Atlas Forum

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => 2020 U.S. Presidential Election => Topic started by: masterofawesome on November 09, 2018, 11:56:59 am



Title: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: masterofawesome on November 09, 2018, 11:56:59 am
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/top-democratic-presidential-candidates-ranked/?utm_term=.a51e24da9acc


The Washington Post has just released a list of the top 15 candidates for 2020
15. John Delaney
14. Michael Avenatti
13. Deval Patrick
12. Hillary Clinton
11. Amy Klobuchar
10. Terry McAuliffe
9. Michael Bloomberg
8. Beto O'Rourke
7. Sherrod Brown
6. Kirsten Gillbrand
5. Cory Booker
4. Joe Biden
3. Kamala Harris
2. Bernie Sanders
1. Elizabeth Warren


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: All States will be D on November 09, 2018, 12:31:59 pm
yeah plz nominate warren the person who lost a county in MASS against a joke tier candidate with a joke tier 3rd party candidate on the ballot too.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Comrade Funk on November 09, 2018, 12:42:18 pm
Garbage list


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Special K on November 09, 2018, 01:09:41 pm
Elizabeth Warren is a sure way to lose the presidency and probably Congress again.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Politician on November 09, 2018, 01:15:53 pm
Delaney? Avenatti? Patrick? Hillary? McAuliffe? Bloomberg? LOL.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Technocracy Timmy on November 09, 2018, 01:16:13 pm
Elizabeth Warren is a sure way to lose the presidency and probably Congress again.

Barely breaking 60% in white college educated RSISTANCE land in a D+7 environment against a nobody Republican is really bad. And the whole Native American DNA thing and Pocahontas label is justifiably hilarious.

She would be an awful candidate, yes.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: CherokeeDem on November 09, 2018, 01:19:00 pm
Any list that puts HRC higher than Bullock, Garcetti, O'Malley, Castro, and Swalwell while only one behind Klobucher is a joke list. Even if you hate all of those  are infinitely more likely to win the nomination than Clinton. This list purley exists so idiots like us will talk about it and be mad. Guilty as charged.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Lakigigar on November 09, 2018, 01:20:21 pm
I don't want anyone from 9 to 15 (although i don't know McAuliffe and Patrick enough, and Klobuchar isn't "terrible", but not great either). Warren has no chance. I don't want Booker and Biden either (although Booker is in favour of legalizing weed, which is a big pro to me). I have my doubts over Gillibrand and Brown too. Is Brown really a progressive? To me, it's clear. Sanders and O'Rourke are the best candidates. Harris is okay too, but i'll need a guarantee that she's progressive enough, and doesn't flip flop all the time on issues, and she'll have to explain her controversy about Mnuchin.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: JG on November 09, 2018, 02:39:16 pm
I don't want anyone from 9 to 15 (although i don't know McAuliffe and Patrick enough, and Klobuchar isn't "terrible", but not great either). Warren has no chance. I don't want Booker and Biden either (although Booker is in favour of legalizing weed, which is a big pro to me). I have my doubts over Gillibrand and Brown too. Is Brown really a progressive? To me, it's clear. Sanders and O'Rourke are the best candidates. Harris is okay too, but i'll need a guarantee that she's progressive enough, and doesn't flip flop all the time on issues, and she'll have to explain her controversy about Mnuchin.

Are you really doubting Brown's progressive bonafides while supporting O'Rourke who was a member of the New Democrats caucus?


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Shadows on November 09, 2018, 02:59:16 pm
I don't want anyone from 9 to 15 (although i don't know McAuliffe and Patrick enough, and Klobuchar isn't "terrible", but not great either). Warren has no chance. I don't want Booker and Biden either (although Booker is in favour of legalizing weed, which is a big pro to me). I have my doubts over Gillibrand and Brown too. Is Brown really a progressive? To me, it's clear. Sanders and O'Rourke are the best candidates. Harris is okay too, but i'll need a guarantee that she's progressive enough, and doesn't flip flop all the time on issues, and she'll have to explain her controversy about Mnuchin.

Are you really doubting Brown's progressive bonafides while supporting O'Rourke who was a member of the New Democrats caucus?

O'Rourke today is probably the most far-left candidate out there. Running of Medicare-for-all, abolishing ICE, No PAC money along with positions like impeaching Trump. In 2018, O'Rourke is to the left of Sanders & Warren & Brown !

