Under-the-Radar Candidates

[jmsstnyng]

Which candidates, who are currently low-key, could mount a serious run?

For example, I have noticed that Tammy Duckworth has managd to stay out of much presidential discussion with a quiet tenure so far (that could simply reflect an actual lack of presidential aspiration, or she could be waiting to make moves after the '18 elections).

Anyway, that is just one example of someone who is not being discussed much who could make a strong run if she is productive in the senate.

 

[Mr. Morden]

Duckworth isn't being talked about because she isn't doing anything to indicate interest.  If Jason Kander wasn't doing things to try to raise his profile, including things that strongly hint at presidential ambition like trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, then no one would be talking about him either.  There are a couple of folks like Sherrod Brown who keep managing to make it onto lists of potential candidates despite not really doing anything to indicate interest, but for the most part the people getting talked about are people who are deliberately injecting themselves into the 2020 presidential conversation.

So when you ask about who is currently "low key" yet might end up being a strong candidate, I read that as "Who currently doesn't seem to be interested, yet might change their minds, and if they do run would have a decent shot at the nomination?"

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Jason Kander wasn't doing things to try to raise his profile, including things that strongly hint at presidential ambition like trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, then no one would be talking about him either. 

Yeah, the guy is just a former state SoS who lost a race he was considered by many to have in a bag. There's no way he can try seriously in 2020.

[Dr. Arch]

Joe Kennedy III

[Mr. Morden]

I do actually think Feingold is an interesting possibility.  I know people say it can't happen because of his loss in the Senate race, but Santorum got obliterated in his reelection bid in 2006, yet came in second place in the 2012 GOP primaries.  Heck, Gingrich came in third that year (at least in the popular vote), despite having been out of office for 14 years and having resigned in disgrace from his last political office.  In both cases, their past electoral failures were barely even brought up.  The voters didn't care.  I don't think many voters care about such things.

It's probably a bigger deal if you're aiming to run an "establishment" campaign, because party elites will be reluctant to back you if you haven't demonstrated electoral success, but if you're running as an "insurgent", then I don't think it really matters.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

If Jason Kander wasn't doing things to try to raise his profile, including things that strongly hint at presidential ambition like trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, then no one would be talking about him either. 

Yeah, the guy is just a former state SoS who lost a race he was considered by many to have in a bag. There's no way he can try seriously in 2020.

Lolwut. When was MO ever considered to be "in the bag" for the DSCC? Kander took a race that was on nobody's radar, and with a stellar campaign made it an actual horse-race.  And then he ended up running ahead of Clinton by 16 points, only losing by less than 3 points. He'd be a Senator right now if not for how unpopular HRC was in Missouri.

[Possiblymaybe]

Probably someone like Mitch Landrieu or Chris Murphy. 

[mcmikk]

I do actually think Feingold is an interesting possibility.  I know people say it can't happen because of his loss in the Senate race, but Santorum got obliterated in his reelection bid in 2006, yet came in second place in the 2012 GOP primaries.  Heck, Gingrich came in third that year (at least in the popular vote), despite having been out of office for 14 years and having resigned in disgrace from his last political office.  In both cases, their past electoral failures were barely even brought up.  The voters didn't care.  I don't think many voters care about such things.

It's probably a bigger deal if you're aiming to run an "establishment" campaign, because party elites will be reluctant to back you if you haven't demonstrated electoral success, but if you're running as an "insurgent", then I don't think it really matters.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

I expect NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio to be making a run, to preempt both Cuomo and Hillary.  And, perhaps, as a fallback plan if Warren and Sanders don't run.

[Rjjr77]

Tons of people could make strong runs, none will be serious contenders. The way the Democrats work is too much solidarity among the donor community, theres just no enough cash to spread around.

[Mr. Morden]

Tons of people could make strong runs, none will be serious contenders. The way the Democrats work is too much solidarity among the donor community, theres just no enough cash to spread around.

Isn't that what people used to say about the Republicans?  That they always anointed a single person as their establishment champion?  That seriously broke down in 2008, when consensus on who the establishment frontrunner should be didn't materialize early on, and then this broke down further in 2016.

[Rjjr77]

Tons of people could make strong runs, none will be serious contenders. The way the Democrats work is too much solidarity among the donor community, theres just no enough cash to spread around.

