, since women drove much of the 2018 election and were responsible for much of the moderate Republican votes for democrats, I do think that a female would do better across most demographics.
How about Warren for president and Beto or Kamala for VP?
148
@RZBones A female president and vice president would be too much for men to take. As a woman, I would love it.
22
I disagree. Qualifications are the only factor that I look for when I cast my votes in any election.
16
While I agree with you, other countries had both, often on the conservative side of the spectrum.
1
Of course the dynamics of a political race can shift quickly and unpredictably. (For example, the GOP free-for-all in 2016 yielded, to virtually everyone's surprise and ongoing dismay, our current President.)
But if one reads this article sensitively, pragmatically, and between the lines, the least flawed and probably the most electable of the many candidates mentioned is . . . Joe Biden.
13
@DLS: I respectfully disagree. Biden is really wise to sit this one out, for himself as much as for the party.
2
@DLS You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the current American electorate will not elect as president a woman, another man of color, or an individual strongly identified with what are considered to be "socialistic" ideas (e.g., Medicare for all, free college, et cetera). So, I am sorry to say that a winning Democratic candidate in 2020 will almost assuredly have to be a white male - sometimes reality is at odds with our ideas of fairness and equality, and this is most likely one of those times.
8
Tom Steyer needs to stay on the sidelines as a counter to the Koch brothers. Bloomberg may be a zillionaire, but he can fund his own candidacy, and more importantly, unlike Trump, he has genuine political experience.
Gavin Newsom is another one who should also be taken into consideration.
5
@Ponsobny Britt as a Californian who likes Gavin Newsom pretty well on policy I can say that a slick, rich Californian is probably not our answer here. He would be loathed by the crucial independent voter as disingenuous.
5
Whoever runs is going to have to get the jump on the key issues. A clearly articulated immigration policy that is sane and compassionate, but cannot be spun as being too generous. After that Health care is number one. Single payer is no longer a fringe issue that can be mansplained away by economic pundits. It has become a National priority, and should be treated as such. Then jobs. both a national minimum wage coupled with an incentivized profit sharing proposal might be attractive. Then the environment – restore regulations on pollution and emission standards. Affirm minority rights, but don't campaign on them. Leave gun laws to the states.
Most of all, when asked, "how do you respond to Trump's saying 'such and so,'" Answer "Who? I want to talk about health care."
I think the candidate who builds the best grassroots org for funding will become the most popular. Getting money out of politics is a rough road, best traveled by someone who is least tainted. (nobody, I know, but some less than others).
23
Let's not dilute the process too much. We need focus and an acceptable agenda by the voters.
3
Beto, and his billionaire family, with a fortune made in real-estate are the 1% and having innumberal connections to the very wealthiest Americans. Beto would have to prove to me, beyond words, he sincerely cares about inequality. I'm not criticizing him for who he is per say. But, it's quite clear individuals, no matter how good their intentions, quickly lose sight of the plight of the average American in the blink of an eye.
One thing that is certain, Ted Cruze did not set the bar very high and challenging him, especially with the demographic and economic changes taking place in Texas, is nothing next to the competition on 'the main stage'.
21
@s.whether
The “ BAR” you speak of wasn’t Ted Cruz it was TEXAS.
In my view Beto was extremely skillful in what he said
and more importantly what he didn’t say during their debates and his campaigning.
He comes across as genuinely well intentioned as anyone in the field.
Though, I think your missing the greater point.
We can’t do anything about inequality if we lose again :)
We need to nominate the person who will beat TRUMP/GOP by the largest margin and I still don’t know who that is.
12
It’s Beto’s wife whose family is uber wealthy, just to clarify. Should not be a disqualifier, especially if the O’Rourkes use their blessings for good a la Carnegie.
3
I'm sure most of the comments here will be by people promoting specific candidates. As a New Hampshire voter, I'll wait to actually talk to these candidates. What I do NOT want to see is yet another baby boomer, because we have had 3 baby boomer presidents already and it is time to move on. I also do NOT want somebody to campaign by sound bite and teleprompter, refusing to actually take questions or pre-screening attendees at their "town meetings." I want to see somebody who has actual, useful experience and who hasn't lost their highest profile race, because Democrats no longer have time for moral victories that are electoral failures. And I want somebody who can inspire people to action because voting against the Toddler in Chief is not enough.
