Does Sherrod Brown stand a chance in 2020?

[Hoosier_Nick]

Assuming Brown survives the 2018 election, it is quite possible he'd mount a 2020 Presidential campaign. While he has said he isn't going to run, we all know that politicians frequently run regardless of statements like that.

So what are his chances of winning?

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

I think he'd be a good candidate, though he'd need to get a core base of voters to win a primary. He has the potential to appeal to both the Bernie wing and the Hillary wing, but might not immediately excite people from either wing. If he can win over a lot of working class voters in the Midwest (he might be the best potential candidate to that), he'll have a strong argument that he's the right candidate to face off against Trump.

[GoTfan]

On paper, he's the perfect candidate. A liberal midwestern Senator with decent approval ratings and a strong sppeal to the middle and working classes.

But then again, Hillary was also the perfect candidate on paper.

[Hoosier_Nick]

But then again, Hillary was also the perfect candidate on paper.

Not really. She was scandal-ridden and consistently under performed polls in key areas.

[Maxwell]

I'm stuck between him and Franken.

[JustinTimeCuber]

But then again, Hillary was also the perfect candidate on paper.

Not really. She was scandal-ridden and consistently under performed polls in key areas.

okay this has nothing to do with the topic, but you must have like, a lot of free time in order to track down all those people in your signature

Politicians I've met: Bill Otto, Sarah Unsicker
Never heard of them? Yeah, because Bill Otto was a state rep and a basically impossible congressional candidate, and Sarah Unsicker was a state rep-elect when I met her (she's since been sworn in)

[Mr. Morden]

While he has said he isn't going to run...

To be clear, he said "I have no interest", which isn't quite the same as "I'm not going to run." 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think he’d have a decent shot at the nomination.  As I’ve said here before, while the 2016 Clinton faction of the party was of course bigger than the 2016 Sanders faction, the former is more likely to splinter in a large field, at least based on the list of people who seem to be indicating that they’re interested in running.  E.g., maybe Booker will win among blacks, while some other candidate wins among the white 2016 Clinton primary voters.  There’ll be several candidates trying to scoop up some Sanders voters, but most of the candidates apparently interested in running (Booker, Castro, Cuomo, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, etc.) probably wouldn’t seem very authentic in trying to appeal to the Sandersistas.  Warren would, of course, which is why I think she’s the nominal frontrunner.  But Brown would as well.

So assuming Sanders himself doesn’t run again, by virtue of his being older than dirt, Brown and Warren both seem like top contenders to win over his voters, while it’s hard to think of others who’d have a decent shot at doing so, because the Sanders wing of the party is overrepresented by backbenchers who don’t seem like plausible presidents.  So Brown seems like he could be a legit contender if he’s actually interested, though, unlike Warren, he hasn’t actually done anything to indicate that he is interested.

[Blackacre]

He has a legitimate shot if he decides to run. He's a strong progressive who could get much of the Sanders wing of the party on his side. Younger voters might like him less than Warren or Booker, though perhaps not as he is barely to the right of Sanders himself. Brown also has one advantage that Sanders never had: his constituency includes black voters.

[Mr. Smith]

Sure, if he can get the charisma train rolling.

[Hoosier_Nick]

But then again, Hillary was also the perfect candidate on paper.

Not really. She was scandal-ridden and consistently under performed polls in key areas.

okay this has nothing to do with the topic, but you must have like, a lot of free time in order to track down all those people in your signature

Politicians I've met: Bill Otto, Sarah Unsicker
Never heard of them? Yeah, because Bill Otto was a state rep and a basically impossible congressional candidate, and Sarah Unsicker was a state rep-elect when I met her (she's since been sworn in)

Most I meet at the same rallies. I've gone to like 10 over the past year. Like at one in Indianapolis I met 5 of the ones listed.

[Hoosier_Nick]

I'm stuck between him and Franken.

I am in the same boat. Both are similar candidates in my opinion, but I feel like Brown would do better with the working class and Franken would do better with more affluent voters.

[MAINEiac4434]

On paper, he's the perfect candidate. A liberal midwestern Senator with decent approval ratings and a strong sppeal to the middle and working classes.

But then again, Hillary was also the perfect candidate on paper.

Eh, she had decades of (largely fake) scandals dogging her. She was not the perfect candidate by any means. I don't think perfect candidates exist, if I'm honest.

[Figueira]

My main issues with Brown are (a) he's on the older side, and (b) he's not very charismatic.

If he can convince me that those aren't problems, I'd be willing to support him.

[NOVA Green]

Assuming Brown survives the 2018 election, it is quite possible he'd mount a 2020 Presidential campaign. While he has said he isn't going to run, we all know that politicians frequently run regardless of statements like that.

So what are his chances of winning?

Winning the Democratic Primary or the General Election, or both???

[JJC]

If he survives, he stands a much better chance than most of the potential people being floated around right now.

