The 2020 Index- Edition #1

[WV222]

The 2020 Index will be the power rankings of the potential 2020 Democratic candidates for President. I will try to post these regularly about every week as we start heading down the home stretch for the midterms and the beginning stretch for the primaries. I will also only be doing Democrats for the time being with possibly the GOP and maybe third parties soon as we get into 2019. So let's begin.

1. Elizabeth Warren- Warren is the first real presidential candidate to basically run, but not let officially run. With most presidential candidates (minus the current president) releasing their tax returns, Warren has already released 10 years of tax returns, plus the now infamous DNA test to punch back at the President over being a Native American (which has somewhat backfired). She also has national name-recognition and is a part of the rapidly expanding progressive wing of the party, but if Bernie runs, some of that air will be sucked out.

2. Joe Biden- Joe Biden, the Vice President to President Obama, is by and far the current frontrunner to the Democratic primaries. Some of this is easily related to riding off of Obama's coattails. However, numbers do not lie and right now Biden is the leader. He led by 20 points over nearest contender Bernie Sanders in the poll released by CNN over the weekend. His problem, he will be seen as part of the old guard that progressives have wanted to throw out. However, if he plays his cards right, he could just be the unifier the Democratic Party to beat Trump in the fall of 2020.

3. Cory Booker- The Senator from New Jersey has been campaigning up and down the country the most so far this fall, and has gained notoriety from the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings (the Spartacus moment). He gave a great speech in front of Iowa Democrats last weekend and is supporting the progressives in the midterms. Watch this space for a progressive-moderate hybrid with the whole "Obama 2.0" image faded away.

4. Kamala Harris- This freshman Senator from California could just the next freshman Senator the Democrats give the nod to (the last one was President Obama). Harris will try to become the candidate who can sweep the South the way HRC did with Bernie in 2016. Her progressive ideology should also give her a chance in states in the Midwest, plus it helps to be a political star in the state with the most delegates. 

5. Bernie Sanders- This period between the presidential election of 2016 and the midterms has been cruel to Bernie. He has seen his progressive stardom somewhat fade, his PAC "Our Revolution" has failed to get candidates past the primaries without the help of other progressive groups (Justice Democrats, DSA), and has not had the opportunity to have a big moment in the national spotlight. But, he still polls in double-digits for now.

And now for the rest...
6- Kirsten Gillibrand
7- Steve Bullock
8- Amy Klobuchar
9- Michael Bloomberg
10- Michael Avenatti
11- Eric Holder
12- Pete Buttigieg
13- Eric Garcetti

See you next time on the 2020 Index!!!

[Progressive Pessimist]

The top six you made are all definitely the candidates with the best chances to win.

[Continential]

The top six you made are all definitely the candidates with the best chances to win.

It's more like the Top 8

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

How did Warren releasing her DNA tests "somewhat backfire"?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The top six you made are all definitely the candidates with the best chances to win.

I'm not sure. Sanders has a good shot. Biden has a good shot. But they'll have to pick a good VP and have a good campaign. Warren and definitely Gillibrand will both have a much harder time. I'm not sure about Booker. Harris could win, but isn't the candidate you want if you want to take the Rust Belt back.

[Canis]

How did Warren releasing her DNA tests "somewhat backfire"?

She looks absolutely ridiculous it majorly backfired

[Orser67]

Nice rankings. Only thing I really disagree with is the inclusion of Avenatti.

[Mr. Morden]

The top six you made are all definitely the candidates with the best chances to win.

I'm not sure. Sanders has a good shot. Biden has a good shot. But they'll have to pick a good VP and have a good campaign. Warren and definitely Gillibrand will both have a much harder time. I'm not sure about Booker. Harris could win, but isn't the candidate you want if you want to take the Rust Belt back.

I thought it was best chance to win the nomination, not the GE.

[Grassroots]

STEVE 2020

I'm hyped.

[Nyssus]

How did Warren releasing her DNA tests "somewhat backfire"?

She looks absolutely ridiculous it majorly backfired

[Beet]

How did Warren releasing her DNA tests "somewhat backfire"?