21
I believe Amy Klobuchar would handle Trump as she did Kavanaugh, with calm and fine intelligence. She doesn't have a big target painted on her as does Warren. She is productive, passing more legislation than any other current senator. She is highly respected especially in the Midwest, and it's there the presidential election will be won or lost. And we sure need a female president. If you feel as I do, then do as I did and write her a note urging her to run.
306
The tragedy, imho, is the following: the GOP media machine has convinced the uneducated and moderately, low or unintelligent to distrust those of intelligence as elitist, no matter how and from where they arrived at their status. This con is hobbling our democracy.
26
@Larry Yates I agree re Klobuchar, except for the "we sure need a female president." If the D's get caught up in identity litmus tests, we risk an outcome similar to the last time that was imposed, 2016. That said, Klobuchar's the shining light, regardless of her gender (which is at it should be).
She can unite Democrats and former Democrats and independents - and the heartland, where this next election will be won or lost - and beat Trump. Her combination of smarts, strength, honesty, credibility, empathy, stability and sober-mindedness, as well as bridge-building capability, is unmatched.
And I don't see any baggage with her, as I do with most every one of all the possibilities raised so far. Is she as progressive as I'd like? Not really. But she's not alienated anyone with daftness or rabidity or special interest coziness or snarky personality, either.
Klobuchar has my confidence. I don't have that with any other. And I think she can gain the country's confidence, more to the point, and I don't think the others can.
97
And Klobuchar was also the successful and well-liked mayor of a large American city (Minneapolis).
55
The "more the merrier" philosophy would be ideal if the Democratic Party had a central message, and the article accurately states that "Democrats are grappling with what they stand for ...". Hearing from a dozen primary candidates would be great, but the party needs a core belief that unites the candidates as the potential "Democrat" for 2020?
A core message is key to uniting the moderate leftist with the far left (social) dems. Through an overarching message, each primary candidate can debate how they'll accomplish the 2-3 (realistic) goals within that message; with their own beliefs on smaller issues to differentiate. Otherwise the primary will be a free-for-all that will fraction the party into 1/2 dozen camps and then, in the general election, the Democrats will have to both unite these factions (at which point it will be too late) and beat "45". In 2016, there were only 2 factions that split off in the primaries - Bernie hardliners and moderate Hilary backers - and the Democrats failed to effectively unite those two camps to beat Trump. It's just mind-boggling that Democrats are on the way to making this mistake again in 2020.
Exhibit A - Healthcare For All & Free College - Of course this would be great, but no one has a real feasible plan to do it. The Dems must do a better job explaining to the far left social democrats that this will not magically happen under our next President. It's great "fodder" for uninformed voters, but focus on realistic change is needed.
5
@PJGo Blues — Voters aren’t moved by plans. Voters are moved by inspiring ideas. (Look at Trump’s wall which México would pay for - ha.). Give us inspiring ideas, in a candidate who fires people up, get Democrats elected, then the details can be worked out.
5
If we can fund umpteen wars around the world, I’m pretty sure we can fund Medicare for all.
1
Does this NYT remark overstate political reality by ignoring the Senate?
"... with Democrats poised to regain control of the House of Representatives this week ..."
True, but Republicans increased their majority in the Senate. Even in the House, the Democratic mid-term gains (40 seats?) were less than in earlier mid-term elections (for example: 1994, 2010). Democrats might find it more useful to start the "blocking and tackling" that will be required to beat Trump in 2020, rather than continuing to break their arms patting themselves on the back for witty remarks criticizing Trump.
Whether Trump is or is not an orange-haired buffoon, most Americans. I believe, approve most of what he's done so far (and, let's face it here, people in other countries long ago became accustomed to US Presidents who don't use the right fork -- consider George W. Bush, for example).
Like most Americans, I believe, I like some of Trump's policies: cutting back on illegal immigration (though I disagree with Trump on legal immigration: I'd increase it, whereas Trump argues against BOTH types), pulling out of "forever wars," especially in the Middle East. I'm disappointed in Trump on some issues, notably his failure to control the national debt, but Hillary Clinton probably would have been even worse on those matters.
