Who would be the strongest non-Hillary female nominee for the Democrats?

[ShadowRocket]

Assume Hillary doesn't run and there is still a demand among Democrats to nominate a woman. Out of these three potential candidates, which one would ultimately be the strongest nominee?

I'm leaning Gillibrand.

[IceSpear]

Gillibrand

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I feel like Gillibrand is the strongest potentially. She'd likely suffer from endless Hillary comparisons though.

[Liberalrocks]

Gillibrand, although Kloubuchar would likely not be a total disaster either.

[Suburbia]

Gillibrand. 

[CountryClassSF]

Klobuchar by a mile.

[Beet]

My gut says Klobuchar.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Warren would probably have the easiest time in the primary, while Klobuchar would likely have the easiest time in the general.

[Mr. Morden]

It's not clear to me that Clinton herself would actually be any stronger in a general election than Gillibrand and Klobuchar would be.  She shows up as stronger in the polls now, because virtually no one knows who Gillibrand and Klobuchar are, but obviously whoever wins the nomination is going to have near 100% name recognition by election day.

[Kraxner]

Gillibrand, she's younger and doesn't sound "nerdy" compared to klobuchar or warren.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Gillibrand would probably appeal to more voters than Warren. I feel like Warren would be a stronger VP choice to energize the base & left-leaning independents. Klobuchar is white bread.

[Bull Moose Base]

It's not clear to me that Clinton herself would actually be any stronger in a general election than Gillibrand and Klobuchar would be.  She shows up as stronger in the polls now, because virtually no one knows who Gillibrand and Klobuchar are, but obviously whoever wins the nomination is going to have near 100% name recognition by election day.

I agree with this and would go further; because of Hillary's wealth and past, Klobuchar would be a more effective messenger on the economy. (I also think Klobuchar would be a bit stronger than Gillibrand and stronger than any male nominee.)

As I've said before, there's even an argument that Warren is stronger than Clinton. I know the conventional wisdom is Warren is too far left to win (the same argument that was made about Obama in the 2008 primaries) but issue polling shows her views are pretty mainstream. Obama and Hillary have both tried to imitate Warren's rhetoric and ended up sounding much less moderate than her.

[henster]

Gillibrand knows how to appeal to rural/conservative places considering she held down a red-leaning district for a couple of cycles the same goes for Klobuchar she's shown she can win in rural areas so she does well in the Rust Belt and both maybe put MO, IN, etc. in play. Warren has run one political race in her entire life she's probably the weakest person Dems could put up.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Toss-up between Warren (more likely to stir base) and Gillibrand (more presentable to the mainstream).

The Klobuchar hard-sell is hilarious to me - like people trying to convince themselves the girl at Dairy Queen is hotter than Katy Perry. Very generic candidate from state that consistently produces presidential losers.

[Lief 🗽]

Gillibrand is not only the strongest of the three, but stronger than Clinton herself, IMO.

[Bull Moose Base]

Toss-up between Warren (more likely to stir base) and Gillibrand (more presentable to the mainstream).

The Klobuchar hard-sell is hilarious to me - like people trying to convince themselves the girl at Dairy Queen is hotter than Katy Perry. Very generic candidate from state that consistently produces presidential losers.

What is it about talking about female candidates that can't stay away from a conversation about comparing looks, even if in a convoluted way? In any case, I think it's more like convincing yourself the stronger candidate is the woman who was more likely to have talked to the girl at the Dairy Queen today than to Katy Perry. Klobuchar is middle-class herself or a lot closer to it than Hill or Gill. You think it's ridiculous that a Minnesotan could win because Mondale lost? In any event, both Gillibrand and Klobuchar have already endorsed Hillary.

[BlueSwan]

In the primaries, easily Warren.

In the general, I really don't know. Count me as one of those who don't think Warren has much of a chance, so not her. But Klobuchar strikes me as a bit bland and Gillibrand as too lightweight and emotional, but I'll readily admit to not really knowing those two very well outside of a few interviews here and there.

[Mr. Illini]

Gillibrand is not only the strongest of the three, but stronger than Clinton herself, IMO.

[Bull Moose Base]

How is Gillibrand, who has corporate ties, a husband works on Wall Street and defended Big Tobacco as a corporate lawyer, stronger than Klobuchar who is middle class and tougher on free trade? At best Gillibrand is as strong. I think Clinton is still favored to beat any Republican despite her vast wealth, clumsiness talking about it, corporate ties and Iraq War vote, but it's something of a problem.

[dmmidmi]

Gillibrand is a savvy politician, and could be a reasonably good nominee. Klobuchar is alright, I guess--kind of awkward. There's nothing wrong with her, but a Klobuchar candidacy wouldn't exactly set the world on fire. A good share of the American electorate that Democrats need in order to win would probably find Elizabeth Warren, and her fiery liberal rhetoric, absolutely repulsive.

[Bull Moose Base]

A good share of the American electorate that Democrats need in order to win would probably find Elizabeth Warren, and her fiery liberal rhetoric, absolutely repulsive.

Which part of the electorate and which part of the rhetoric?

[Cobbler]

Warren, followed by Gillibrand. Klobuchar is a classic example of someone that would only stand a chance in an Atlas election and in reality would be a terrible, bland candidate.

[whanztastic]

Gillibrand is not only the strongest of the three, but stronger than Clinton herself, IMO.

[Maxwell]

I will say Gillibrand is fantastic at making people believe her ideological shifts are natural rather than blatant flip flops, and could get more crossover votes than Warren, who would merely amp up the base, or Klobuchar, whose blandness overcomes any other good qualities like her humor or her liberal-but-not-too-liberal voting record.

[Bull Moose Base]

Why do people keep talking about blandness? I mean, if the GOP is going to nominate Ted Cruz or Ben Carson I don't want to talk them out of it but blandness is irrelevant and in the last 50 years, no presidential candidate has lost because of blandness. Elections are won on the economy and Klobuchar (and Warren) would have an easier time selling the message than Gillibrand or Hillary.