Outside of Sanders and (possibly) Biden, do we have a weak 2020 lineup?

[Higgins]

Honestly, I am praying Sanders or Biden enter the fray in 2020. I've watched videos of speeches and statements by the other potential candidates, and honestly, it looks like the weakest field of backbenchers since maybe 1988, 2004 if I am being generous. I don't see a single winner among the lot outside of Biden or Sanders. Every one of them seems to have some major hindrance that would easily be exploited to death by Trump.

Anyone else feel that our field in 2020 does not look strong?

[Jeppe]

I think Harris, Gillibrand and Klobuchar are all strong contendors. Besides them, none of the other candidates seem particularly enthusing.

Booker has a lot of baggage, Brown is struggling to hold his seat in a Trump midterm, Kander is too inexperienced, and Bullock and Tester are too conservative for a national Democratic electorate.

But I think those 3 would all do fine against Trump in 2020 and would be favoured from the get go. Biden, Sanders, and to a lesser extent, Warren are all too old to feasibly be a legitimate candidate in 2020.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Warren is either the strongest or most polarizing candidate the Dems could have.

Bullock could potentially be strong, but he could end up as a Bill Richardson type. Harris and Gillibrand are strong on paper, but all Trump needs to do is connect them to Hillary and they're pretty much done. Booker is too establishment. Cuomo is too corporate. O'Malley is boring. Gabbard would be pretty electrifying in the general.

[Possiblymaybe]

I think Harris, Gillibrand and Klobuchar are all strong contendors. Besides them, none of the other candidates seem particularly enthusing.

Booker has a lot of baggage, Brown is struggling to hold his seat in a Trump midterm, Kander is too inexperienced, and Bullock and Tester are too conservative for a national Democratic electorate.

But I think those 3 would all do fine against Trump in 2020 and would be favoured from the get go. Biden, Sanders, and to a lesser extent, Warren are all too old to feasibly be a legitimate candidate in 2020.

Warren?

[TheSaint250]

No you don't. All of the candidates are pretty strong. Harris, Booker, and Warren could all do pretty well. Unless the nominee is Martin O'Malley I think it'll be competitive

[Higgins]

No you don't. All of the candidates are pretty strong. Harris, Booker, and Warren could all do pretty well. Unless the nominee is Martin O'Malley I think it'll be competitive

I can't see Booker or Harris being nominated.
Warren could be nominated, but I think she would be easily painted as "Clinton clone" simply for being a woman and would lose. I think that while Hillary was a horrible candidate, we should not underestimate sexism in our society. Hillary's loss is not something I'm blaming on anyone else but her, but I do feel she would've had a (slightly) easier time of it if she were a man.

[Mr. Smith]

2016 was a weak GOP line-up, look what happened.

1972 was a strong line-up, look what happened.

1988 was a strong line-up too (besides Dukakis and Jackson anyway), look what happened.

In short: Wait and see. And if Trump manages to stay where he is, then it'd take some kind of anti Hail-Mary for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory even with someone like Kerry or Dukakis or 2000-era Gore anyway.

[Higgins]

2016 was a weak GOP line-up, look what happened.

1972 was a strong line-up, look what happened.

1988 was a strong line-up too (besides Dukakis and Jackson anyway), look what happened.

In short: Wait and see. And if Trump manages to stay where he is, then it'd take some kind of anti Hail-Mary for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory even with someone like Kerry or Dukakis or 2000-era Gore anyway.

I'm a cynic. I see Trump as a nigh-unstoppable force. I have relatives who are hardcore Trumpists, and Trump can literally do no wrong. These aren't outwardly racist Klan type people, mind you. But Trump to them is how FDR was to a lot of people in the 1930s - viewed as akin to a savior. I've seen (non-ironic) comments saying Trump is the best President we've ever had.

The fact that a lesbian married couple I know in PA are hardcore Trumpists doesn't really help my faith any. Even people who would be out of step with GOP values - like a 26 year old former Heroin addict I know who is into partying hard with hard drugs even now - loves Trump. These aren't the kind of people you'd have seen rallying around GW Bush.

[Beet]

2016 was a weak GOP line-up, look what happened.

1972 was a strong line-up, look what happened.

1988 was a strong line-up too (besides Dukakis and Jackson anyway), look what happened.

In short: Wait and see. And if Trump manages to stay where he is, then it'd take some kind of anti Hail-Mary for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory even with someone like Kerry or Dukakis or 2000-era Gore anyway.

I'm a cynic. I see Trump as a nigh-unstoppable force. I have relatives who are hardcore Trumpists, and Trump can literally do no wrong. These aren't outwardly racist Klan type people, mind you. But Trump to them is how FDR was to a lot of people in the 1930s - viewed as akin to a savior. I've seen (non-ironic) comments saying Trump is the best President we've ever had.

