Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:5. Beto: I'm going to lightning round these, because I take them less seriously. Beto is great and all, but I think he's been too bigheaded by his Texas loss in which he got close to beating the most hated senator in Washington. He has little experience, not a very clear policy, and most importantly, doesn't have a massive nationwide following.
From what I've seen, I feel like Beto has a bigger following outside of Texas than in it. But he's not making good decisions if he wants to run for president. I voted for Beto twice (primary and general), and he's an impressive campaigner, but I don't think he'd make a good president.
Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:9. Castro: Nope. Feel like he's more of a person that the media is aware of than the electorate. I know nothing about the guy but for his place in Obama's administration, and that it's all I know should show you there's a problem.
I forgot Castro was in the Obama administration. I think of him as the ex-mayor of San Antonio, since that's what people in Texas talk about.
Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:5. The Rock: Come on. You know why, and it doesn't matter what you think.
The Rock is the least unappealing celeb candidate, but please no.
Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:I think that one of these candidates is likely to win with 33-40% of the primary electorate. I also don't think the electorate is quite as massively leftist as everyone seems to want to think, which is why I think moderate candidates will have good appeal, especially if they're more moderate in tone but quietly leftist in policy. I also don't believe Howard Schultz will be Al Gore, as many people seem to think. I also believe people underestimate the chance of him drawing Trump voters away, as if it's only Democrats he could ever appeal to.
Currently 55% of Democrats self-ID as liberal or "very liberal," though I don't think this includes Dem-leaning indies, and even "very liberal" doesn't necessarily mean "progressive."