That said a losing Senate candidate has no chance. In a 100 years, a House Member to President has not happened !


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Chinggis on November 09, 2018, 03:10:01 pm
I don't want anyone from 9 to 15 (although i don't know McAuliffe and Patrick enough, and Klobuchar isn't "terrible", but not great either). Warren has no chance. I don't want Booker and Biden either (although Booker is in favour of legalizing weed, which is a big pro to me). I have my doubts over Gillibrand and Brown too. Is Brown really a progressive? To me, it's clear. Sanders and O'Rourke are the best candidates. Harris is okay too, but i'll need a guarantee that she's progressive enough, and doesn't flip flop all the time on issues, and she'll have to explain her controversy about Mnuchin.

Are you really doubting Brown's progressive bonafides while supporting O'Rourke who was a member of the New Democrats caucus?

O'Rourke today is probably the most far-left candidate out there. Running of Medicare-for-all, abolishing ICE, No PAC money along with positions like impeaching Trump. In 2018, O'Rourke is to the left of Sanders & Warren & Brown !

That said a losing Senate candidate has no chance. In a 100 years, a House Member to President has not happened !

He got 48% in TEXAS running on that platform. As for historical precedents, President Trump says hello.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Former Kentuckian on November 09, 2018, 03:17:36 pm
I know I'm the board's resident Amy Klobuchar hack, but how on Earth is she behind McAuliffe and Bloomberg?


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: RaphaelDLG on November 09, 2018, 04:52:59 pm
I know I'm the board's resident Amy Klobuchar hack, but how on Earth is she behind McAuliffe and Bloomberg?

Because the list was written by a moron who writes for WaPo


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Former Senator Zaybay on November 09, 2018, 04:57:49 pm
Warren is almost a perfect replica of Kennedy, not John, Ted. A Liberal Lion in the senate, but not really the best presidential material. The fact that she actually lost a county(seriously, what the f***) just proves it.

I would personally have Sanders, Biden, Harris, Brown(even though he also underpreformed) and Beto on my list.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: shua on November 09, 2018, 05:05:00 pm
Warren is almost a perfect replica of Kennedy, not John, Ted. A Liberal Lion in the senate, but not really the best presidential material. The fact that she actually lost a county(seriously, what the f***) just proves it.

I would personally have Sanders, Biden, Harris, Brown(even though he also underpreformed) and Beto on my list.

Crazy how Warren lost the most Republican county in the state, Plymouth County, to a Republican who represents the 7th Plymouth district.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Former Senator Zaybay on November 09, 2018, 05:10:24 pm
Warren is almost a perfect replica of Kennedy, not John, Ted. A Liberal Lion in the senate, but not really the best presidential material. The fact that she actually lost a county(seriously, what the f***) just proves it.

I would personally have Sanders, Biden, Harris, Brown(even though he also underpreformed) and Beto on my list.

Crazy how Warren lost the most Republican county in the state, Plymouth County, to a Republican who represents the 7th Plymouth district.

Yeah, actually, it is crazy. Democrats, usually, have a range of around 63-67% in the state of MA, with Plymoth and Worcester being the two weakest counties for Dems. Warren completely underpreformed such margins, and instead lost a county. Even when Ted Kennedy faced Romney, one of the weakest performances for Senate Dems in recent history, he still won every county. The only Dem in recent memory to have lost counties in a reelection bid was John Kerry in 1996, and there was a reason for this. He was facing Bill Weld.

Sorry, but this performance is rather embarrassing.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: RaphaelDLG on November 09, 2018, 05:29:36 pm
Warren is almost a perfect replica of Kennedy, not John, Ted. A Liberal Lion in the senate, but not really the best presidential material. The fact that she actually lost a county(seriously, what the f***) just proves it.

I would personally have Sanders, Biden, Harris, Brown(even though he also underpreformed) and Beto on my list.

Crazy how Warren lost the most Republican county in the state, Plymouth County, to a Republican who represents the 7th Plymouth district.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: pbrower2a on November 09, 2018, 06:22:35 pm
I don't want anyone from 9 to 15 (although i don't know McAuliffe and Patrick enough, and Klobuchar isn't "terrible", but not great either). Warren has no chance. I don't want Booker and Biden either (although Booker is in favour of legalizing weed, which is a big pro to me). I have my doubts over Gillibrand and Brown too. Is Brown really a progressive? To me, it's clear. Sanders and O'Rourke are the best candidates. Harris is okay too, but i'll need a guarantee that she's progressive enough, and doesn't flip flop all the time on issues, and she'll have to explain her controversy about Mnuchin.