On balance, I think we're better off with Trump than we'd be if HRC had won instead. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 (or for HRC), but I probably will in 2020.
6
@MyThreeCents
"Hillary Clinton probably would have been even worse on those matters."
We need fact-based decision making in our voting. The last two Democratic presidents (Clinton and Obama) reduced the deficit during their terms. The last five Republican presidents (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush1, and Bush 2) increased it. Since Nixon, the only democrat to increase the deficit was Carter and he did it by $33 billion dollars (ah, those were the days!). Admittedly, it was a 50% increase, but Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 2 all at least doubled the deficit in their administrations (note: Bush 2 holds a record unlikely to ever--I hope--to be broken, increasing it over 1400%).
Can we stop believing that the Republicans are better with our money? Please?
3
Beto is young and he is eager but he is not nearly as progressive as he seems. Bernie is too old and Warren may have already messed up her chances. It will be a very tough cycle for progressive Dems.
11
1/3 of the electorate will vote for trump (again)
1/3 will vote for the democratic nominee whoever that may be
what will it take for the 1/3 that stayed home last time to get out and vote? trump will be working hard to discourage them from voting.
45
Help Wanted
The Democratic Party is seeking a candidate for president of the United States. He or she must be at least 35 years of age and a natural born citizen of this country.
The successful candidate must demonstrate:
Exceptional communication and leadership skills including the ability to appear unscripted and relaxed in front of live audiences and on television.
A deep understanding of public policy including international, economics, social justice, labor and environmental issues coupled with the ability to explain complex ideas succinctly and clearly.
The ability to identify problems and to formulate positive solutions and relate them to voters everyday lives.
A demonstrated ability to engage in verbal combat with an unpredictable, unscrupulous adversary and sometimes physically intimidating adversary.
The ability to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters in every part of the country and a willingness to meet and interact positively with citizens from all walks of life.
The ability to raise large sums of money preferably from small donors.
Demonstrated excellence in an executive role preferred. Comparable experience as a legislator will be acceptable. Experience in the armed forces desirable but not essential.
Above all our candidate must be able to convey a sense of optimism and the conviction that our problems can and will be solved.
8
@Brooklyncowgirl
These are all generally true things.
But more specifically, of the essence is that the Democratic candidate who can beat Trump in the general election must be:
1) able to win over non-college-educated, non-evangelical whites, especially in the Midwest, and drive turnout among African-Americans, Hispanics and the young; and
2) genuinely warm and likeable, and not just by those politically inclined to vote for him/her (think Obama, Bill Clinton and (although you may disagree) Ronald Reagan.
1
@Brooklyncowgirl
Excellent criteria, but many in the American electorate obviously don't reason in this way. Otherwise we would not have ended up with Donald Trump. The American electoral system, and more specifically the Electoral College, must be fixed. This is not a democracy in which each citizen's vote has the same weight. A few midwestern swing states determine elections. States like California, with its vast population and vibrant economy, count for nothing.
4
Donald Trump lost by over 2 million popular votes in 2016. The republicans lost overall by 8.5 million votes in 2018. Short of a "house of cards" national emergency those numbers are still solid.
9
@Sam To be accurate, Trump lost the 2016 popular vote by 2.9 million. But of that total, 4.3 million votes in HRC's favor came from California. The other 49 states did in fact favor Trump collectively.
And let's be clear, our U.S. Constitution mandates that a president is elected by the Electoral College, so that all states -- large and small -- have a say in the election process.
As for the "8.5 million votes" that you say republicans (sic) lost by in 2018, what's the significance of that when the "out"party invariably gains seats in a midyear election anyway? The GOP lost the House, it's true, but gained seats in the Senate, so we'd better hope and pray that Ruth Bader Ginsburg can hang on for another couple of years.
For better or worse, Trump did in fact outpoint about 16 other Republican presidential candidates in 2016, almost all of whom were far better qualified than he was. He's a formidable salesman, survivor and campaigner and it wouldn't be prudent to write off his reelection chances in 2020, despite what the media profess..