Isn't that what people used to say about the Republicans?  That they always anointed a single person as their establishment champion?  That seriously broke down in 2008, when consensus on who the establishment frontrunner should be didn't materialize early on, and then this broke down further in 2016.

No, I dont think thats the case about the GOP. The GOP has been a "next in line" party but thats more the voters than the donors, we've seen plenty of real candidacy challenges among republicans with major funding.

Democrats tend to have less of the "sugar daddy" (no better way to put it) effect of a single or handful of major donors backing a lesser candidate. What you see often is democrat donors tend to get in groups behind two, maybe three candidates. When we see an out of the blue candidate they are often backed but hundreds of small donors (bernie and howard dean come to mind) or come with a powerful fundraising network behind them (Obama and Bill Clinton). And with the exception of Clinton we havent seen the race fall into anything but a 2 horse race with donors quickly lining up behind one or the other. I also tend to think 92 would have happened quite a bit differently if the primaries had started later as Cuomo or Gore would have gotten in if Bush hadn't been riding the approval rating wave he had. Cuomo probably clears that field pretty quickly with the donors.

I think the best way to put it is this: almost all GOP donors pick a horse early and get in the race right away, which is where we get like 500 candidates funded by only 1 or two people, where as on the dem side only a handful of donors get in early and the rest jump in after Iowa behind one or another candidate.

[Rjjr77]

Tons of people could make strong runs, none will be serious contenders. The way the Democrats work is too much solidarity among the donor community, theres just no enough cash to spread around.

Isn't that what people used to say about the Republicans?  That they always anointed a single person as their establishment champion?  That seriously broke down in 2008, when consensus on who the establishment frontrunner should be didn't materialize early on, and then this broke down further in 2016.

And given the kind of campaign a Socialist septuagenarian no name reconition Jewish candidate from a tiny rural state ran last year, I think almost anything can happen in the 2020 Democratic primaries. I mean Sanders should've done worse than Bill Bradley (who lost every single state) did in 2000 and yet he forced Hillary to clinch the needed amount of delegates all the way to the convention.

Big money donors right now are VERY skeptical of investing in the DNC so 2020 is ripe for an insurgent candidate.

I mean except to most politicos the Sanders/Clinton race was over after Iowa, and I dont think too many donors were scared in the least bit.

[Rjjr77]

Tons of people could make strong runs, none will be serious contenders. The way the Democrats work is too much solidarity among the donor community, theres just no enough cash to spread around.

Isn't that what people used to say about the Republicans?  That they always anointed a single person as their establishment champion?  That seriously broke down in 2008, when consensus on who the establishment frontrunner should be didn't materialize early on, and then this broke down further in 2016.

And given the kind of campaign a Socialist septuagenarian no name reconition Jewish candidate from a tiny rural state ran last year, I think almost anything can happen in the 2020 Democratic primaries. I mean Sanders should've done worse than Bill Bradley (who lost every single state) did in 2000 and yet he forced Hillary to clinch the needed amount of delegates all the way to the convention.

Big money donors right now are VERY skeptical of investing in the DNC so 2020 is ripe for an insurgent candidate.

I mean except to most politicos the Sanders/Clinton race was over after Iowa, and I dont think too many donors were scared in the least bit.

That's not the point though: Sanders basically showed that even a celebrity in the Democratic Party who cleared the entire field early on was vulnerable to an incredibly weak candidate in Sanders.

Plus the DNC has raised half the amount of money the RNC since the election last year. Big money donors are justifiably pissed at the Democrats for their 1 billion fiasco that was the Clinton campaign last year. Not to mention that the Party itself is in the weakest position at the local, state, and federal level since the 1920's. If I were a donor I sure as hell wouldn't invest in such an incompetent Party.

I think theres something to say about that, sure, but investing in the DNC is not the same as investing in a presidential candidate. When we see a Martin O'Malley superpac with actual money in it, we can say theres a donor schism, until then I'll continue to assume they operate the way dem donors always do

[BlueDogDemocrat]

DeBlasio and McAuliffe

[hardin_co_cz]

Steve Bullock's definitely sparked my own interest. His blend of a quasi-Blue Doggish persona combined with Montana-type economic populism could branch out to satisfy a wider swath of Democratic voters than those running under the "Establishment" or "Progressive" labels, not to mention that brand of politics could definitely work in Iowa. That said, white governor compromise candidate w/ little name recognition could also echo O'Malley 2016, so I dunno.