I've noticed any time a woman directly challenges Trump/the GOP in a high profile way it backfires. Dr. Ford agreeing to testify before Committee backfired- you would think it would make her more credible but it didn't. Warren releasing her DNA backfired - again, you would think it would help her case but it didn't. It's not because of what either of them did but the attitudes in our society.

[IceSpear]

How did Warren releasing her DNA tests "somewhat backfire"?

I've noticed any time a woman directly challenges Trump/the GOP in a high profile way it backfires. Dr. Ford agreeing to testify before Committee backfired- you would think it would make her more credible but it didn't. Warren releasing her DNA backfired - again, you would think it would help her case but it didn't. It's not because of what either of them did but the attitudes in our society.

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

[Mr. Morden]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

[IceSpear]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

Good question. I'm going to end up weighing many factors in my vote, electability being a major one. However, the media doesn't seem to hate all women. For instance, they don't seem to hate Harris and Gillibrand (at least not to the insane level they hated Hillary.) I'm guessing because they're young, feminine, and attractive. Their hatred is more directed toward older forceful "shrill" women like Hillary and Warren.

[RaphaelDLG]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

Good question. I'm going to end up weighing many factors in my vote, electability being a major one. However, the media doesn't seem to hate all women. For instance, they don't seem to hate Harris and Gillibrand (at least not to the insane level they hated Hillary.) I'm guessing because they're young, feminine, and attractive. Their hatred is more directed toward older forceful "shrill" women like Hillary and Warren.

Give them time.  They will hate everyone running on the Democratic side or one reason or another except, inexplicably, Joe Biden.

[IceSpear]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

Good question. I'm going to end up weighing many factors in my vote, electability being a major one. However, the media doesn't seem to hate all women. For instance, they don't seem to hate Harris and Gillibrand (at least not to the insane level they hated Hillary.) I'm guessing because they're young, feminine, and attractive. Their hatred is more directed toward older forceful "shrill" women like Hillary and Warren.

Give them time.  They will hate everyone running on the Democratic side or one reason or another except, inexplicably, Joe Biden.

Maybe. But it was already very apparent by this time 4 years ago (even before the email story broke!) that the media was going to try their absolute hardest to destroy Hillary. In fact, me and Beet even had a discussion about it back in 2014! Talk about deja vu.

[WV222]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

Good question. I'm going to end up weighing many factors in my vote, electability being a major one. However, the media doesn't seem to hate all women. For instance, they don't seem to hate Harris and Gillibrand (at least not to the insane level they hated Hillary.) I'm guessing because they're young, feminine, and attractive. Their hatred is more directed toward older forceful "shrill" women like Hillary and Warren.

Give them time.  They will hate everyone running on the Democratic side or one reason or another except, inexplicably, Joe Biden.

Maybe. But it was already very apparent by this time 4 years ago (even before the email story broke!) that the media was going to try their absolute hardest to destroy Hillary. In fact, me and Beet even had a discussion about it back in 2014! Talk about deja vu.

The media was destroying Hillary? Let's talk about the media that went 15 rounds on President Trump,  leaving no stone unturned, while Hillary was given a free pass on her entire campaign.

[RaphaelDLG]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

Good question. I'm going to end up weighing many factors in my vote, electability being a major one. However, the media doesn't seem to hate all women. For instance, they don't seem to hate Harris and Gillibrand (at least not to the insane level they hated Hillary.) I'm guessing because they're young, feminine, and attractive. Their hatred is more directed toward older forceful "shrill" women like Hillary and Warren.

Give them time.  They will hate everyone running on the Democratic side or one reason or another except, inexplicably, Joe Biden.

Maybe. But it was already very apparent by this time 4 years ago (even before the email story broke!) that the media was going to try their absolute hardest to destroy Hillary. In fact, me and Beet even had a discussion about it back in 2014! Talk about deja vu.

What exactly do you think it is, is it that supposedly urbane/cosmopolitan outlets like NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc are simply sexist, or is it something else?  I think sexism is definitely a part of it.

