He can't. He's all the problems with Clinton (too close to corporatism/Wall Street, too centrist to win over left-wingers) maximized. He's not going to be able to appeal to progressives in the primary, and if he wins the nomination he'll lose to Trump in the general election and help the GOP retain their majorities in the House and Senate.
Democrats need to realize that Clinton's popularity with white suburbanites and college grads was a one-off thing, and even then it cost the Democrats a lot of down ballot races. You shouldn't be trying to appeal to disenfranchised Republicans who vote. You should be trying to appeal to working-class voters and Millennials who typically DON'T vote and maximize turnout.
If Hillary Clinton of all people can win a Democratic primary, why shouldn't Booker be able to? And the Sanders wing is clearly a minority of the Democratic primary electorate.
Clinton had the advantage of inevitability™ on her side, which scared away all potential challengers from the establishment wing and allowed her to run unopposed (or so it seemed) in the primary); Booker, on the other hand, won't have said luxury. I think it's more likely than not that he crashes and burns when he runs in four years time.
This is actually a benefit for Booker though. It's easier to win with 30% in a multicandidate race than it is to win with 50% in a 2 person race. Hillary was dumb to want the field cleared. She's just bad at politics in general, which is why she's not president now.
True, but on the other hand if you design a crowded field it's possible that you divide your own constituency and hurt yourself (cf: Kasich, Lil' Marco, Jeb, Walker etc this primary).
I can easily see Booker starting strong in a crowded field, and then failing to distinguish himself.
Also, as long as I'm in this thread - Booker is a corporate shill and no one should vote for him yada yada etc etc.
