Democratic Primary Bullock vs. Booker

[McGovernForPrez]

Let's say in 2020 Warren doesn't run and Bullock ends up running as the responsible progressive candidate. He uses his lawsuit against the Citizens United ruling as progressive credentials to win over a solid portions of Sanders voters who look for an authentic politician. In a very large field he eeks out a victory in Iowa over Amy Klobuchar. He goes on to win the NH primary with a large plurality of the votes. After that he loses the Nevada and South Carolina caucus/primary to Booker, who's been trying to run as Obama 2.0 . All of the other candidates at this point have dropped out. Who do you think wins? Discuss with maps.

[Holmes]

I don't think Bullock would lose Nevada if he were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, but if he were to, it'd be a small enough loss to offset Booker's win in South Carolina either way. If Booker were to win New Hampshire, then it would be a race.

[McGovernForPrez]

I don't think Booker would lose Nevada if he were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, but if he were to, it'd be a small enough loss to offset Booker's win in South Carolina either way.

Let's say it's close but Bullock splits the progressive vote with Kamala Harris.

[Holmes]

I don't think Booker would lose Nevada if he were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, but if he were to, it'd be a small enough loss to offset Booker's win in South Carolina either way.

Let's say it's close but Bullock splits the progressive vote with Kamala Harris.

Even if the progressive vote is split in the first four states with Harris, Bullock's victory in Iowa and New Hampshire would still probably propel him to front runner, especially since you said all other candidates have dropped out post-SC.

[McGovernForPrez]

I don't think Booker would lose Nevada if he were to win Iowa and New Hampshire, but if he were to, it'd be a small enough loss to offset Booker's win in South Carolina either way.

Let's say it's close but Bullock splits the progressive vote with Kamala Harris.

Even if the progressive vote is split in the first four states with Harris, Bullock's victory in Iowa and New Hampshire would still probably propel him to front runner, especially since you said all other candidates have dropped out post-SC.

I understand that. Possibly then a narrow Bullock victory in Nevada with Booker in close second. Meanwhile Booker crushes the SC primary with Obama tier numbers. If you don't wanna go along with scenario that's fine I'd still like to see people's maps.

[Holmes]

Ok, a competitive primary with Bullock winning IA, NH and NV would end up like this, I think.

Bullock retains Sanders' coalition, along with added support in the Rust Belt and Midwest that allows him to take IL, PA, MO and SD and has majority support among latinos, giving him TX, AZ, NM and NV. Booker's support is a much weaker version of Clinton 16, but allows him to carry a lot of the South, VA, MD, DE, and NYC carries NY for him.

[Sir Mohamed]

Booker drops out my mid-May.

✓Governor Steve Bullock (D-MT): 58.0%
Senator Cory Booker: 39.7%

[RINO Tom]

Never going to happen, but okay...

Booker beats Bullock handily.

Care to explain your thinking?

[RINO Tom]

Care to explain your thinking?

Bullock wouldn't have the same appeal as Sanders in any of the green states except for MT and mayyybe WV, and Booker is a much better candidate than Clinton (though that's not saying much) - higher AA turnout alone should be enough for him to win in MI, and I highly doubt he'd do worse than Clinton among White voters in the Midwest. Plus, it's not as if Bullock is some populist hero and Booker is just the awful neoliberal - it's not as simple as this forum wants you to believe.

But yeah, I know you want 2020 to be a Phil Scott/John Kasich vs. John Bel Edwards/Steve Bullock race.

I mean, the only appealing thing about that race would be that I like both Phil Scott and John Kasich; I couldn't care less who Democrats nominate if I like the Republican and think they can beat them.  However, I guess your analysis makes sense.  While Booker might be a better general election candidate, I disagree within the primaries.  He is toxic to the most active and loyal segement of the Democratic coalition, and I think he's toast.  Don't know much about Bullock.

[MT Treasurer]

While Booker might be a better general election candidate, I disagree within the primaries.  He is toxic to the most active and loyal segement of the Democratic coalition, and I think he's toast.  Don't know much about Bullock.

Booker would probably move to the left during the campaign, but I'm not sure why you think he'd be toast in a Democratic primary? What exactly is the most active and loyal segment of the Democratic coalition and why would they have a problem with Booker? I mean, if this were the case, Sanders would have won easily in 2016, right? (And like I said, he ran against a much weaker candidate than Booker would be)

Just ftr, I don't think Booker will be the nominee anyway. Right now, I believe it will be someone like Biden.