Are you really doubting Brown's progressive bonafides while supporting O'Rourke who was a member of the New Democrats caucus?

O'Rourke today is probably the most far-left candidate out there. Running of Medicare-for-all, abolishing ICE, No PAC money along with positions like impeaching Trump. In 2018, O'Rourke is to the left of Sanders & Warren & Brown !

That said a losing Senate candidate has no chance. In a 100 years, a House Member to President has not happened !

Gerald Ford had never won a statewide election.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: shua on November 09, 2018, 07:43:03 pm
Warren is almost a perfect replica of Kennedy, not John, Ted. A Liberal Lion in the senate, but not really the best presidential material. The fact that she actually lost a county(seriously, what the f***) just proves it.

I would personally have Sanders, Biden, Harris, Brown(even though he also underpreformed) and Beto on my list.

Crazy how Warren lost the most Republican county in the state, Plymouth County, to a Republican who represents the 7th Plymouth district.

Yeah, actually, it is crazy. Democrats, usually, have a range of around 63-67% in the state of MA, with Plymoth and Worcester being the two weakest counties for Dems. Warren completely underpreformed such margins, and instead lost a county. Even when Ted Kennedy faced Romney, one of the weakest performances for Senate Dems in recent history, he still won every county. The only Dem in recent memory to have lost counties in a reelection bid was John Kerry in 1996, and there was a reason for this. He was facing Bill Weld.

Sorry, but this performance is rather embarrassing.

When was the last time a Democrat has won 63% or more in MA?  John Kerry's Senate race in 2008?
60% is in line with the past two presidential elections.
Admittedly, you'd probably want someone like Klobuchar who can attract a significantly greater percentage in a home state election than presidential candidates.   

As for losing one county by a small amount and making it up somewhere else, it isn't relevant in itself unless that county map says something particular about where Democrats need to be able to win. I don't see how Plymouth fits that description.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Cold War Liberal on November 09, 2018, 08:07:10 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/09/top-democratic-presidential-candidates-ranked/?utm_term=.a51e24da9acc


The Washington Post has just released a list of the top 15 candidates for 2020
15. John Delaney
14. Michael Avenatti
13. Deval Patrick
12. Hillary Clinton
11. Amy Klobuchar
10. Terry McAuliffe
9. Michael Bloomberg
8. Beto O'Rourke
7. Sherrod Brown
6. Kirsten Gillbrand
5. Cory Booker
4. Joe Biden
3. Kamala Harris
2. Bernie Sanders
1. Elizabeth Warren

Sane list:
1. Kamala Harris
2. Beto O'Rourke
3. Joe Biden
4. Bernie Sanders
5. Cory Booker
6. Sherrod Brown
7. Amy Klobuchar
8. Elizabeth Warren
9. Kristen Gillibrand
10. Deval Patrick

Nobody else has much of a chance, and in the end I think the top 3 are the only ones that last past Super Tuesday, possibly just Harris and O'Rourke. We'll see, it's still a year out.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Snipee356 on November 09, 2018, 08:48:10 pm
1. Tammy Baldwin
2. Kamala Harris
3. Sherrod Brown (shouldn't run though)
4. Jeff Merkley
5. Amy Klobuchar
6. Beto O'Rourke
7. Kirsten Gillibrand
8. John Hickenlooper
9. Sheldon Whitehouse (+5 points just from his name)
10. Cory Booker
11. Bernie Sanders
12. Joe Biden
13. Deval Patrick
14. Hillary Clinton
15. Elizabeth Warren


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Celes on November 09, 2018, 08:54:48 pm
1. Kyrsten Sinema
2. Neil Abercrombie
3. Joe Lieberman
4. Christine Gregoire
5. Tulsi Gabbard
6. Bobby Rush
7. Cheri Bustos
8. Mark Zuckerberg
9. Jon Tester
10. Elizabeth Warren
11. Sherrod Brown
12. Andrew Gillum
13. Joe Biden
14. Chris Murphy
15. Beto O'Rourke


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: libertpaulian on November 09, 2018, 08:54:51 pm
Except for Beto and Klobuchar, the rest of the list is complete horsesh**t.

