Your completely subjective odds for the Democratic nomination in 2020

[Kingpoleon]

Field - 80%

[Mr. Morden]

I'd say Warren is #1 (and the only candidate with a better than 20% chance of being the nominee) and Booker is #2 (possibly the only other candidate besides Warren with a greater than 10% chance of being the nominee).

After that, it's a real mess.  There are many candidates around ~5-10% chance of winning, and I don't know how to rank them.  "Field" is also probably pretty large.

Gillibrand and Klobuchar might be a bit underrated by the conventional wisdom, simply because they look like they might be among the most likely candidates to run, and if Warren happens to pass on running, someone's got to benefit from any "It's time for a woman" sentiment among the Democratic primary electorate.

Sherrod Brown might also be a bit underrated if I actually thought he was going to run.  But he hasn't really done anything to indicate interest yet.

[Figueira]

I actually wouldn't count out Cuomo--I don't think his reputation is that bad outside of Atlas. I think he would be a terrible choice, but if the can win almost all Clinton voters he could have a shot.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I actually wouldn't count out Cuomo--I don't think his reputation is that bad outside of Atlas. I think he would be a terrible choice, but if the can win almost all Clinton voters he could have a shot.

I like him but his staff is involved in crooked stuff which will make it hard to attack Donald on what he is showing will be his most obvious problem

[Devils30]

I honestly don't think Warren can be stopped if she runs. She will pick up all the Bernie voters and the opposition will be splintered. If she doesn't run I can see a darkhorse emerging, voters younger than 45 have simply had it with the establishment. Warren/Bullock would be an ideal ticket, focus on government reform and less on social issues.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I honestly don't think Warren can be stopped if she runs. She will pick up all the Bernie voters and the opposition will be splintered. If she doesn't run I can see a darkhorse emerging, voters younger than 45 have simply had it with the establishment. Warren/Bullock would be an ideal ticket, focus on government reform and less on social issues.

The thing is I don't think she's a good debater and I think that will hurt her

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

I honestly don't think Warren can be stopped if she runs. She will pick up all the Bernie voters and the opposition will be splintered. If she doesn't run I can see a darkhorse emerging, voters younger than 45 have simply had it with the establishment. Warren/Bullock would be an ideal ticket, focus on government reform and less on social issues.

The thing is I don't think she's a good debater and I think that will hurt her

True, but she has a wing of the Party that, if Bernie doesn't run, is a lockdown for her. That's a huge advantage for her to have.

Her biggest obstacle is gonna be the millions of dollars of ads and messaging that will be thrown at her to crush her movement.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I honestly don't think Warren can be stopped if she runs. She will pick up all the Bernie voters and the opposition will be splintered. If she doesn't run I can see a darkhorse emerging, voters younger than 45 have simply had it with the establishment. Warren/Bullock would be an ideal ticket, focus on government reform and less on social issues.

The thing is I don't think she's a good debater and I think that will hurt her

True, but she has a wing of the Party that, if Bernie doesn't run, is a lockdown for her. That's a huge advantage for her to have.

Her biggest obstacle is gonna be the millions of dollars of ads and messaging that will be thrown at her to crush her movement.

I kinda disagree she has a complete lock on Bernies wing let's not forget that unlike Hillary Booker and Castro will be a lot younger an there something to be said in millennials liking the crazy granpa college professor vs the out of touch grandma as opposed to Warren be the crazy grandma college professor against someone who is young and in touch like Booker and Castro

[Figueira]

I actually wouldn't count out Cuomo--I don't think his reputation is that bad outside of Atlas. I think he would be a terrible choice, but if the can win almost all Clinton voters he could have a shot.

I like him but his staff is involved in crooked stuff which will make it hard to attack Donald on what he is showing will be his most obvious problem

Right, I'm not saying he would win the general (although he might if things are bad enough for Trump) but I think he has a shot at the nomination.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

I honestly don't think Warren can be stopped if she runs. She will pick up all the Bernie voters and the opposition will be splintered. If she doesn't run I can see a darkhorse emerging, voters younger than 45 have simply had it with the establishment. Warren/Bullock would be an ideal ticket, focus on government reform and less on social issues.

The thing is I don't think she's a good debater and I think that will hurt her

True, but she has a wing of the Party that, if Bernie doesn't run, is a lockdown for her. That's a huge advantage for her to have.

Her biggest obstacle is gonna be the millions of dollars of ads and messaging that will be thrown at her to crush her movement.