The fact that a lesbian married couple I know in PA are hardcore Trumpists doesn't really help my faith any. Even people who would be out of step with GOP values - like a 26 year old former Heroin addict I know who is into partying hard with hard drugs even now - loves Trump. These aren't the kind of people you'd have seen rallying around GW Bush.

Why do these people love Trump so much?

[Higgins]

2016 was a weak GOP line-up, look what happened.

1972 was a strong line-up, look what happened.

1988 was a strong line-up too (besides Dukakis and Jackson anyway), look what happened.

In short: Wait and see. And if Trump manages to stay where he is, then it'd take some kind of anti Hail-Mary for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory even with someone like Kerry or Dukakis or 2000-era Gore anyway.

I'm a cynic. I see Trump as a nigh-unstoppable force. I have relatives who are hardcore Trumpists, and Trump can literally do no wrong. These aren't outwardly racist Klan type people, mind you. But Trump to them is how FDR was to a lot of people in the 1930s - viewed as akin to a savior. I've seen (non-ironic) comments saying Trump is the best President we've ever had.

The fact that a lesbian married couple I know in PA are hardcore Trumpists doesn't really help my faith any. Even people who would be out of step with GOP values - like a 26 year old former Heroin addict I know who is into partying hard with hard drugs even now - loves Trump. These aren't the kind of people you'd have seen rallying around GW Bush.

Why do these people love Trump so much?

Lesbian couple: Because he's not a politician so he's not corrupt.
Former addict/party girl: https://www.facebook.com/An0malyMusic/videos/1617404181603525/?hc_ref=ARTUkjvnv3jX83R70N6SiWceY7Wq7viUBAZSCR0XSwPRnlNK_zXlxJMcG5gAEbPhhUw&pnref=story.unseen-section

That's a video she reposted.

My parents (age 63) support him because he's a "businessman and that's what we need "he's not a politician so he doesn't belong to anyone" those sorts of answers. If I bring up something he's done wrong, I'll get a "whataboutHillary" type answer.

[PragmaticPopulist]

2016 was a weak GOP line-up, look what happened.

1972 was a strong line-up, look what happened.

1988 was a strong line-up too (besides Dukakis and Jackson anyway), look what happened.

In short: Wait and see. And if Trump manages to stay where he is, then it'd take some kind of anti Hail-Mary for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory even with someone like Kerry or Dukakis or 2000-era Gore anyway.

I'm a cynic. I see Trump as a nigh-unstoppable force. I have relatives who are hardcore Trumpists, and Trump can literally do no wrong. These aren't outwardly racist Klan type people, mind you. But Trump to them is how FDR was to a lot of people in the 1930s - viewed as akin to a savior. I've seen (non-ironic) comments saying Trump is the best President we've ever had.

The fact that a lesbian married couple I know in PA are hardcore Trumpists doesn't really help my faith any. Even people who would be out of step with GOP values - like a 26 year old former Heroin addict I know who is into partying hard with hard drugs even now - loves Trump. These aren't the kind of people you'd have seen rallying around GW Bush.

Why do these people love Trump so much?

Lesbian couple: Because he's not a politician so he's not corrupt.
Former addict/party girl: https://www.facebook.com/An0malyMusic/videos/1617404181603525/?hc_ref=ARTUkjvnv3jX83R70N6SiWceY7Wq7viUBAZSCR0XSwPRnlNK_zXlxJMcG5gAEbPhhUw&pnref=story.unseen-section

That's a video she reposted.

This is probably the unreachable type who will just see what they want to see and ignore everything else. I've heard a good number of people who voted for Trump say they only did it because Hillary Clinton was too unacceptable.

Of course, this doesn't mean Trump is DOA in 2020. He was underestimated for an entire election cycle and look what happened. Like was said earlier in the thread, a good bench =/= wins, though the Dem bench seems fairly strong right now. Most of the most commonly thrown around names I think will be too old to be serious contenders, or too inexperienced. Besides, the Democrats need some fresh faces who don't have universal name recognition right now. The 3 strongest potential contenders I hear are Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and Bullock. Klobuchar has history of getting a lot of crossover votes (see her latest reelection results) and could excite the more progressive base. Gillibrand is in a similar boat, but might rely more on the progressive wing. Bullock would have the advantage of not coming from Washington, and has a remarkably progressive record for being from Montana, but has a mixed record on gun control and renewable energy that might turn off progressive purists.

[Beet]

I think the general idea is that people like Trump because he's not a politician, he's an outsider, and he's authentic. None of the 2020 Democratic contenders meet that bar. For one, they are all politicians. Only the most horrible ones (Gabbard, who gives off an anti-establishment vibe) or Zuckerberg (who isn't a politician) break that mold. But no one actually good does. And not a single one of them is authentic. It seems pessimism continues to be justified.

