Steve Bullock is the guy for 2020.

[progressive85]

Out of everyone that's been named, one stands out as the best possible choice and that's the Montana governor.  Why?

1. He's an executive with experience.  This matters a great deal more than a Senator.  By 2020, he will have been Governor of a red state for eight whole years.  In 2016, he was the most popular Democratic Governor in America.

2. He's from a rural state that Obama almost won in 2008.  He can truly speak for rural Americans and contrast himself with Trump, the billionaire.

3. He's progressive enough for rank-and-file Democrats, but conservative enough to appeal to swing voters.

4. He can choose someone like John Lewis from Georgia or Val Demings from Florida to balance out the ticket- a black Southerner.

5. He is young enough to do the job.  Right now he's 51.  Bernie Sanders is 75, Elizabeth Warren is 68, Joe Biden is 74.

6. He is likable and friendly, and after four long years of Trump's childish tweets and tantrums, he'll be a grown up.

7. He's a white man and I hate to say it, but he will not be the victim of racism or sexism, and it would be easier having him at the top of the ticket.


One thing that is very important is that he has to win the support of African Americans, but otherwise I think he'd be great in Iowa and New Hampshire, two very white states with rural voters.

He's the best candidate the Democrats have, in my opinion.

putting this in a commercial would also be great:

[Don Vito Corleone]

I'd rather he run for the Senate in 2020.

[Harlow]

7. He's a white man and I hate to say it, but he will not be the victim of racism or sexism, and it would be easier having him at the top of the ticket.

This is a pretty despicable thing to say.

[AN63093]

I've never seen him speak, so I have no idea how charismatic he is, or how good he is on TV (this is much more important than your positions on the issues, whether we like it or not).

Assuming he's fine though, and not awkward on TV or "low energy," on paper he seems like a pretty good choice.

He's probably got little to no chance in the primaries though, so it's sort of a moot point.

[McGovernForPrez]

7. He's a white man and I hate to say it, but he will not be the victim of racism or sexism, and it would be easier having him at the top of the ticket.

This is a pretty despicable thing to say.

Is he not correct though?

On another note, I find Bullock to be an extremely charismatic speaker. I highly recommend watching his debate versus Gianforte because he absolutely cleans Gianforte's clock.

[Dr. Arch]

I'll keep an eye out.

[Dr. Arch]

This is on the verge of cult-like behavior at this point, tbh.

The OP made a reasonable point with well-thought out evidence. I'm not sure how it's "cult-like." Trump supporters are cult-like because they require no substance, only an image.

[McGovernForPrez]

I've got to say I think people severely underestimate Bullock. A lot of Democrats I know really like him. He's definitely got some sort of buzz around him so you really can't ignore it.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I agree with OP, I think Bullock would, at the very least, take back the Rust Belt and keep all of HRC's 2016 states, likely improving on her performance almost everywhere.

[Devils30]

Bullock is what the Dems need, the ones the DC crowd promote like Booker and Cuomo have absolutely no appeal outside the northeast corridor.

[Lord Admirale]

Bullock is too conservative to get the nomination, in my opinion. I think he'd easily win against Trump (if nominated), but his stance on guns will be used against him in the primary.

[GoTfan]

He'd be a solid VP choice for someone like Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown or Elizabeth Warren. He'd have to pick someone from the progressive crowd as VP to keep them on his side.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I'd rather he run for the Senate in 2020.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Tennessees a multi choice primary start. So for the Dems, I'd vote for Bullock if he ran. And on the GOP side, for Trump's challenger. But Bullock is too unknown. I think he may have a charisma problem when running... But also I think he is exactly what the Democrats need... A sensible Democrat from a red state, pair him with Sherrod Brown and you have a landslide.

[Coraxion]

Sorry, white guys. He isn't winning the primary, assuming he runs.

[GLPman]

I agree with OP, I think Bullock would, at the very least, take back the Rust Belt and keep all of HRC's 2016 states, likely improving on her performance almost everywhere.