And if the Democrats attempt to defeat him in 2020 with the likes of Warren, Booker, Harris, O'Rourke, et al, Trump will once again come out on top.
Joe Biden should have run in 2016 and would have won. His pretext about still mourning his son's death was in deference to Obama's support of Hillary.
If Americans want to see an end to Trump come January 20, 2021, Biden offers the best opportunity for reasonableness and statesmanship.
8
Really? Considering that Biden is not a great salesman, not very good campaigner, and somehow he has better chance against Trump than other Den candidates?
Blaming immigrants is always the easy answer. Blaming others as well. But don’t those who voted for trump get that the issue is not with immigrants or gay marriage or abortion but with the republicans exacerbating the wealth gap? We need social stability and the only way to achieve this is with a strong social safety net.
8
Oh no! Democrats already in disarray, even as the minutes tick down in 2018! After all, it’s virtually unthinkable that a President with a 41% approval rating whose party just lost 40 House seats amid record-low unemployment and who has never cracked 48% approval could lose reelection. He Tweets so effectively after all, and might come up with nicknames for his opponents! And those rallies - he still can get 6,000 people to fill a hockey arena in a country of 350 million!
2
At the moment, a Beto O'Rouke/Sherrod Brown ticket seems appealing at the moment, but these are very early days.
What seems clear is that whoever it ends up being they have to be able to both guarantee a huge voter turnout and grab a good portion of those who voted for Trump in the rust belt states. And that is a tall order.
15
Senator Warren has described herself as being a "capitalist to the bone."
For supporting changing a few banking regulations back to pre-Clinton rules, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal & Fox News depict her as a radical Leftist, even as she seeks funding from super wealthy backers . . . . .There are all the other capitalist candidates, such as Senator Warren, and there is one Socialist in the race, Senator Sanders. Your reporters may not be capable of recognizing this crucial difference--but you can bet the Democratic primary voters will.
10
Sanders is not a Democrat. He sits as an Independent and should have the integrity to run as an independent, not that he has that integrity. The DP
Can do without carpetbaggers who use the party platform for their
Own convenience.
7
Sipa111 needs counseling re: Bernie.
1
The New York Times would be doing its readers, the United States, the World, the Earth, a big favor, by stopping, today (make it a New Year's resolution), casting the 2020 elections, not as a beauty (or an ugly) pageant, but instead:
1) As a discussion of what the big issues are;
2) Not only where the candidates stand on these issues, but also what the candidates' track records have been;
3) What group of candidates, not only in the Executive Branch, but also in the House, the Senate, the Governorships, the State Legislatures, and Municipal governments, could actually deliver the legislation that could get us to where we need to be, now.
What the New York Times, and any newspaper aspiring to the claim of responsible, should NOT be doing, is what they all did in 2016: Providing billions in free media to Trump, or anyone else like Trump; pre-maturely picking "winners" (Which the Times and virtually every other "major" news outlet is demonstrably bad at - evidenced by their treatment of Clinton and Sanders - and that includes you too, Paul Krugman, tarnishing your own otherwise decent reputation.).
And on this latter note, let's distinguish between people who mouth nice sounding words, and people who not only mean what they say, but also have the political savvy to deliver. Let me be blunt: After Bill Clinton, there are absolutely ZERO people in the Clinton family with any political savvy.
318
@Robert Henry Eller
I am totally with you on this.
7
@Robert Henry Eller
I’m in total agreement with you that up to the last part because why bring up the Clintons when you so well articulate how reporting by major outlets have hurt democracy in the past and can now help by avoiding handicapping the race, especially this early.
The 2016 results demonstrated how foolish it is to make predictions with such certainty.
Please, NYT, use the considerable talent of your writers to drive home the serious nature of what’s at stake if we allow politics as usual to dominate the discussion and mood of the voters.
10
@Robert Henry Eller
Also, demand that candidates articulate and explain their policies on issues, and not accept "I have a plan for that" type answers.