[RINO Tom]

While Booker might be a better general election candidate, I disagree within the primaries.  He is toxic to the most active and loyal segement of the Democratic coalition, and I think he's toast.  Don't know much about Bullock.

Booker would probably move to the left during the campaign, but I'm not sure why you think he'd be toast in a Democratic primary? What exactly is the most active and loyal segment of the Democratic coalition and why would they have a problem with Booker? I mean, if this were the case, Sanders would have won easily in 2016, right? (And like I said, he ran against a much weaker candidate than Booker would be)

Just ftr, I don't think Booker will be the nominee anyway. Right now, I believe it will be someone like Biden.

Clinton was not a particularly weak PRIMARY candidate, as she somehow amassed a huge group of people who were HUGE fans of hers; when people joked that she was "inevitable," it was kind of true.  It says a lot about her (and the direction the party will move in as millenials get older, IMO) that she almost choked to Sanders and needed a lot of super delegate help, but she still had a huge group of the primary electorate that seemed to worship her.  Her name recognition was through the roof, and I think the inevitability really helped her limp across the finish line.  Clearly, the GE was another story.  The 2016 primaries were always going to be about finding someone who could take out Clinton; 2020's will be much more crowded, and I'm inclined to believe the far left will have an easier time unifying behind someone than "the rest."  Blacks have historically gotten behind one candidate (might be Booker but far from certain), but I'm not so sure about Hispanics, the union vote, women, etc.

[McGovernForPrez]

Care to explain your thinking?

Bullock wouldn't have the same appeal as Sanders in any of the green states except for MT and mayyybe WV, and Booker is a much better candidate than Clinton (though that's not saying much) - higher AA turnout alone should be enough for him to win in MI, and I highly doubt he'd do worse than Clinton among White voters in the Midwest. Plus, it's not as if Bullock is some populist hero and Booker is just the awful neoliberal - it's not as simple as this forum wants you to believe.

But yeah, I know you want 2020 to be a Phil Scott/John Kasich vs. John Bel Edwards/Steve Bullock race.

I don't see how you get Booker as being a strong candidate. Hillary was able to dominate the early primaries largely on the back of name recognition. She still had allies amongst the older WWC Dems. I thinks it's extremely important to examine the Obama '08 and Clinton '16 primary coalitions very carefully. Booker will probably do well with black voters, but it remains to be seen how he appeals to the growing progressive base of the party. He actually suffers a lot of similar flaws tof Clinton. He's seen by large portion of the base as corrupt/shady, and he's bound to do poorly with working class whites. If anything he's a weaker candidate than Clinton. Clinton was the first lady of a beloved president. Booker's a nobody outside of political circles. I especially think you underestimate Bullock's appeal with the Sanders base. To the Sander's base authenticity is key, and Bullock is extremely authentic. He also has progressive credentials. He'll use that as leverage to paint Booker as the big money "Washington" candidate. He comes across as much more palatable to older white voters as well though. He's not an old socialist Jew so I think that'll help him with those voters.

[Skill and Chance]

Something like this most likely:

Booker 40ish percent PV, 40ish percent of Delegates
Bullock 35ish percent PV, 40ish percent of Delegates
Cortez Masto 25ish percent PV, 20ish percent of Delegates

In a pre-convention deal, Cortez Masto endorses Bullock and releases her delegates to him in exchange for the VP slot.

[Devils30]

I think Bullock could win but he would need to win IA NH and appeal to at least some African Americans. Attacking Booker on Wall Street ties would be his best play and Booker honestly does not have the same emotional connection with black voters that Obama had. Bullock would also be gunning for a Bernie endorsement.

[Tancred]

Bullock could appeal to some of the younger African-American voters who are more progressive. Sanders did better among younger African-Americans than older African-Americans and black Millennials will have more strength by 2020. I don't think the black vote is necessarily a slam dunk for Booker.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

If Iowa, NH, NV, and SC go in that same order, Bullock could have a shot.

Bullock needs to win Iowa, NH, and NV. SC is probably a lost cause, but he should aim to avoid a blow out like what happened with Bernie. NV would probably be a bit more amenable to Bullock, but NH might not be as good for him.