[Del Tachi]

Not all governors are created equal, and with Montana being the 7th least populous state in the country Bullock is unlikely to have the necessary media or fundraising base to launch a serious national campaign.  Bullock would probably have to gain substantial media attention (which is unlikely to occur due to his moderate positions) or become a champion for a specific cause/industry (which given the small nature of his state would be difficult except for maybe establishing himself as an advocate for the oil/natural gas industry, but would be a particular anathema to many Democratic primary voters) to establish a national profile.

For better or worse, only governors from the largest states (I'd limit this statement to CA, NY, TX and FL) will have enough institutional advantages conferred to them by their office to be immediate contenders for national office; governors of "second-tier" states (IL, PA, GA, NC, OH, and a few others) can become national players given some other unique advantage or characteristic.  Frankly, a governor of any other state will struggle to be relevant in a presidential primary. 

In the modern era, the only Governor/President to break this mold is Bill Clinton.  However, I would argue that he built a substantial national advantage by becoming a power-player in the DGA, DNC, DLC an other groups.  I would argue that in the post-Obama Democratic party, these institutions aren't the kingmakers they were almost 30 years ago, and (even if they were) I don't think Bullock has exactly been proactive in becoming an intimate player within them.     

Nonetheless, I think Bullock is a great politician who is fit for his state.  For this reason I think he's probably very seriously looking at a Senate run in 2020 if it shapes up to be an anti-Trump environment.

[DrScholl]

Believe me, him being a white man would not stop Republicans from finding new attacks that would stick with a lot of voters. Besides, racial attacks can be used regardless. All they would have to do is use the welfare dog whistle like they always do and the alt-right would call him a sellout to the white man for belonging to the perceived anti-white Democratic Party.

[Lord Admirale]

Believe me, him being a white man would not stop Republicans from finding new attacks that would stick with a lot of voters. Besides, racial attacks can be used regardless. All they would have to do is use the welfare dog whistle like they always do and the alt-right would call him a sellout to the white man for belonging to the perceived anti-white Democratic Party.

I don't think OP thought his winning quality would be him being a white male, but it may remedy the huge swing of white male voters in 2016. Not to mention, Bullock is someone who can easily appeal to conservatives with his stance on gun ownership, his background as a former cop, and his fiscal conservatism.

[Mr. Morden]

Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

If Bullock has any interest in running for president, then I doubt he cares about what happens to the Senate seat.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Sorry, white guys. He isn't winning the primary, assuming he runs.

Ok, we will just nominate Schultz and Warren then and we will be set for victory...

[progressive85]

I think out of all of the other candidates, he's the most likable, but in my opinion- and i don't mean to bash the other contenders- but the whole Democratic field is kinda mediocre.  I see a lot of ambitious U.S. Senators but very few people that actually really have the experience needed.  None of them seem to have the military experience I'd like to see.

Joe Biden is the most experienced, but he's already 74 and his 2008 presidential campaign wasn't that good.  I think he leads in the polls because he was Vice President and has an image as a very decent likable person.

I accept the criticism of Steve Bullock, but I think what I like about him is that he seems genuine and authentic, at least for a politician, and I like the idea he comes from a small state where he's spent most of his life.  Sometimes the big-state politicians aren't the best choices despite having bigger profiles in the national media.

[McGovernForPrez]

I think the most underrated thing about Bullock is his charisma. I find him to be extremely charismatic and very genuine.

[RINO Tom]

Bullock is nowehere near as "conservative" or "moderate" as people here seem to believe he is, so his crossover appeal is extremely exaggerated. Another thing to keep in mind that Bullock running for president could very well result in him losing the nomination (extremely likely) and Steve Daines winning reelection to the Senate, so it would be a lose-lose situation for Democrats. Like I said before, Daines could lose to some other Democrat as well, but Bullock would be their best bet.

Yeah, but Bullock doesn't need to be conservative OR moderate to reach out to culturally moderate-to-conservative Obama-Trump voters.

[Webnicz]

The Dems need to fix their problem with white men, Steve bullock is good for the job, but Seth Moulton could be better. We need a Vet at the top of the ticket in my opinion