I think sometimes it's just a matter of negative coverage of Hillary sells, like the inexcusable things NYT did with some of the email coverage, or, in the case of the absurd coverage of her in 08, that the cool inspiring black guy gets unfairly tossed an immunity idol while Hillary gets savaged.

[IceSpear]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

Good question. I'm going to end up weighing many factors in my vote, electability being a major one. However, the media doesn't seem to hate all women. For instance, they don't seem to hate Harris and Gillibrand (at least not to the insane level they hated Hillary.) I'm guessing because they're young, feminine, and attractive. Their hatred is more directed toward older forceful "shrill" women like Hillary and Warren.

Give them time.  They will hate everyone running on the Democratic side or one reason or another except, inexplicably, Joe Biden.

Maybe. But it was already very apparent by this time 4 years ago (even before the email story broke!) that the media was going to try their absolute hardest to destroy Hillary. In fact, me and Beet even had a discussion about it back in 2014! Talk about deja vu.

The media was destroying Hillary? Let's talk about the media that went 15 rounds on President Trump,  leaving no stone unturned, while Hillary was given a free pass on her entire campaign.

Oh, this old canard again. Yes, Trump got tons of negative coverage. Hillary got more.

[RaphaelDLG]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

Good question. I'm going to end up weighing many factors in my vote, electability being a major one. However, the media doesn't seem to hate all women. For instance, they don't seem to hate Harris and Gillibrand (at least not to the insane level they hated Hillary.) I'm guessing because they're young, feminine, and attractive. Their hatred is more directed toward older forceful "shrill" women like Hillary and Warren.

Give them time.  They will hate everyone running on the Democratic side or one reason or another except, inexplicably, Joe Biden.

Maybe. But it was already very apparent by this time 4 years ago (even before the email story broke!) that the media was going to try their absolute hardest to destroy Hillary. In fact, me and Beet even had a discussion about it back in 2014! Talk about deja vu.

The media was destroying Hillary? Let's talk about the media that went 15 rounds on President Trump,  leaving no stone unturned, while Hillary was given a free pass on her entire campaign.

Agree that the media fired a barrage at Trump.  In the media's defense, Trump was stupid, corrupt, unqualified, and outrageous on an unprecedented scale.  Disagree that Hillary was given a free pass:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=300375.0

ETA:  Hahaha nice was beaten to it

[IceSpear]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

Good question. I'm going to end up weighing many factors in my vote, electability being a major one. However, the media doesn't seem to hate all women. For instance, they don't seem to hate Harris and Gillibrand (at least not to the insane level they hated Hillary.) I'm guessing because they're young, feminine, and attractive. Their hatred is more directed toward older forceful "shrill" women like Hillary and Warren.

Give them time.  They will hate everyone running on the Democratic side or one reason or another except, inexplicably, Joe Biden.

Maybe. But it was already very apparent by this time 4 years ago (even before the email story broke!) that the media was going to try their absolute hardest to destroy Hillary. In fact, me and Beet even had a discussion about it back in 2014! Talk about deja vu.

What exactly do you think it is, is it that supposedly urbane/cosmopolitan outlets like NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc are simply sexist, or is it something else?  I think sexism is definitely a part of it.

I think sometimes it's just a matter of negative coverage of Hillary sells, like the inexcusable things NYT did with some of the email coverage, or, in the case of the absurd coverage of her in 08, that the cool inspiring black guy gets unfairly tossed an immunity idol while Hillary gets savaged.

I think it's a mixture of reasons, the ones you listed among them. There's also the fact that the media has had personal animus towards Hillary for decades, going all the way back to Bill's presidency. Another reason is that the media felt free to rake her over the coals and scrutinize her to an extreme degree because "she's going to win anyway, so it doesn't matter." IIRC some in the media actually admitted that they held her to a far higher standard than Trump because she was already seen as "president-elect."

Anyway, the negative coverage of Trump now obviously dwarfs what Hillary got. But during the campaign, she got it worse. There's no question about it.

