Who is most likely to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination?(May 2017)

[Mr. Morden]

Post-“Ideas Conference” poll.  Who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. nomination right now?

Last month’s poll:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=262494.0

[NHI]

Warren!

[The Other Castro]

Still Booker for now.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Warren!

[McGovernForPrez]

Still Booker for now.

If Dems double down on Booker I'm gonna protest vote Republican. It doesn't have to do with Booker himself, but more the direction he represents. The thought of some silicon valley technocrats running our government disgusts me.

[Liberalrocks]

Hillary Clinton

[MAINEiac4434]

Gillibrand.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Still Booker for now.

[Illini Moderate]

Please not Warren, while I don't think she would be bad, she runs the possibility of losing because she is very unlikable. Although if Trump's approval continues at this rate he will lose to almost anyone. Also not a fan of how far left Warren is. I think being more moderate is a good thing. Compromise and bipartisanship is key to a happy America

[LastMcGovernite]

I voted Warren. Remember how the Hillary/Obama split that everybody worried about was irrelevant in 2016? Her running could make the Hillary/Bernie split equally obsolete.

[exopolitician]

I prefer Warren, but if Bernie runs I think it's all his.

[TDAS04]

Warren for now.

[RINO Tom]

Warren!

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Kirsten Gillibrand

I could be far off base, but she seems to be an acceptable compromise between the wings of the Democratic Party: her work on sexual assault in the military would endear her toward the "women's activist" type wing, her fund-raising abilities endear her to the establishment wing, she speaks to economic concerns enough as to not be poisonous to the Bernie wing, but not so much as to threaten the NIMBY social suburbanites. And she's at least okay to what's left of the anti-war left.

Edit: now that I think about it, she might get stuck in the sort of Scott Walker / Tim Pawlenty paradox, where you're seen as a pretty good option for a lot of people, but not the top option for enough people and you fail to gain traction.

[Mr. Morden]

Edit: now that I think about it, she might get stuck in the sort of Scott Walker / Tim Pawlenty paradox, where you're seen as a pretty good option for a lot of people, but not the top option for enough people and you fail to gain traction.

Totally possible, though the more optimistic model for her would be Romney 2012.  Romney was an establishmentarian, but he had sufficiently strong instincts with regard to how to pander to the party base in the right way to make himself acceptable to enough of them to win the nomination.  (E.g., his getting to Rick Perry's right on immigration.)  2020 will likely see quite a few Democratic "establishment" types trying to pander to the party base, and my sense is that Gillibrand has better instincts on how to do that than most of them.  Though it's unclear if that'll be enough.

And of course, Romney only developed those instincts after first going through a failed campaign in 2008.

[Horsemask]

Booker

[McGovernForPrez]

I might be viewing with 2020 goggles on, but I think Steve Bullock was speaking broadly towards the nation, and about his appeal as a red state progressive. Possibly trying to signal how he'd be a strong rural progressive for 2020.

[Mr. Morden]

I might be viewing with 2020 goggles on, but I think Steve Bullock was speaking broadly towards the nation, and about his appeal as a red state progressive. Possibly trying to signal how he'd be a strong rural progressive for 2020.

Did you intend to post that in this thread?:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=263863.0

[McGovernForPrez]

I might be viewing with 2020 goggles on, but I think Steve Bullock was speaking broadly towards the nation, and about his appeal as a red state progressive. Possibly trying to signal how he'd be a strong rural progressive for 2020.

Did you intend to post that in this thread?:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=263863.0

I meant to put it here. Just giving my opinion on him as a 2020 candidate post-PAC conference.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Unpopular opinion here, but I don't think Cory Booker is that charismatic-or at least not in the mold of Obama or Bill Clinton. A lot of people could like these guys personally even if they didn't like their politics, but I don't get that same sense with him. He's a good speaker, but he just doesn't have a way of winning people over.

The opposite of Booker (somebody who isn't a great speaker but can win people over with charisma) would be George W. Bush.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Edit: now that I think about it, she might get stuck in the sort of Scott Walker / Tim Pawlenty paradox, where you're seen as a pretty good option for a lot of people, but not the top option for enough people and you fail to gain traction.

Totally possible, though the more optimistic model for her would be Romney 2012.  Romney was an establishmentarian, but he had sufficiently strong instincts with regard to how to pander to the party base in the right way to make himself acceptable to enough of them to win the nomination.  (E.g., his getting to Rick Perry's right on immigration.)  2020 will likely see quite a few Democratic "establishment" types trying to pander to the party base, and my sense is that Gillibrand has better instincts on how to do that than most of them.  Though it's unclear if that'll be enough.

And of course, Romney only developed those instincts after first going through a failed campaign in 2008.

This is exactly my sense of how she'll attempt to thread the needle. And I tend to agree that she has very good political instincts. I also think it may be important to keep in mind that allocation of delegates in the Republican primary was generally favorable to Romney and that Democrats' proportional allocation may not give her the same assist that it gave Romney. I'll be interested to see what rules the so-called unity rules commission makes for allocation of delegates, and how it may affect Gillibrand's run.

[DK_Mo82]

Sanders - 30%
Warren - 20%
Booker - 10%
Biden - 5%
Gabbard - 5%
Cuomo - 5%
Hillary Clinton - 5% or less
Gillibrand - 5% or less
Kamala Harris - 5% or less
Franken, Sherrod Brown, Ellison, Kaine, Klobuchar, Merkley, Julian Castro, Steve Bullock, Michele Obama - 1% to 5%
Kerry, Gore, Jimmy Carter, Chokwe Antar Lumumba, Marty Walsh, Sally Yates, Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, Donald Trump, de Blasio, Joaquin Castro, Chris Murphy, Jerry Brown, Chuck Schumer, Martin O'Malley, Ron Wyden - 0.1% - 1%

Not Listed - 5% or less