11
The Democrats should be laying the groundwork for whoever is going to be their standard bearer by beginning to speak out loud and and clear about Mexico's new President and his administration's commitment to addressing the root causes of migration by spending 30 billion dollar to stabilize violent Central American countries via jobs, infrastructure and safety initiatives. Mexico is presently seeking a partner in this effort and is first looking to the United States. Of course, the likelihood that President Trump would give up his wall in deference to taking this sane approach is zero. Should the Trump administration opt out, China, of all countries, is showing interest in stepping into the void. If this were to come to pass, it would be no small irony that China would simultaneously gain great benefit by increasing their growing presence in Central America while being a major contributor to resolving our immigration problem. In addition, Mr. Trump, by refusing to participate, would be hoisting himself on his own petard.
15
If Democrats were truly united against Trump, they would not be piling into the primary like clowns into a Smart Car. If 2 or more candidates are battling it out to show the base who is more liberal, the Trump voters who voted for Obama in 2012 will be lost and so will the election.
This is all about ego, opportunism, and wishful thinking about single-payer healthcare and other liberal fantasies. A successful candidate has to have a 50 state strategy, not a "I'm the biggest liberal" one.
13
Klobuchar for VP - Midwest temperament, whip smart, and tough. Pair with Beto for president and you got a winning team. Alternatively, Sherrod Brown could wrap up Ohio. Warren,although tough as nails and willing to take the fight to the mat, may be a bit polarizing to independents. I do like Kamala as well and want to hear more from her in the next few weeks. This will be a great year to listen to all of the democratic candidates and how they withstand the Trump bombast and Fox sophistry.
11
Fort Worth. Was that where Beto's father-in-law's real estate manipulations doomed Beto's first political race? What do you imagine are Beto O'Rourke's virtues as a thinker about problem-solving and foreign policy? Why would you subordinate Klobuchar to him when she seems far more intelligent and capable than he seems? How can vagueness be appealing? Does he have any actual skills? It's not clear.
11
Klobuchar has a stronger resume and wins Senate races handily. Why must she take a backseat to Beto?
2
@bobpea Forget Beto, your other ideas are great.
My favorites are Bernie and Sherrod Brown. Both are proven vote-getters, smart, experienced, with compelling personas,
Bernie may be slightly more progressive but Sherrod has an uncanny ability to attract white workers in a swing state (OHIO.)
Bernie exemplifies the vitality of the longevity revolution.
We would be in good hands with either in these teryng tmes.
32
Sherrod - a real Democrat who consistently wins in Trump territory and who is not old!
50
@J.
Well, "not old" only by contemporary standards. He'll be 68 shortly after the 2020 election. Plus, if he's on the ticket Democrats will lose another U.S. Senate seat.
2
Whether she wins or not, Warren has ideas and policies that need to be heard and debated. Let her have her voice. Let them all have a voice, and let the voters hear them out, let them decide. For all of you Democrats who babble about democracy, when it suits you anyway. Nobody has any idea whatsoever about who is electable or who voters will choose. Who would have thought at this point in 2014 that is was going to be the rumpled old guy with the flyaway hair that would fill the stadiums, and has changed the course of the messaging toward what it's becoming now.
6
These candidates will devour one another on a national stage where all will see the fatal flaw of the current Democrat party: identity politics. Accusations of misogyny, white privilege, patriarchal privilege, insufficiently woke, etc.
People who live in the liberal coastal bubble will think there is nothing wrong with this, but the rest of the country - the part needed to win in a national election - will be disturbed by what they see. The same forces animating the party now will eventually be its undoing as people splinter away from the identity-obsessed disaster.
46
@Kirby
In complete agreement that "identity politics" needs to be off the table. Which candidate has a clean record, plus a record of sticking up for, and proposing solutions that help everyone - not just corporations and the rich. Very few of the names mentioned here can meet such a standard. Who comes closest to what the party's roots once were - roots nourished by FDR?
5
@Kirby: Dems not only shoot themselves in the foot over this -- OVER AND OVER -- but have the most incredible ability to snatch DEFEAT from the jaws of victory.