[RaphaelDLG]

Most people didn't/dont care about the DNA either thing either way. There's only a perception that it "backfired" because the media hates her even more than they hate Trump and spun the entire thing in his favor and against her. Very similar to Hillary, who objectively got far more negative coverage than Trump despite the media supposedly being "in the tank for Dems." Also notice all the white male anti-Hillary false equivalency journalists that got outed as sex criminals like Mark Halperin and Matt Lauer. Sexism in the media is pervasive.

I'm not going to say Warren can't win, but if she does, she's going to have to do it while the media tries their absolute hardest to destroy her. It's not impossible, after all Hillary would've accomplished it if not for Comey's last minute interference. But I'm certainly not very comfortable with the idea, nor am I confident about it.

So then, are you hoping that the Dems nominate a man for president in 2020, because the country's sexism makes it that much harder for women to win, and beating Trump should be the priority?  Or are you going to pull for whoever you like the best regardless of gender, or what?

Good question. I'm going to end up weighing many factors in my vote, electability being a major one. However, the media doesn't seem to hate all women. For instance, they don't seem to hate Harris and Gillibrand (at least not to the insane level they hated Hillary.) I'm guessing because they're young, feminine, and attractive. Their hatred is more directed toward older forceful "shrill" women like Hillary and Warren.

Give them time.  They will hate everyone running on the Democratic side or one reason or another except, inexplicably, Joe Biden.

Maybe. But it was already very apparent by this time 4 years ago (even before the email story broke!) that the media was going to try their absolute hardest to destroy Hillary. In fact, me and Beet even had a discussion about it back in 2014! Talk about deja vu.

What exactly do you think it is, is it that supposedly urbane/cosmopolitan outlets like NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc are simply sexist, or is it something else?  I think sexism is definitely a part of it.

I think sometimes it's just a matter of negative coverage of Hillary sells, like the inexcusable things NYT did with some of the email coverage, or, in the case of the absurd coverage of her in 08, that the cool inspiring black guy gets unfairly tossed an immunity idol while Hillary gets savaged.

I think it's a mixture of reasons, the ones you listed among them. There's also the fact that the media has had personal animus towards Hillary for decades, going all the way back to Bill's presidency. Another reason is that the media felt free to rake her over the coals and scrutinize her to an extreme degree because "she's going to win anyway, so it doesn't matter." IIRC some in the media actually admitted that they held her to a far higher standard than Trump because she was already seen as "president-elect."

Anyway, the negative coverage of Trump now obviously dwarfs what Hillary got. But during the campaign, she got it worse. There's no question about it.

I think we can probably also add that MSM is terrified of being attacked as "liberal" so generates/exaggerates stupid controversies to appear less biased.

[NevadanAtHeart]

How did Warren releasing her DNA tests "somewhat backfire"?

I've noticed any time a woman directly challenges Trump/the GOP in a high profile way it backfires. Dr. Ford agreeing to testify before Committee backfired- you would think it would make her more credible but it didn't. Warren releasing her DNA backfired - again, you would think it would help her case but it didn't. It's not because of what either of them did but the attitudes in our society.

I disagree. Certainly in the case of Dr. Ford, cultural attitudes reared their ugly head. But I don't really think that the backlash to Sen. Warren was because of sexism or the media having some vendetta against her or wanting to positively reshape their image. I think the move was just generally unwise for a few reasons:

Firstly, it was just a weird move on the face of things. No Dems really cared about her heritage, and most Republicans hated her already anyway. If she was Native American, then President Trump used a slur against her. If she wasn't, then he used a slur against her mockingly. These are both pretty bad. The move just generally looked pretty dramatic and extra.

But in a bigger sense, it borders on offensive. As far as I know, no Native American tribe has corroborated her claim to their heritage. And there's so much more to identity than DNA - the primacy of the tribe as the fundamental cultural unit, in addition to the expression of historical and cultural heritage, mean that in many ways, simply being able to trace your genes to an individual who may or may not have belonged to a tribe means nothing. Her claims of ancestry are either, in the best case, totally meaningless beyond just a statement of fact that she has DNA that can be traced back to a Native American tribe, or in the worst case, plain erasure of what identity actually is.

And this certainly isn't the belief of all Native Americans or tribes, they're not that monolithic. But surely you can see how it's at least reasonable to be turned off by her actions.