Who is most likely to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination? (Jan 2017)

[Mr. Morden]

I don’t think we’ve had one of these polls since November (right after the election), so time to do another one….

[Mr. Morden]

For those looking for entertainment, here's our January 2013 poll on who would win the 2016 GOP nomination:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168343.0

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Bernie, Biden, Booker are most likely judging from current evidence.

[Crumpets]

Right now, I think Biden and Warren are the two standouts. Biden definitely seems eager to run.

[Confused Democrat]

Warren if she runs.

[Comrade Funk]

Biden and Bernie are great choices, but probably too old unfortunately. I think Booker is really hurting his chances with him supporting pro-corporate policies. Just because he is black doesn't mean he will get 90% of the black vote lol. There is no way his actions won't negatively affect him in an increasingly anti-corporate Democratic base.   

[AGA]

Either Booker, Warren, or Brown. I don't think that Biden will run; he will be quite old.

[Mr. Morden]

Warren if she runs.

how does Warren appeal to any of HRC's coaltion outside of maybe older white women? She'll need more than that + Sanders 2016 to win a primary. You could even make the case that it's Sanders' 2016 voters who are more likely to splinter into different factions than HRC's voters are (who are much more "establishment" oriented, and if Booker becomes favored among them, I just don't see how anyone overcomes him). Maybe she can win a one-on-one, but in a multi-candidate field, I just don't see how Booker isn't well-positioned. Fwiw, I don't believe for a minute that Biden will run, but if he did, he seems like the most likely threat to Booker's "establishment" grip.

There's no reason to believe that the more "establishment"-friendly voters are all going to line up behind one person.  Heck, look at the 2016 GOP primary.  There were at least a half dozen "establishment" candidates who all ran.  For that matter, which coalition of voters support the "establishment" candidate changes from one election to the next.  Look at the Clinton 2008 primary coalition vs. the Clinton 2016 primary coalition.  It's a very different group of people.

In any case, at least so far, there seem to be more "establishment"-friendly Dems angling to run for president in 2020, if you count Booker, Castro, Cuomo, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar among their ranks.  (Does O'Malley count among that group too, because I don't think he's ever been embraced by the progressive wing?)  On the other side, I think Warren has a decent shot of scooping up the bulk of the "progressive insurgent" side of the electorate, *if* neither Brown nor Sanders run.  And Sanders is really old, so might be deterred from running based on age.  And Brown hasn't really done anything to indicate interest yet, unlike the other names I mentioned.  (And he even gave a soft denial interest the other day, though I guess you could argue that he has to play down any presidential ambitions he might have for now, because he faces a tougher 2018 reelection than the others do.)

So it seems at least *plausible* that Warren gets a big enough share of support from her faction to get plurality victories in the early primaries, and then goes on to consolidate support from there.  I mean, it's so early that who can say, but that's why I'd tentatively count her as the frontrunner.

[Figueira]

Booker, and I'm undecided on whether or not that's a good thing.

[JA]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

[Figueira]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

[JA]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

[Figueira]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

[JA]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

I'm not an ideological purist. I'm certainly willing to compromise on many issues. However, being so aligned with Wall Street and corporate interests is not one of them. If that means a second Trump term, as absolutely horrible as that is, then so be it.

[Hindsight was 2020]

For those looking for entertainment, here's our January 2013 poll on who would win the 2016 GOP nomination:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168343.0

By that logic Cuomo will be the nom

[Figueira]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

I'm not an ideological purist. I'm certainly willing to compromise on many issues. However, being so aligned with Wall Street and corporate interests is not one of them. If that means a second Trump term, as absolutely horrible as that is, then so be it.

But isn't Trump also aligned with corporate interests? Look at his cabinet. Booker is vastly preferable to Trump on other issues, even if he's terrible on economics.

[JA]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

I'm not an ideological purist. I'm certainly willing to compromise on many issues. However, being so aligned with Wall Street and corporate interests is not one of them. If that means a second Trump term, as absolutely horrible as that is, then so be it.

But isn't Trump also aligned with corporate interests? Look at his cabinet. Booker is vastly preferable to Trump on other issues, even if he's terrible on economics.

I'm not suggesting that Booker is equal to or worse than Trump, nor am I saying that I disagree with him on all or perhaps even most issues. What I am saying is that, regardless of the outcome, I won't again vote for a candidate closely aligned with Wall Street and corporate interests - period.

[Figueira]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

I'm not an ideological purist. I'm certainly willing to compromise on many issues. However, being so aligned with Wall Street and corporate interests is not one of them. If that means a second Trump term, as absolutely horrible as that is, then so be it.

But isn't Trump also aligned with corporate interests? Look at his cabinet. Booker is vastly preferable to Trump on other issues, even if he's terrible on economics.

I'm not suggesting that Booker is equal to or worse than Trump, nor am I saying that I disagree with him on all or perhaps even most issues. What I am saying is that, regardless of the outcome, I won't again vote for a candidate closely aligned with Wall Street and corporate interests - period.

But if the only two possiblilities are Booker and Trump, then the only way to prevent a second Trump term is by voting for Booker.

[Chief Justice Keef]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

But that's what the message was from Democrats in 2016, and look where that got them.

Honestly, out of that list, I'd see Biden, Warren or Sanders being the top competitors, though they are quite a bit old.

[Figueira]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

But that's what the message was from Democrats in 2016, and look where that got them.

Honestly, out of that list, I'd see Biden, Warren or Sanders being the top competitors, though they are quite a bit old.

I'm not saying that that should be the message of the Democratic Party. It absolutely should not. It's simply my message to Jacobin American.

[Mr. Morden]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

But that's what the message was from Democrats in 2016, and look where that got them.

But he's asking about a hypothetical in which Booker has already won the nomination.  If Booker and Trump are the respective nominees, and you agree with Booker on many more issues than Trump, then why not vote for Booker?

[Figueira]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

But that's what the message was from Democrats in 2016, and look where that got them.

But he's asking about a hypothetical in which Booker has already won the nomination.  If Booker and Trump are the respective nominees, and you agree with Booker on many more issues than Trump, then why not vote for Booker?

Because apparently there's a limit to the number of "corporate Democrats" that one can vote for in one's lifetime.

[JA]

At this point, the two most likely potential candidates to become the nominee are Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren. If it's booker, or another corporate Democrat, I can't say I'll vote for them, despite my strong party loyalty and disdain for Trump.

I totally get why Booker is bad, but why is he so bad that you'd let Trump win over him?

I already voted for one disappointing Democrat, why should I vote for another one? Perhaps if the party realizes corporate candidates will depress turnout among the party's base, they'll stop nominating them.

I think stopping Trump is a bigger priority than the ideological purity of the replacement.

But that's what the message was from Democrats in 2016, and look where that got them.

But he's asking about a hypothetical in which Booker has already won the nomination.  If Booker and Trump are the respective nominees, and you agree with Booker on many more issues than Trump, then why not vote for Booker?

Because apparently there's a limit to the number of "corporate Democrats" that one can vote for in one's lifetime.

Yes, there is a limit. Even 1 exceeds it.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Unclear. There is no real uniting force in the party, other than Barack Obama.

Dems would do well to follow his lead.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Biden.

He's the candidate most folks would want to run with, all things considered.