Who is the most 'generic D' candidate?

[RINO Tom]

Booker and Gillibrand are both the closest to the center of the party ideologically, but have demographic considerations that make them not very "generic".

Voted Gillibrand.

I'd like to hear a few of the 50% of Democrats who are to the right of Cory Booker economically, LOL.  Seriously, I know the "neoliberal Democratic Party that abandoned working Americans and now Trump is populist and muh realignment" is gospel here, but GMAFB.

[DK_Mo82]

Biden has a lot of baggage but I still voted for him because he is the only potential Democratic candidate who represents the history of the Democrats of past 30 years in a way that people like.

Biden was able to shake off the baggage and come to high favoribility rating as Veep, but he has failed badly the two times that he has ran. In 1988 heplagarized Neil Kinnock (British Labor Party leader) who was not even a successful or popular politican That ruined his campaign when the media found out. In 2008 he was barely noticeable next to Hillary and Obama duking it out. But even John Edwards did much better than Biden in 2008 and posed more of a threat to Clinton and Obama than Biden did.

So Biden has never been a good presidential candidate, but the situation may have changed for his eight years soaking up the good and not the bad as Veep. He has demeanor and people want to like him. He also has working class appearance to him. He may have gained a teflon layer that he did not have prior to 2009.

[Del Tachi]

Booker and Gillibrand are both the closest to the center of the party ideologically, but have demographic considerations that make them not very "generic".

Voted Gillibrand.

I'd like to hear a few of the 50% of Democrats who are to the right of Cory Booker economically, LOL.  Seriously, I know the "neoliberal Democratic Party that abandoned working Americans and now Trump is populist and muh realignment" is gospel here, but GMAFB.

Progressive Punch ranks Cory Booker as the 4th most progressive Senator based on lifetime rankings, making him more progressive than Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Tammy Baldwin, and Jeff Merkley to name a few.

Sure, its only one ranking and these things have to be taken with a grain of salt but it just goes to show that Booker's "moderatism" is way over-blown.  He's a run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat by any objective standard who will have a massive advantage in the primary if he's able to consolidate African-American voters.

The ones on the Forum who keep comparing Booker to Howell Heflin or Dale Bumpers are the one who need to GMAFB.

[Mister Mets]

I'd say Klobuchar. She's neither a radical nor a DLC type, vaguely charismatic but not overwhelmingly so, from a state that has a Dem lean but is no Vermont.

I'd agree.

She's been in office for a while, which is a generic Democrat thing to do.

[TheSaint250]

Not 2020 candidates, but I'd say Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin

[Kamala]

Maggie Hassan?

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

If I'm correct, Gillibrand is a bit farther to the left than the center of the Democratic Party, but I see her coming off as the most generic Democrat, coming from a liberal bastion and drawing Hillary comparisons.

Policy wise, I think Booker and Klobuchar might be more accurately represent the aggregate ideology of elected Democrats.

[Famous Mortimer]

I'd say Klobuchar. She's neither a radical nor a DLC type, vaguely charismatic but not overwhelmingly so, from a state that has a Dem lean but is no Vermont.

I'd agree.

She's been in office for a while, which is a generic Democrat thing to do.

Klobuchar is not vaguely charismatic. She is not charismatic at all. Democrats would literally be better off nominating the avatar that appears for people on Facebook who don't have a profile picture.