This is why I think Trump is going to get re-elected in 2020.  You guys have one of the thinnest benches I've ever witnessed.  Your current bench is even worse than 2004.  Trump would eat most of these people alive.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow on November 09, 2018, 08:57:42 pm
Delaney? Avenatti? Patrick? Hillary? McAuliffe? Bloomberg? LOL.
Yeah, none of these people are coming close to the nomination.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: beaver2.0 on November 09, 2018, 09:16:55 pm
Avenatti has a serious chance, in my opinion.  More so than Deval Patrick.  Deval Patrick will certainly not be the Democratic nominee.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Snipee356 on November 09, 2018, 09:23:12 pm
1. Kyrsten Sinema
2. Neil Abercrombie
3. Joe Lieberman
4. Christine Gregoire
5. Tulsi Gabbard
6. Bobby Rush
7. Cheri Bustos
8. Mark Zuckerberg
9. Jon Tester
10. Elizabeth Warren
11. Sherrod Brown
12. Andrew Gillum
13. Joe Biden
14. Chris Murphy
15. Beto O'Rourke

This is a joke, right?


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: RaphaelDLG on November 09, 2018, 09:55:25 pm
This is for winning the Democratic primary, not the general election.

Tippy top contenders, in order
Joe Biden - failed over and over again running for President, too conservative, #MeToo, and a gaffe machine, but has enormous name recognition and goodwill with Obama voters and, importantly, Obamaworld connections + media loves him
Bernie Sanders - extreme charisma, name recognition, fundraising ability with individual donors, arguably the current leader of the Democratic party, fits the policy zeitgeist, would face the opposition of the establishment
Elizabeth Warren - only one besides the two above with near universal name recognition, underrated charisma and established ability to fundraise with individual donors, woman and progressive which doubly fits the current zeitgeist, Pocahontas thing is overrated, would have some establishment support but not from a lot of key donors

Should be taken very, very seriously
Beto O'Rourke - people love this guy and he's the exact type of charismatic inspiring personality that would win the Democratic nom.  Fairly progressive.  Documented ability to raise with small donors, but not alienating to the establishment.  Would be knocked for lack of experience and losing by some, but young dem voters wouldn't care.  Starting to get some buzz nationally.
Kamala Harris - won statewide in California several times, would have the support of the establishment without being conservative, young and energetic, think her charisma and personal appeal is a little overrated, but it's better than most of the people below her on this list.  Not as much name rec as the people above her.  Crucially, California is an early state.

Unlikely to win
Cory Booker - charismatic, but also a goofy neoliberal fortune cookie, has fundraising potential, a profile
Sherrod Brown - I don't see him having a ton of establishment support or winning a Democratic primary, but he has his own undeniable brand of charisma
Kirsten Gillibrand - kind of phony/calculating, but not boring, middle of the road politically, large donor fundraising ability, political skills, persona non grata with Clintons
Amy Klobuchar - boring, not the type of person who wins Dem primaries, but has some political skills
Deval Patrick - too neoliberal, but could get shoved down our throats by Obamaworld, has large donor fundraising potential, charisma

It's not inconceivable that they could win, but it's absurdly unlikely, in alphabetical order
Hillary Clinton - there is some bizarre, extremely unlikely scenario where enough of her loyalists vote for her in a crowded field with no clear frontrunner and she gets destroyed again in the general
Andrew Cuomo - a crooked right wing a-hole that perennially faces primary challenges, but has large donors and has won statewide in new York, a famous name
Eric Garcetti - handsome mayor in a crowded field
Tulsi Gabbard - energetic, has appeal among internet progressives, but her handful of extreme right-wing positions/record would get her into trouble
Joe Kennedy III - charismatic, a famous name, but WAY too young
Jeff Merkley - would be crowded out by fellow progressives
Tom Steyer - he doesn't have the same baggage/right-wing ideology that Bloomberg and Schultz have, and could presumably buy his way to some success, but he's a billionaire with no political skills

Literally 0% chance of winning the nomination:
Michael Avenatti - this isn't the type of celebrity nonpolitician that could win with Democratic primary voters.  No political connections for fundraising
Michael Bloomberg - too many skeletons, too conservative
Julian Castro - total empty suit in a crowded field
John Delaney - too moderate, too uncharismatic, nobody knows who the hell he is, no fundraising potential
John Hickenlooper - right-wing/out of touch with zeitgeist, crooked, took his mom to a porn theater
Eric Holder - could gain traction in Obamaworld but lacks political skills
Terry McCauliffe - fundraising conservative slimeball
Martin O'Malley - too moderate, already a laughingstock, the wire, sounds like a fortune cookie
Howard Schultz - no political skills, too many skeletons, too conservative

Would have a great chance if they ran but thankfully won't run:  Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Da2017 on November 09, 2018, 10:01:27 pm
This is for winning the Democratic primary, not the general election.

