Sherrod Brown, Julian Castro, Kristen Gillibrand

[SCNCmod]

In one of the polls I posted recently on here regarding 2020 candidates, the 3 candidates that seemed to be the least divisive between the various factions of the Dems... were:

Sherrod Brown, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand.

These 3 have a wide mix of demographics, experience, political skills, etc.  So my question is- In each of the pairing, who is best as President & as VP (based on gut feeling, balance, campaign style, experience, or anything else that comes to your mind)..

I will just list the two names in Alphabetical order... you respond by listing the pairings as (Pres)/(VP).

1) Brown & Castro

2) Casto & Gillibrand

3) Brown & Gillibrand

[Shadows]

Castro is a little boy with no quality, he is never going to be the President.

Gillibrand is an average candidate as of now & surely nowhere near ready for 2020. Maybe in 2024 she will be ready but she has to develop big league.

Brown from Ohio as a progressive does have a chance in the future but I am not sure if he has the charisma and he is facing a tough election in 2018.

I don't think any of these people can win the primary, being considered least evil doesn't count for anything, you have to win stuff which is why Booker is the best establishment candidate !

[America Needs R'hllor]

Best to worst:

1. Brown and Gillibrand
2. Brown and Castro
3. Gillibrand and Brown
4. Castro and Brown
5. Gillibrand and Castro
6. Castro and Gillibrand

[Hindsight was 2020]

Castro and Brown would be a good pairing

[Kingpoleon]

1. Castro/Gillibrand
2. Gillibrand/Castro
3. Castro/Brown
4. Gillibrand/Brown
5. Brown/Castro
6. Brown/Gillibrand

The exact opposite of Wyman/Parrotguy.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Julian Castro for Prez

[Rjjr77]

Julian Castro will never be president.

[MAINEiac4434]

Brown & Gillibrand
Gillibrand & Brown
Brown & Castro
Gillibrand & Castro
Castro & Brown
Castro & Gillibrand

[Blue3]

Kirsten, not Kristen


And she is becoming divisive.


While no one outside of this site and a couple commentators like Castro.

[America Needs R'hllor]

1. Castro/Gillibrand
2. Gillibrand/Castro
3. Castro/Brown
4. Gillibrand/Brown
5. Brown/Castro
6. Brown/Gillibrand

The exact opposite of Wyman/Parrotguy.

While I voted almost solely on electability, it is interesting that here it's the complete opposite, while in other issues (such as the French elections) we're in complete agreement

[Kringla Heimsins]

Castro is a little boy with no quality, he is never going to be the President.

This. And he is simultaneously boring and ugly.

As for me, I would pick Brown/Gillibrand. Sherrod Brown has this goofy grandad vibe that could be a breath of fresh air after Trump. Exemples: https://twitter.com/ConnieSchultz/status/536553099318800385, https://twitter.com/ConnieSchultz/status/227025045690646528.
Overall, his wife's twitter account is a goldmine of feel-good family bliss. He could really get that narrative going.

Personally, I love Sherrod Brown, but he isn't that charismatic and I'm not sure he's ambitious or even self-confident enough to mount a presidential run. In my opinion though, only Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren and himself could carry on the legacy of Sanders' 2016 historic campaign.

Kirsten Gillibrand could be a good running mate. She's young and her focus on women's rights would be a great symbol against Trump if he is seeking reelection.

[Kingpoleon]

1. Castro/Gillibrand
2. Gillibrand/Castro
3. Castro/Brown
4. Gillibrand/Brown
5. Brown/Castro
6. Brown/Gillibrand

The exact opposite of Wyman/Parrotguy.

While I voted almost solely on electability, it is interesting that here it's the complete opposite, while in other issues (such as the French elections) we're in complete agreement

Well, we simply both recognize Macron's exceptional talent and intelligence. It is rather bothersome to me that the "populist left" of Antonio V, Intell, and others have decided to brand it as destructive neoliberalism.

[SCNCmod]

Castro is a little boy with no quality, he is never going to be the President.

Gillibrand is an average candidate as of now & surely nowhere near ready for 2020. Maybe in 2024 she will be ready but she has to develop big league.

Brown from Ohio as a progressive does have a chance in the future but I am not sure if he has the charisma and he is facing a tough election in 2018.

I don't think any of these people can win the primary, being considered least evil doesn't count for anything, you have to win stuff which is why Booker is the best establishment candidate !

I like booker also... but I wonder how divisive he will be in a primary... he has some rehabilitation to do (which he started this morning on CNN).

Regarding Pairing, I think the strongest would be:
1. Castro/ Brown
2. Brown/ Castro
3. Castro/ Gillibrand
4. Gillibrand/ Castro

[Ridge]

Gillibrand might pick Castro for a running mate to make a play at Florida and Texas but it'd be a total throwaway and the incumbency would win in a landslide.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Brown and Gillibrand, in that order, is the best pairing.  It's one of the more credible pairings I can think of, short of a ticket with Biden and/or Sanders on it.   

The caliber of Democratic contenders is getting near that of the 1988 "Seven Dwarfs".  They weren't a bad lot, but they reflected the thin bench of Presidential hopefuls the Democrats had at that time.  And it would have been even worse in 1992; they had Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown, guys who were has-beens giving Bill Clinton a real run for it for a while.  None of the current Democratic contenders have the aura of being Ready On Day One except, really, for Biden.  Being ready right away is key for any Democrat to succeed in 2020 because buyers remorse for electing someone with NO government experience has GOT to be an effective theme if Trump is to go.  That is why I don't believe that the Cory Bookers, Kamala Harrises, Julian Castros, and a number of others named here have a realistic shot barring the mother of all economic turndowns.

[Beet]

Brown and Gillibrand, in that order, is the best pairing.  It's one of the more credible pairings I can think of, short of a ticket with Biden and/or Sanders on it.   

The caliber of Democratic contenders is getting near that of the 1988 "Seven Dwarfs".  They weren't a bad lot, but they reflected the thin bench of Presidential hopefuls the Democrats had at that time.  And it would have been even worse in 1992; they had Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown, guys who were has-beens giving Bill Clinton a real run for it for a while.  None of the current Democratic contenders have the aura of being Ready On Day One except, really, for Biden.  Being ready right away is key for any Democrat to succeed in 2020 because buyers remorse for electing someone with NO government experience has GOT to be an effective theme if Trump is to go.  That is why I don't believe that the Cory Bookers, Kamala Harrises, Julian Castros, and a number of others named here have a realistic shot barring the mother of all economic turndowns.

Since when have Americans ever elected a candidate based on experience? This is what Hillary Clinton campaigned on in both '08 and '16, and it didn't work because people cared about issues. Usually if they are throwing out an incumbent, they want a charismatic outsider.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Gillibrand for Prez, and Brown for VP