Which candidate has the best chance as emerging as a top tier candidate ?

[SN2903]

I would say Yang and then Gabbard. I don't think Bloomberg has a natural constituency in the democratic party. I think Patrick got in too late. I don't think Steyer will do well.

I think Klobuchar can do well in IA but I don't see her doing well in NH where as I think if Gabbard or Yang can surprise in Iowa they can do even better in NH which could build some momentum for them.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Andrew Yang and he already is a top tier candidate.

[SN2903]

Andrew Yang and he already is a top tier candidate.

not yet

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

Yang when the field significantly winnows. I have zero doubt he'll finish in the top five, and be one of the very last candidates still running at the end of it all.

[Cassandra]

I guess Klobuchar, from the way she's been polling in Iowa. Yang doesn't seem to have concentrated support anywhere that would allow him to score the kind of primary result that would propel his campaign into that top tier.

[rhg2052]

Klobuchar. She and Yang have the next most support outside of the top five, and she has a lot to gain from Biden or Pete failing, while Yangs support is much more of a niche.

[Cinemark]

Klobuchar is now 5th place in Iowa and a strong debate could catapult her further.

[ProudModerate2]

Andrew Yang and he already is a top tier candidate.

not yet

Not ever.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

While Yang is likely to end in the top five, because of early drop-out of Kamala Harris. I think Amy Klobuchar has the best chance to emerge as a top tier candidate, although i don't believe any of them will emerge as a top tier candidate, and I can't say Harris is a top tier candidate for the moment as well. While I think Yang might surprisingly do well in the late primaries, and won't suffer from "momentum loss", he's not ever going to be a major candidate, but likely going to be the best of the rest.

I expect him not to end in the top 5 in Iowa, but to do so in NH, NV, SC and California.

Voted for Bloomberg after all, as he has the most "potential", because his name is known and he has already support and is more likely to get the support if Buttigieg or especially Biden falls.

[Hermit For Peace]

You know what? I don't like any of them at the moment.

They all have gaping problems that I don't like.

I am starting to hope that the right one is still out there, waiting to come forward.

If not, I suggest we change the Presidency to include FOUR Presidents. Why let one person have so much power? Trump has shown us how successful that approach is.

[rhg2052]

If not, I suggest we change the Presidency to include FOUR Presidents. Why let one person have so much power? Trump has shown us how successful that approach is.

Alright, I have questions. Not saying you're wrong, but I would like to hear more about what your thought process is here.

Why four, specifically?
How would the four be decided?
Would each of them have presidential powers independent of one another, or just as a unit?
Would they all be of the same party?
Would they all serve in the same term, or would their terms be staggered?
How would responsibilities be split between them? Like, would there be one that just handles foreign policy and another that just handles economic issues?
What if two of them want to do something, and the other two don't? Who mediates/is there a deciding vote?

[Mr. Smith]

Either Bloomberg or Steyer since they have the money to spam themselves and seem much more invested than Andrew Yang.

[Hermit For Peace]

If not, I suggest we change the Presidency to include FOUR Presidents. Why let one person have so much power? Trump has shown us how successful that approach is.

Alright, I have questions. Not saying you're wrong, but I would like to hear more about what your thought process is here.

Why four, specifically?
How would the four be decided?
Would each of them have presidential powers independent of one another, or just as a unit?
Would they all be of the same party?
Would they all serve in the same term, or would their terms be staggered?
How would responsibilities be split between them? Like, would there be one that just handles foreign policy and another that just handles economic issues?
What if two of them want to do something, and the other two don't? Who mediates/is there a deciding vote?

Those are good questions. I just said four because of the top four Dem candidates. No single one of them is good alone, but if they acted together as a unit, we just might get things done that need addressing. They each have their strengths. The VP can break the tie. Or maybe we should have more than one VP.

I was thinking they should all be of the same party. They would all be elected, the top four would win. F the EC.

How would you answer your own questions?