1
She'd be a great cabinet pick. Her attacks on the financial sector are much needed. But, unlike Bernie (I lived in VT for seven years), her positions seem to be very politically-motivated (according to the Boston papers, from what I've read.) Her flak-jacket wearing stunt in Iraq this summer was disappointing - as was her campaigning with Hillary, in costume. Most of my neighbors (and myself) are more Cherokee than Elizabeth Warren - but know better than to capitalize on it. (The Trail of Tears came through our town.) I also understand her net worth is about 8 or 9 million dollars and she has quite an estate in Somerville (with servants). I hope all is false if she's serious about being our next president. The country (especially independents, by far the largest political affiliation) does not want another Washington hypocrite.
20
@carl bumba
I think it’s a misstatement to say Senator Warren capitalized on having some small percentage of Cherokee heritage.
1
@carl bumba
Do you know how many good people who ran for president had servants in their homes from the time they were children? John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore. Franklin Roosevelt. Plenty of others have servants now because of the money they've earned in business. Why is that important?
1
@Bill in Vermont
Maybe so. Thanks. It is hard to convert minor career advantages to capital earnings.
But I've had a few opportunities to check the Native American box at key junctures that would have likely changed my life for the prosperous - that's the objective of those questions, after all. But I've been to reservations; I've seen the situation in Cherokee, NC (for instance) and THIS is what those opportunities were created for. Any exploitation of these, however minor, would be at the expense of the whole program and, thereby, the disadvantaged Native Americans it was designed for. Warren should know this, too. I think Bernie is solid. I doubt Warren's integrity. To me, the only thing worse than greed-based conservatives are self-serving liberals. Hypocrisy keeps us from raising the bar. (So Bill, is Dan and Whits still going strong?)
With all due respect, but I think that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders should stay out of this one. They had a kick at the can so to speak, and now it's time for others to have their turn.
I think Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gilibrand would make for terrible candidates. It isn't their skills, qualifications or personalities that are in question, but they are too similar in some fashion to Hillary Clinton. And "Hillary Clinton-light" is the last thing needed for 2020.
As for Corry Booker, though his profile and pedigree is definitely quite exciting and even formidable, to be blunt. he'd run against and be compared to Barack Obama. Maybe Obama nostalgia would work for a while, but it's not long term fuel or a viable strategy.
My money is on Kamala Harris. To me she represents the ideal candidate to run for 2020, in every which way. When I see Kamala Harris, I think that this is who the next President can and should be. It is also about time.
The other alternative, I would see as an Hispanic candidate, to reflect the place within and contributions of the Latino community towards the US. At the moment beyond the Castro (twin) brothers, I am not sure who could represent the Latino community as a potential choice for the 2020 Presidential Elections. I am sure in time other individuals will step forward.
PS Oh yes, it's a big fat no for Beto Rourke, please, please...no...
98
@loco73
I don't think Harris would win any state in the midwest except Illinois, and that would mean she could not win the electoral college. She does not "connect" well with most midwestern voters. Obama could because he was from the midwest.
23
Why is this a NYTIMES pick?
37
Kamala Harris: yes please! Intelligent, fearless, a true law and order candidate who is capable of taking in information from experts about the big issues and of signaling direction and support to congress on what would get support from the White House from education to health care to foreign policy and the environment. She is not a one issue expert. I love you Elizabeth Warren, but you are a consumer rights bankruptcy expert, quite inspiring on economic inequality, but your moment is passed. You have not shown yourself over the past four years as someone who has the political or executive skills for the White House.
22
The candidate who goes up against Trump had better have a thick skin, a quick wit, and an excellent sense of humor.
Because he has none of these qualities. Nothing deflates an ugly personality as well as an excellent put down, delivered with humor and no meanness.
If you can make him rise to the bait, while keeping the audience on your side, you can steal some of his thunder. Throw in youth, charisma, a squeaky clean resume, and sound government experience, and said candidate could prove irresistible.
Now who fits the bill? Biden possibly, but too old. Schiff, maybe, but does he want it? I admire Warren, but she's almost as old as Trump. Klobushar isn't tough enough.
I personally like Mitch Liandrieu but don't think he's interested. I also like Mark Warner. Sharrod Brown maybe, not sure about the humor part.
I'd also love to see Oprah or Michelle Obama which would make great optics although I doubt they'd go for it.
Any other ideas?
13
@ChristineMcM
Reading what you wrote, I found myself thinking--imagine him trying to debate with Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar. They can intellectually run circles around him (as can most breathing humans) but they are also charming and funny.....