Tim Ryan & Seth Moulton also intriguing.

[Jeppe]

Mazie Hirono could be a strong contender. She's become much more vocal in the Senate since Trump's election, and she's received positive press about her speeches against the Trumpcare bill and opposition to his nominees.

Her age makes her an unlikely candidate, but she said she admired Patsy Mink for running for president against all odds, and encouraged other women to do the same. But then again, she's got good genes that'll likely let her live for a couple more decades, so who knows.

[Kingpoleon]

Bill de Blasio, Ron Wyden, Deval Patrick, Joe Kennedy III, Seth Moulton, and Jonathan Jackson. Jackson's just there because he's a "celebrity" type, with certain appeals no other Democrat seems to have.

[Mike Thick]

Bill de Blasio, Ron Wyden, Deval Patrick, Joe Kennedy III, Seth Moulton, and Jonathan Jackson. Jackson's just there because he's a "celebrity" type, with certain appeals no other Democrat seems to have.

Who?

[AN63093]

Of all those mentioned, I'd say Feingold is probably the only one worth keeping an eye on.  Well, Brown was also mentioned by TT.. but is Brown really "under the radar?"

On a separate note, I think Rjjr77 is making a really interesting point about the dynamic of Dem races in comparison to GOP ones.  We'll see if that dynamic proves to be true in 2020, but it's certainly an interesting observation.  If it proves to be true, then there are really only a handful of candidates that have a decent shot, and it also means the chances of a Dem "clown car" (a la the GOP in 2012) are not all that high.

[Sir Mohamed]

Under the radar candidates with at least a modest chance:

Republicans (in either scenario): Brian Sandoval, Rick Scott, Kris Kobach, Greg Gianforte, Rob Portman and Joni Ernst

Democrats: Michael Bennet, David Ige, Jay Inslee, Jay Nixon, Susan Rice, Kate Brown, Maggie Hassan (TN Vol would like it)

[MT Treasurer]

Tammy Baldwin (especially if the 2018 results confirm what I suspect will happen next year), maybe also Oprah Winfrey (yeah I know she ruled it out) or some other celebrity.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I really do think that Moulton could make some noise in the primaries, and those around him seem to think he's looking to run at some point. I certainly think he would lose against higher-profile candidates; if anyone with the name recognition of Warren or Biden, or even just anyone who has already distinguished themselves in the national scene a little bit like Harris, runs, he stands little to no chance. That being said, I do think he could have some success (I don't know, maybe Edwards 2008 numbers in a couple states if he's lucky?), maybe enough to prop himself up for another run later on or something.

I think Baldwin could be a solid candidate too (I personally would like her very much) but she doesn't really seem the firebrand type, and I would think many Democrats would be looking for a firebrand-esque candidate to take on Trump. I think her chances of gaining a lot of traction would be limited in a very crowded field, considering she hasn't really made enough noise in the Senate to have significant national name recognition. In a less crowded field though, especially if she somehow ends up as the most liberal candidate in the group (I mean, Warren is really the only top-tier candidate noticeably more progressive than her, and Harris and Brown are the only two high-profile candidates I can think of that are about as progressive as she is), she could win over a majority of Sanders supporters while picking up some of the more liberal Clinton 2016 voters to be competitive. I'm not sure about her odds in the general, but I do believe she would be a fantastic candidate to unite the Democratic base, as I think she would be much more well received by the moderate faction of the party than Sanders was while being more well received by the liberal faction of the party than Clinton was.

I think Feingold is a really interesting prospect as well. He definitely fits the "under-the-radar" description, and I think he would be popular in the Midwest and likable from both sides of the party just like I think Baldwin would, should he win the nomination. I think Feingold would probably do better in the primaries than Baldwin though, as Bernie supporters I think would flock to him more than they would to her.

[Senator Cris]

What about Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico?

[Figueira]

Catherine Cortez Masto and Brian Schatz. I also agree that Duckworth is underrated.

Regarding Kander, I think what made his near-win impressive was not how well he did, but how badly Clinton did in Missouri.