Tippy top contenders, in order
Joe Biden - failed over and over again running for President, too conservative, #MeToo, and a gaffe machine, but has enormous name recognition and goodwill with Obama voters and, importantly, Obamaworld connections + media loves him
Bernie Sanders - extreme charisma, name recognition, fundraising ability with individual donors, arguably the current leader of the Democratic party, fits the policy zeitgeist, would face the opposition of the establishment
Elizabeth Warren - only one besides the two above with near universal name recognition, underrated charisma and established ability to fundraise with individual donors, woman and progressive which doubly fits the current zeitgeist, Pocahontas thing is overrated, would have some establishment support but not from a lot of key donors

Should be taken very, very seriously
Beto O'Rourke - people love this guy and he's the exact type of charismatic inspiring personality that would win the Democratic nom.  Fairly progressive.  Documented ability to raise with small donors, but not alienating to the establishment.  Would be knocked for lack of experience and losing by some, but young dem voters wouldn't care.  Starting to get some buzz nationally.
Kamala Harris - won statewide in California several times, would have the support of the establishment without being conservative, young and energetic, think her charisma and personal appeal is a little overrated, but it's better than most of the people below her on this list.  Not as much name rec as the people above her.  Crucially, California is an early state.

Unlikely to win
Cory Booker - charismatic, but also a goofy neoliberal fortune cookie, has fundraising potential, a profile
Sherrod Brown - I don't see him having a ton of establishment support or winning a Democratic primary, but he has his own undeniable brand of charisma
Kirsten Gillibrand - kind of phony/calculating, but not boring, middle of the road politically, large donor fundraising ability, political skills, persona non grata with Clintons
Amy Klobuchar - boring, not the type of person who wins Dem primaries, but has some political skills
Deval Patrick - too neoliberal, but could get shoved down our throats by Obamaworld, has large donor fundraising potential, charisma

It's not inconceivable that they could win, but it's so unlikely, in alphabetical order
Hillary Clinton - there is some bizarre, extremely unlikely scenario where enough of her loyalists vote for her in a crowded field with no clear frontrunner and she gets destroyed again in the general
Eric Garcetti - handsome mayor in a crowded field
Tulsi Gabbard - energetic, has appeal among internet progressives, but her handful of extreme right-wing positions/record would get her into trouble
Jeff Merkley - would be crowded out by fellow progressives
Tom Steyer - he doesn't have the same baggage/right-wing ideology that Bloomberg and Schultz have, and could presumably buy his way to some success, but he's a billionaire with no political skills

Literally 0% chance of winning the nomination:
Michael Avenatti - this isn't the type of celebrity nonpolitician that could win with Democratic primary voters.  No political connections for fundraising
Michael Bloomberg - too many skeletons, too conservative
Julian Castro - total empty suit in a crowded field
John Delaney - too moderate, too uncharismatic, nobody knows who the hell he is, no fundraising potential
John Hickenlooper - right-wing/out of touch with zeitgeist, crooked, took his mom to a porn theater
Eric Holder - could gain traction in Obamaworld but lacks political skills
Terry McCauliffe - fundraising conservative slimeball
Martin O'Malley - too moderate, already a laughingstock, the wire, sounds like a fortune cookie
Howard Schultz - no political skills, too many skeletons, too conservative

Would have a great chance if they ran but thankfully won't run:  Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama

Booker I'd say is more inauthentic than Gillibrand. Gillibrand is oppotunistic. Hillary Clinton should't be on the list. She is finished.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Celes on November 09, 2018, 10:25:01 pm
1. Kyrsten Sinema
2. Neil Abercrombie
3. Joe Lieberman
4. Christine Gregoire
5. Tulsi Gabbard
6. Bobby Rush
7. Cheri Bustos
8. Mark Zuckerberg
9. Jon Tester
10. Elizabeth Warren
11. Sherrod Brown
12. Andrew Gillum
13. Joe Biden
14. Chris Murphy
15. Beto O'Rourke

This is a joke, right?