17
@ChristineMcM - Oprah? Really? Thanks, but no thanks. We need people with solid experience in governing across the political aisles and an appetite for politics, in a good sense. Someone like President Lyndon Johnson would be a good fit for our times. Not Oprah. And not Michelle Obama - whom I like and respect but who is not a good choice for reasons above.
29
@ChristineMcM
Al Franken would be perfect, yet he was prematurely sacrificed on the altar of political purity by a fellow senator. His wit and wisdom would have torpedoed Trump.
285
They should have had this free for all in 2016, when they were not facing an incumbent.
58
@RM But they were facing the incumbent!
1
@RM
last time was so open a person who was not even a member of the democratic party finished 2nd.
2
Three prominent Democrats who have earned my respect are Amy Klobuchar, Adam Schiff, and Mark Warner. I would be excited to see any of them as part of our ticket. All three are calm, hard-working, and brilliant.
186
@Jay I agree that Amy Klobuchar would be a brilliant candidate. She has a warm and winning way about her that comes across when she speaks, plus a great sense of humor that will quickly make her popular with voters (and serve her well in debates with Trump!)
36
Adam Schiff is going to have his hands full with investigations. I think he could well become the most important member of Congress. I don't want him to give that up to join a crowded field. But once we've won the White House, I could see Schiff serving in the Cabinet as the best AG since RFK.
53
@Jay
I live in Virginia where Mark Warner has been governor and senator. He's a very intelligent hardworking guy.
4
At this point it's all subjective, the debates will be the proving grounds. But as of today with Trump at a 38% approval, and if it remains so for the next two years, any one of my Uncles could win. And they've all passed to the other side.
18
Don't kid yourself. Trump may be dumb as a rock but he knows how to weaponize the media and these days that's how races are won.
He dominated CNN even when he wasn't even on (I'll never forget how CNN omitted live coverage of another candidate (either Hillary or Bernie) so that they could keep the EMPTY PODIUM in their live camera view where Trump was soon (in 20 minutes) going to appear.
Primaries have become a circus with Trump as the ultimate carnival barker. And he's going to treat the collection of democratic candidates like the freak show at the midway. Exhibit 1: Pocahontas! Exhibit 2: Spartacus from Nu Joisy, etc.
Dems better learn to get in there with their sleeves rolled up and ready to throw their own punches because it is going to get very, very messy.
4
I fell in love with Elizabeth when I heard her describe her humble Oklahoma upbringing. Her brothers served in the military and tried to build a construction business. Her mother tried to keep up the appearance of a middle class life until their finances ran dry - and she went to work an hourly job. Elizabeth joined the debate club (just like Sonia Sotomayor!) and got a college scholarship out of it.
Elizabeth came to her Harvard Law School life the long and hard way. I appreciate what she has accomplished and though I’m worried about how the Fox News people will respond to her candidacy, I’m all in.
114
@Cousy
Don't worry too much what Fox news will say, because they will say whatever they want regardless.
They're attacks work best against a tepid centrist because the candidate then spends their time constantly reminding people that they have identical values to the GOP and are willing to compromise on everything, looking shifty and weak in the process.
(think 1988, 2000, 2004, 2016)
Her strong stances and moral clarity would be attacked the same, but holding fast shows strength and ultimately earns respect.
23
The candidate with the best chance against Trump would be young and new with slightly left of center politics and not from the East or West coasts.
He would need to hit the ground running with a well thought out nickname for Trump (this point made by a poster on the Washington Post website) before Trump brands him.
He should mock the wall but be strong on border security, including physical barriers.
Beto fits the bill best. Trump would have a field day against any of the older, coastal, highly progressive Democrats.
172
I like Warren, but am concerned that her hard left ideology may not work with voters in swing states and fly-over country. I'm also a little worried about her desire to "fight," to use her word. Fighting is what Trump loves and I am not sure she can outfight him. I lean to Beto at the moment. He can fight, too, but he seems to be more an inspirer than a fighter. But, hey, let's see what everyone's message is and personality is. Someone may come to stand out as the process unfolds.