I kinda disagree she has a complete lock on Bernies wing let's not forget that unlike Hillary Booker and Castro will be a lot younger an there something to be said in millennials liking the crazy granpa college professor vs the out of touch grandma as opposed to Warren be the crazy grandma college professor against someone who is young and in touch like Booker and Castro

As a 20 year old, I've never quite understood why Castro and Booker would have appeal with young people. I don't think that being youthful necessary means you'll get the youth vote. Jill Stein, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders were all older and got plenty of backing from younger voters.

The Bernie wing will roast Booker over his Wall Street ties and centrist tendencies but his charisma and big money backing will carry him to a competitive race with Warren. I just don't see Castro making any kind of ground.

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

Safe Biden

[KoiBean]

Booker's personality definitely can appeal to a lot younger voters, even his social media accounts have a significant following. But he certainly does not fit the ideal progressive changes a lot of Millennials want. Appearing as a pragmatic centrist turns off most of the romantic minded young voters.

Castro has even less appeal than Booker to the younger vote.

[Eraserhead]

Clinton and Sanders are the clear favorites. It's just a question of whether either of them want to run again or not.

[emailking]

Kanye - 0.00000000000000001%
Manchin - 0%
Cuomo - 0%
Clinton - 0%
Kaine - 0%

I know it's subjective, but come on man. Clinton's chances (or any of the others) are not less than 1 in a million trillion, which is apparently your minimum for rounding down to 0.

[Confused Democrat]

Harris- 20%
Booker - 20%
Gabbard - 20%
Gillibrand- 20%
Warren - 20%

[Mr. Morden]

I think some people are blowing Biden's comments out of proportion.  Biden tends to blow smoke.  It's what he does.  He makes weird comments all the time.  But people have latched onto his comments this time because it's so early that there's a dearth of 2020ers answering the "Will you run?" question in any direct way.  They mostly change the subject, rather than try to answer.  So when someone does give an answer, we treat it as a bigger deal than it might be.

The way he phrased it on Colbert (“I can’t see the circumstance in which I’d run, but what I learned a long, long time ago, Stephen, is to never say never") sounds sort of like the Al Gore 2008 trial balloon, where I don't think he was really considering it in any serious way, but was reluctant to rule it out definitively because "never say never".

I think, in the end, the age factor makes it really unlikely.  Yes, he'd only be a few years older than Trump, but Trump would be running for a second term rather than a first.  Now maybe if polling showed Biden as the strongest candidate, and if party elites were begging him to run, he would do it, but the latter especially seems unlikely to me.

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

^ The democratic party leaders will want an inevitable nominee again. Clinton will not run again, Sanders is anathema to them, Warren is largely viewed as Sanders's successor if Sanders doesn't want to run again, and aside from them, there is only one candidate who can lock up the nomination upon their entrance - and that candidate is Biden.

[Mr. Morden]

^ The democratic party leaders will want an inevitable nominee again. Clinton will not run again, Sanders is anathema to them, Warren is largely viewed as Sanders's successor if Sanders doesn't want to run again, and aside from them, there is only one candidate who can lock up the nomination upon their entrance - and that candidate is Biden.

I don't think Biden can do that, to be honest.  Sure, he'd have strong poll numbers early on simply because of name recognition advantage.  But once other candidates started getting coverage, other folks would gain traction too.

And I'm not sure they do want an inevitable candidate again.  Given that Clinton ended up losing the general election despite running against someone with terrible favorability ratings, they might figure it's better to let folks fight it out for the nomination, rather than anoint someone who may not actually be as strong a candidate as they thought.

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

^ The democratic party leaders will want an inevitable nominee again. Clinton will not run again, Sanders is anathema to them, Warren is largely viewed as Sanders's successor if Sanders doesn't want to run again, and aside from them, there is only one candidate who can lock up the nomination upon their entrance - and that candidate is Biden.

I don't think Biden can do that, to be honest.  Sure, he'd have strong poll numbers early on simply because of name recognition advantage.  But once other candidates started getting coverage, other folks would gain traction too.

And I'm not sure they do want an inevitable candidate again.  Given that Clinton ended up losing the general election despite running against someone with terrible favorability ratings, they might figure it's better to let folks fight it out for the nomination, rather than anoint someone who may not actually be as strong a candidate as they thought.

Considering the official 2016 democratic autopsy is basically "IF COMEY HAD KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT WE WOULD HAVE WON!!!!!!!!!!!", I'm not expecting any changes in strategy for 2020.