2020 Democratic Nomination Poll (November 2016)

[Lachi]

Warren is the only one who stands out from the pack at this point.

Warren is from Massachusetts. What have Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Mitt Romney and Warren in common. They're all from MA and all have lost. MA curse.

Warren has never lost an election.

Neither had Bayh.

[Figueira]

Warren is the only one who stands out from the pack at this point.

Warren is from Massachusetts. What have Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Mitt Romney and Warren in common. They're all from MA and all have lost. MA curse.

Warren has never lost an election.

Neither had Bayh.

That wasn't meant as a defense of Warren; it was meant as a factual correction of 2016's statement that all those people have lost elections.

@Mr. Morden, Seth Moulton is another possibility, although he's not very likely either. And then I suppose there's the possibility that the Democrats retake the House, impeach and remove Trump and Pence (or make them resign) and then Nancy Pelosi or Tim Ryan becomes President (technically acting, but whatever) and is re-nominated in 2020? Very far-fetched, but probably more likely than some random governor getting the nomination.

[American2020]

If the Dems need a younger candidate, I'm thinking about Tim Ryan.
He come from Ohio, a swing state.

Tickets:
* Ryan-Warren
* Ryan-Duckworth
* Ryan-Murphy

and many others...

[PaperKooper]

I am legit curious to see how the news media handles a serious presidential candidate who is unmarried.  Have we actually had one recently?  Kucinich was divorced, but of course he was never a real contender for the nomination.

The thing is, even if the voters don’t care in any explicit way, the way the media tends to cover families (calling the spouse and kids the “candidate’s greatest asset” and a positive reflection of their character) might make some difference in how the coverage plays out.

Would also be curious to see if Kamala Harris running means that we get a bunch of think pieces about having a female presidential candidate with no children.

Lindsey Graham is unmarried

[Mr. Morden]

I am legit curious to see how the news media handles a serious presidential candidate who is unmarried.  Have we actually had one recently?  Kucinich was divorced, but of course he was never a real contender for the nomination.

The thing is, even if the voters don’t care in any explicit way, the way the media tends to cover families (calling the spouse and kids the “candidate’s greatest asset” and a positive reflection of their character) might make some difference in how the coverage plays out.

Would also be curious to see if Kamala Harris running means that we get a bunch of think pieces about having a female presidential candidate with no children.

Lindsey Graham is unmarried

Oh yeah, totally forgot about that.

Of course, Graham got nearly zero media coverage about any aspect of his life or campaign, and was consistently at 0-1% in the polls.  Booker, if he runs, will probably be one of the leading candidates, so his marital status will surely get some attention.

[beaver2.0]

Jim Justice!

[Enduro]

Atlas sure like Kamala Harris.

[politics_king]

Kamala Harris/Al Franken would be a great ticket to run against Trump/Pence

[Potus]

Please nominate Andrew Cuomo.

[Kleine Scheiße]

I picked O'Malley out of wishful thinking.

Tim Ryan has been on my radar for a while, but I've never considered him a viable candidate for anything above maybe the Senate. But this is a different political beast entirely than I or practically anyone else have dealt with before.

[The Other Castro]

Could there be any worse (realistic) outcome than Democratic Nominee Andrew Cuomo?

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Warren is their best bet for uniting the Hillary and Bernie supporters. Sure, she'll push away moderates and is unlikely to win the general election against any decent republican, but primary voters of both parties are know for putting ideological purity over electability. As for the most poplar pick, Harris, I don't think she has enough name recognition. She only just won her Senate seat this year and did so in a state so blue that it was a runoff between democrats. If the democratic party is trying to shake the "coastal California and Northeast" reputation and regain the Midwest, she's not the one to do it.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'd say Warren, if she runs. If she doesn't, either Gillibrand or Booker.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Could there be any worse (realistic) outcome than Democratic Nominee Andrew Cuomo?

No i don't think so. If Democrats really want to lose again Cuomo is the Candidate. Fortunately a lot of the idiotic old Democrats who would vote for an establishment pick will die off and more progressive younger voices will have a say by 2020.

[Crumpets]

Could there be any worse (realistic) outcome than Democratic Nominee Andrew Cuomo?

No i don't think so. If Democrats really want to lose again Cuomo is the Candidate. Fortunately a lot of the idiotic old Democrats who would vote for an establishment pick will die off and more progressive younger voices will have a say by 2020.

Cuomo has no natural base or constituency unlike Clinton, though.

[°Leprechaun]

Jeff Merkley, of course.

[Stranger in a strange land]

If Sanders runs, he has my support at this point, provided his health holds up. I hate to say it, but I don't think America is ready for a Female president. Yes, Clinton had appalling personal negatives, but these were compounded and amplified by the fact that she's a woman, and received additional scrutiny and backlash that a male candidate with a similar record would not have received. I expect things to be different in 20 years, but the 2020 nominee should be male.

[Crumpets]

If Sanders runs, he has my support at this point, provided his health holds up. I hate to say it, but I don't think America is ready for a Female president. Yes, Clinton had appalling personal negatives, but these were compounded and amplified by the fact that she's a woman, and received additional scrutiny and backlash that a male candidate with a similar record would not have received. I expect things to be different in 20 years, but the 2020 nominee should be male.

I don't want to turn this into a grudge match or anything, but I think Clinton's favorable numbers were very closely linked to the primary campaign more than any scandal. This is net favorable rating among Democrats over the course of the primaries:



It doesn't track with anything from the email scandal or the Benghazi hearings as much as it does the general feeling of comradery among Democrats. I don't think Bernie is wholly responsible for this, or if he was, it certainly wasn't intentional. But the blame goes more to groups like TYT and Democracy Now for painting the picture that there is NO WAY Clinton can win legitimately and that if Sanders loses it MUST be because a majority wanted him and the DNC took it away. This made it all the more toxic to the Clinton campaign when the DNC was hacked. It would have been much easier to brush off as a few rogue agents, had the narrative not been set up long in advance that Clinton was trying to get DWS to rig the election for her.

If Democrats want to reform one thing between now and 2020 to improve their chances - above any policy or any wing of the party - they need to make sure that the next primary is much more positive than this one was. We can't have a candidate get a clear majority of the popular vote and electors and still be seen as having "stolen" the primary. In 2016 the onus was on both Clinton and Sanders, as well as the DNC to do this and all three failed.

[Mr. Morden]

If Democrats want to reform one thing between now and 2020 to improve their chances - above any policy or any wing of the party - they need to make sure that the next primary is much more positive than this one was. We can't have a candidate get a clear majority of the popular vote and electors and still be seen as having "stolen" the primary. In 2016 the onus was on both Clinton and Sanders, as well as the DNC to do this and all three failed.

I don't think either the Clinton or Sanders campaigns were particularly negative.  Did either of them even run a single negative TV ad against the other?  I can't remember any.  Their attacks on each other were pretty mild compared to other presidential primary campaigns, including the 2016 GOP primary race.

It's more the outside groups, as you say.  And I'm not sure what can really be done about that.  Should Sanders have denounced TYT, for example?