17
I have read that Beto O'Rourke's father-in-law is a billionaire real estate investor who tried to gentrify a Texas town at the expense of poorer Hispanics' interests, and that Beto O'Rourke's political beginnings were with that attempt. I also have the impression he is completely vague and feel good in his rhetoric, and that he's an intellectual lightweight, at least in his political communications. He also has no real background in foreign policy. This all should matter a lot. We don't need an ignorant vacuous individual who is connected to a billionaire real estate investor but pretends to be a populist. We need an intelligent person wise in foreign policy who has some actual ideas instead of nonsensical catch phrases. Beto O'Rourke lost in Texas probably because of some of these faults. It's beyond me how a young person is automatically charismatic even if he seems to be bereft of useful ideas. Drop this "charisma" nonsense, please.
86
@JimH
If i were a strategist for the GOP a centrist like Beto would be beyond easy to beat. You would accuse him of having the most extreme open borders position anyways, constantly forcing him to repudiate his own base. Which lowers his own sides turnout. Also when he argues against that smear and tries to make a point that he in fact in favor of the same things as me, it allows me to make him redundant or wishy washy.
If you believe in security, build the wall, no more half measures.
Fundamentalists usually can win moral arguments against tepid centrists, who always look like snakes with no real beliefs.
9
Mr. Trump may have distracted his base from paycheck issues and larger economic questions with his race-baiting and his scapegoating of immigrants for now. Democrats would do well to remember that people who are scared have always bashed immigrants, and people whose paychecks are threatened are scared. Addressing economic inequities is a good way to soften Mr. Trump's support by undercutting his lies, and Senator Warren is better qualified to address economic issues than any other potential candidate.
34
@R. T. Keeney, yes, she literally "wrote the book" on this, actually several of them, starting with "The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt."
4
I agree with most of what you say, but economic security is about building the economy, not just containing the finance industry, and I'm not sure Warren has any fresh ideas. Redirecting anger at banks rather than immigrants may be a step in the right direction, but it's not a solution.
2
The Democrats need to find someone that will appeal to both the Democrats and the Independents, someone old enough to appeal to both the young and the old and not someone like Hillary or Elizabeth!
39
@BTOThe difference between Hillary and Elizabeth is wider and deeper than the Grand Canyon. Or the Grand Canyon and Disneyland. Or authenticity and ersatz.
1
I loved how Obama did it. He just seemed to come out of nowhere; a senator we barely heard about but wow, could he speak and wow, could he inspire. We really need to find our best and brightest for this election. I don't think we've found him/her yet or at least they are not in the spot light yet.
39
@kay
It helped that he was running against Hillary, and many Democrats were looking for a viable Hillary alternative.
15
The last thing the Democrats and the country need is another empty suit with inspiring liberal speeches and an inspiring liberal story and (once elected) right wing corporate advisors and policies. It's the same old Democratic shell game.
Vote for a Socialist instead.
34
@kay It's Beto.
8
If the official Democratic Party can keep its hands off the scales -- and I know this is going to be hard for them to do -- then we should have a great primary season, with many voices and styles lining up to be the party's next nominee.
There should also be great debates over issues that matter to us all, such as health care, environmental protection, union and worker rights, protection of women and minority rights, quality education for all Americans.... it's a long and neglected list.
And because there will be so many candidates, they will have to be specific. "I have a plan for that," isn't going to fly this time.
And please remember all you who are already bemoaning Warren't entry into the race -- that's what a primary is for, to decide who has the best ideas and can communicate them to the broadest possible audience. And who has what it takes to send the current president packing.
This early on, the more the merrier. I'm excited by how many candidates the country may have to choose from. I hope they all declare early and give it the best they have.
224
@avrds I agree with you, keep the nominating process open, transparent, and above board. Living in Iowa, I'm keeping an open mind, and look forward to hearing them all. Democrats need to remember that the GOP is on the wrong side of every issue you noted, plus foreign policy, where our standing as a force for freedom and democracy in the world has been badly damaged.
33
@MP I hope for a healthy field, and I'll be listening and watching with an open mind before I vote in the SC primary next February. (I have already answered one poll on who I'd vote for in 14 months! Hold your horses until we find out who's running, pollsters.)
2