Dems need to gain back some of those union/working class voters that they lost (abandoned?) in the past five years. The strategy of cobbling together a multitude of minority and special interest groups is not a winning one.

The dems may have thought so because of their 2006 gains and Obama. But the truth is, Obama did not (himself) engage in identity politics. He did not make the elections about his skin color. If he had, he would have lost.

Obama actually reached out to these white working class voters just as often as he did with minorities. I bet more so even, considering that they make up a huge proportion of swing states.

And you know what, Trump reached out to minorities too. He promised to invest heavily in inner city infrastructure and portrayed his immigration stances as hurting latinos the most. He routinely visited large black churches and met with influential black pastors. Often times it was cheesy ('I love hispanics!'), but it did have an effect. Trump did better with minorities and latinos than the last two GOP nominees, and that was despite the dems portraying his wall as 'anti-latino'.

Even in 2006, it wasn't identity politics that gave dems the majorities, it was anger over the Iraq war.

The point is, identity politics doesn't really work. And dems need to start working to regain some of these voters that they've lost over the years (precisely because of identity politics.) If you label yourself as the party of non-whites, then whites are going to respond accordingly.

Mark Udall is a case study of what happens when you pander to much to a particular group. Eventually, the people you are not pandering to will fell left out and even resented.

[Lachi]

My main issues with Brown are (a) he's on the older side, and (b) he's not very charismatic.

If he can convince me that those aren't problems, I'd be willing to support him.

Well, I think (a can be resolved by the fact that trump got elected.

[Mister Mets]

On paper, he's the perfect candidate. A liberal midwestern Senator with decent approval ratings and a strong sppeal to the middle and working classes.

But then again, Hillary was also the perfect candidate on paper.

An elderly white woman investigated by the FBI?

[Hoosier_Nick]

Assuming Brown survives the 2018 election, it is quite possible he'd mount a 2020 Presidential campaign. While he has said he isn't going to run, we all know that politicians frequently run regardless of statements like that.

So what are his chances of winning?

Winning the Democratic Primary or the General Election, or both???

Both

[Figueira]

My main issues with Brown are (a) he's on the older side, and (b) he's not very charismatic.

If he can convince me that those aren't problems, I'd be willing to support him.

Well, I think (a can be resolved by the fact that trump got elected.

Trump is a Republican. The "you have to be under 55" rule only applies to Democrats.

[The Ex-Factor]

I'm at the stage where "electability" trumps personal preference in the primaries by a long shot, and Brown doesn't seem to have any flaws on his resume. Whereas pretty much every other big name right now (Booker, Warren, Sanders, Castro, Cuomo) has issues to be picked apart.

However - I cannot help but think the economic populism vs. identity politics dichotomy will be a central focus of the 2020 Democratic primaries, and Brown will definitely be pigeonholed into the economic populism brand. We'll have to see how he navigates being a white man who has to appeal to women and minorities while inevitably coming under fire for not making it the main focus of his campaign and quite frankly for being an old white guy.

edit: Also, as previously mentioned he's not very charismatic. I wouldn't count out some big profile celebrity running in the 2020 primaries and there being a "You have to nominate someone charismatic/famous to beat Trump!" wing of the party then.

[Frimaire]

The problem is that if he wins the GE, but the Republicans retained the Governorship in Ohio, the Democrats will then lose a *very* important seat. That means he may be more useful in the Senate, and that could impact his decision whether to run or not.

However, if he were to run, he would have a good chance imho, especially if he's endorsed by Bernie Sanders (which would be logical).

However, I've said it before: Is his voice normal ? He sounds like he has throat cancer, frankly. Was he always like that ?

[The_Doctor]

I think Brown would be the strongest Democrat in the field, and closely fits with the Sanders wing, so there's that for him. Realistically, though, I don't think the Democrats win in 2020 purely because of the GOP's incumbency factor and the Reagan coalition isn't splintering absent a big crisis.* But I do believe Brown wins % wise as much as Hillary did (so roughly 48%).

* Trump could be the crisis, though. And admittedly, my skepticism is decidedly colored by my own view of how things will turn out. 

[Mister Mets]

It depends on the field, but I could see him doing well with Sanders voters, and the people tempted by Sanders.

I don't think he has much of a shot if Warren runs, and has a good campaign.

[Progressive]

I truly believe that at this point, *everyone* stands a chance depending on a lot of factors, especially

(1) mood of the electorate
(2) whether Bernie or Biden enter
(3) Trump approval
(4) mood of the base more specifically

[daveosupremo]

No. He has virtually no crossover appeal, and his branch of the Democrat party, so focused on identity politics, doesn't want a white guy as their nominee. Plus his voice sounds like Karl Childers.

But he'll probably lose reelection in 2018, so we'll never know.

If he manages to win reelection, he could be a viable pick for VP, but only with a minority female top of the ticket, because they won't run two white people, or two men. Not sure who fits that bill though, except Harris and Duckworth, neither of which will be the nominee.