Ach, you're right; I forgot Bob Menendez.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: ○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└ on November 10, 2018, 12:10:18 am
Ach, you're right; I forgot Bob Menendez.

Bob Menendez / Alcee Hastings : swamp the drain


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: libertpaulian on November 10, 2018, 12:12:33 am
Avenatti has a serious chance, in my opinion.  More so than Deval Patrick.  Deval Patrick will certainly not be the Democratic nominee.
LOL after the Kavanaugh debacle, Avenatti won't be taken seriously by anyone.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: Lechasseur on November 10, 2018, 07:19:42 am
1-8 looks about right, and I think they're the only candidates who have a serious shot of winning the Democratic primaries, along with maybe Klobuchar.


Title: Re: WaPo new Rankings 1-15
Post by: LabourJersey on November 10, 2018, 03:00:19 pm
This is for winning the Democratic primary, not the general election.

Tippy top contenders, in order
Joe Biden - failed over and over again running for President, too conservative, #MeToo, and a gaffe machine, but has enormous name recognition and goodwill with Obama voters and, importantly, Obamaworld connections + media loves him
Bernie Sanders - extreme charisma, name recognition, fundraising ability with individual donors, arguably the current leader of the Democratic party, fits the policy zeitgeist, would face the opposition of the establishment
Elizabeth Warren - only one besides the two above with near universal name recognition, underrated charisma and established ability to fundraise with individual donors, woman and progressive which doubly fits the current zeitgeist, Pocahontas thing is overrated, would have some establishment support but not from a lot of key donors

Should be taken very, very seriously
Beto O'Rourke - people love this guy and he's the exact type of charismatic inspiring personality that would win the Democratic nom.  Fairly progressive.  Documented ability to raise with small donors, but not alienating to the establishment.  Would be knocked for lack of experience and losing by some, but young dem voters wouldn't care.  Starting to get some buzz nationally.
Kamala Harris - won statewide in California several times, would have the support of the establishment without being conservative, young and energetic, think her charisma and personal appeal is a little overrated, but it's better than most of the people below her on this list.  Not as much name rec as the people above her.  Crucially, California is an early state.

Unlikely to win
Cory Booker - charismatic, but also a goofy neoliberal fortune cookie, has fundraising potential, a profile
Sherrod Brown - I don't see him having a ton of establishment support or winning a Democratic primary, but he has his own undeniable brand of charisma
Kirsten Gillibrand - kind of phony/calculating, but not boring, middle of the road politically, large donor fundraising ability, political skills, persona non grata with Clintons
Amy Klobuchar - boring, not the type of person who wins Dem primaries, but has some political skills
Deval Patrick - too neoliberal, but could get shoved down our throats by Obamaworld, has large donor fundraising potential, charisma

It's not inconceivable that they could win, but it's absurdly unlikely, in alphabetical order
Hillary Clinton - there is some bizarre, extremely unlikely scenario where enough of her loyalists vote for her in a crowded field with no clear frontrunner and she gets destroyed again in the general
Andrew Cuomo - a crooked right wing a-hole that perennially faces primary challenges, but has large donors and has won statewide in new York, a famous name
Eric Garcetti - handsome mayor in a crowded field
Tulsi Gabbard - energetic, has appeal among internet progressives, but her handful of extreme right-wing positions/record would get her into trouble
Joe Kennedy III - charismatic, a famous name, but WAY too young
Jeff Merkley - would be crowded out by fellow progressives
Tom Steyer - he doesn't have the same baggage/right-wing ideology that Bloomberg and Schultz have, and could presumably buy his way to some success, but he's a billionaire with no political skills

Literally 0% chance of winning the nomination:
Michael Avenatti - this isn't the type of celebrity nonpolitician that could win with Democratic primary voters.  No political connections for fundraising
Michael Bloomberg - too many skeletons, too conservative
Julian Castro - total empty suit in a crowded field
John Delaney - too moderate, too uncharismatic, nobody knows who the hell he is, no fundraising potential
John Hickenlooper - right-wing/out of touch with zeitgeist, crooked, took his mom to a porn theater
Eric Holder - could gain traction in Obamaworld but lacks political skills
Terry McCauliffe - fundraising conservative slimeball
Martin O'Malley - too moderate, already a laughingstock, the wire, sounds like a fortune cookie
Howard Schultz - no political skills, too many skeletons, too conservative

Would have a great chance if they ran but thankfully won't run:  Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Obama

Better analysis than the Washington Post, honestly.