[Possiblymaybe]

Warren is either the strongest or most polarizing candidate the Dems could have.

Bullock could potentially be strong, but he could end up as a Bill Richardson type. Harris and Gillibrand are strong on paper, but all Trump needs to do is connect them to Hillary and they're pretty much done. Booker is too establishment. Cuomo is too corporate. O'Malley is boring. Gabbard would be pretty electrifying in the general.

I think the sweet spot is something like 1/3rd Bill Clinton 2/3rds Sanders.  They need to stop emphasizing social issues other than gay rights ASAP.  Bullock and Gabbard seem like the best bets to pull this off.  Warren is a possibility, but I can't emphasize enough that she is uniquely vulnerable to Trump's rhetoric because of the fake Indian controversy.  I wouldn't discount some millennial Dem elected statewide in 2018 as a dark horse, though.

Gabbard has a lot of baggage. Assad, Bannon arranged trump meeting. Her views on Islam, and her past anti LGBT comments. She's sort of socially conservative so I think there's a fairly large group of democrats she wouldnt appeal to in the primaries.

[GGover]

I think the 2020 lineup is really strong, I just don't particularly like any of the candidates other than Sanders and Biden. I don't like Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Warren, or Booker, but if I had to choose it would certainly be between Klobuchar and Gillibrand. I don't have any major policy disagreements with them, I just dislike them.

My personal opinions aside, I think all of them but Warren, Harris, and possibly Gillibrand would be strong GE candidates who could beat Trump. I only included Gillibrand as a weak candidate because I think it would be easy for Republicans to connect her to Clinton than any other candidate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

"Outside of Sanders"...?

Sanders is weak, weak, weak too.

[Mr. Smith]

"Outside of Sanders"...?

Sanders is weak, weak, weak too.

You wish.

[Higgins]

"Outside of Sanders"...?

Sanders is weak, weak, weak too.

Weak nationally? I utterly agree. He could never win a general election on his own.

Within the party, as a figure who holds immense power at rallying the progressive wing to support a nominee, and potentially make or break that nominee's candidacy in the general election? Immensely powerful.

People are underestimating the power of the 'Bernie Bros'. They are our Tea Party, and Bernie is our Trump. He's the 21st century William Jennings Bryan. He'd never win an election but he's basically begun a realignment of the party.

[Mr. Smith]

"Outside of Sanders"...?

Sanders is weak, weak, weak too.

Weak nationally? I utterly agree. He could never win a general election on his own.

Within the party, as a figure who holds immense power at rallying the progressive wing to support a nominee, and potentially make or break that nominee's candidacy in the general election? Immensely powerful.

People are underestimating the power of the 'Bernie Bros'. They are our Tea Party, and Bernie is our Trump. He's the 21st century William Jennings Bryan. He'd never win an election but he's basically begun a realignment of the party.

Oh, he totally would now, if weren't so old.

Never forget that this was said of Reagan after he lost to Ford, who lost to Carter (who btw, also dark horsed past 15+ establishment candidates and won Wisconsin out of nowhere) , take a guess what happened when this Carter person, ya' know, couldn't get Congress to work with him.

[Rookie Yinzer]

"Outside of Sanders"...?

Sanders is weak, weak, weak too.

[History505]

No, I am thinking the 2020 Democratic field will have some decent and strong candidates.

[Progressive]

Depends on who runs, if it's:

(Sanders and/or Biden) + a field like Cuomo, O'Malley, McAuliffe, it seems like a relatively weak field.

But I think there's a lot of talent in both Sanders and Biden, and of course, in addition to the people above: Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Bullock, (Tim) Ryan, John Bel Edwards, Booker, Warren, Franken, Murphy, etc. that could be a very talented field.

Remember that in 2012 the GOP lineup was only weak because a weak slate of candidates ran. There was talent in people like Christie and Mitch Daniels (and others) who declined to run. Similarly, in 2016, the GOP's "talented lineup," someone with as little talent as Trump won.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I wouldn't say Kamala Harris is weak...

[Lord Admirale]

Sanders is strong? What?

[BuckeyeNut]

Including Sanders and Biden, it's still weak.

I voted for Clinton in the primary, and in hindsight, would have voted for Sanders, but both he and Biden -- who I wanted to run more than anything last cycle -- are too old. They would need to announce with young and qualified VP candidates in mind.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Doesn't matter.

Everyone in 2015 was talking about how strong the Republican lineup was (Walker! Kasich! Rubio!) and Trump humiliated them all. You can only tell the quality of a candidate once they are put in front of the public.