by Doodle Dee. Snickers » Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:56 am
Most Likely Winner of those announced or presumed to be running, barring any surprises:
1. Harris: I picked her as the frontrunner a while back, and I continue to hold to that. The only thing I would worry about with her (Something I will mention in Sanders/Warren) is that she would split the black vote with Booker. She had the best rollout of the candidates, she has the sharp elbows, and she has the name recognition.
2. Biden: Assuming he doesn't split the moderate vote with Klobuchar, and I don't think he will, he has the experience, obviously has the name recognition, the moderate tone, and the political skills to win this thing. I don't know who it was that said he was a bad debater, but you don't remember him curb-stomping Paul Ryan in the VP debates? The only problems he has is his age and his handsiness.
3. Warren: She played the Native American thing real poorly, and now more's coming out. I don't know how much it will matter in the primaries, but it's definitely dimmed her stock in my mind. Still, she has seemed to make up lost ground of late, and I think she could be compelling in much the way Bernie was (in that her appeal is her message) but with a lot more numbers and thoroughness than Bernie.
4. Sanders: I think there's a solid chance that he and Warren split the vote. I think he'll find that his stock has diminished since the last go round. Much like Trump, I think he underestimates how much of his success had to do with the person he was competing against. Warren also brings leftist populism (though I should note, they're not exactly the same in policy) but brings it with more brain than he does, and I think that will matter here.
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.
6. Klobuchar: Not enough notoriety, would be an excellent VP pick. She's just a little too boring, I think, but she does have a powerful midwest and rural appeal which may power her through.
7. Booker: I don't know why, I just have zero faith in Booker. Is it that he's too bland? Too baldly opportunistic (which also sinks #8)? The Wall Street coziness? All of the above? I'm not sure.
8. Gillibrand: Why does everyone seem to consider her a frontrunner? I think there's about zero appetite for her in the primaries. As for the Franken thing, I think it's disgusting that people hate her for it, I thought it was brave, but it is what it is. Otherwise, she's been unremarkable and boring, draws easy comparisons to Hillary Clinton, and is a little too flip-floppy.
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.
10. Buttegieg: Not happening. It's not that he's gay, I just don't think people are going to want a mayor. Nice guy, but I think he's just too bland and uninspiring.
11. Gabbard: I picked her in 2017 as a dark horse possibility, and now I get to look smart since she climbed in and everyone was like "Holy shit, Doods mentioned this one". Anyways, her rollout was a dumpster fire, and now I'm pretty sure it's not happening.
12. Delaney: K.
13. Bloomberg: I have my own opinion that I think Schultz is going to be more unappealing than people think to Democratic voters. I think the same about Bloomberg.
14. Brown: Nope.
15. Hickenlooper: Nada.
16. Mccauliffe: Man, the last thing you want to be to democratic voters right now is a former Democratic governor of Virginia.
5 ones I want most: On reflection, after the midterms, I think the best president we could ask for is a candidate fare more moderate in tone though not necessarily in policy. So with that in mind...
1. Klobuchar: So she treats her staff shitty, oh well. It's not good, of course, but hardly the greatest offense in the world. I think she would be a great compromise choice, would calm shit down in the country at least a little bit, and has the political skills needed.
2. Biden: If it's about moderate tone, there's nobody better. But he also has a nasty habit of "oops" moments and I don't think is quite as sharp-elbowed as he's gonna need to be for the presidency.
3. Warren: I happen to find her a much more nuanced leftist that Bernie with policies that actually might work. Of course, the Fox News crowd would hate her more than anyone here, though I wonder if that would change with 1 or 2. With that said, however, I find her policy more appealing than anyone else on this list.
4. Harris: I like her well enough, and I think she clearly has the political skills to make a good president. Although she's not exactly moderate in tone, she hasn't been excessively combative in tone, either, which I think will really help her candidacy and presidency.
5. The Rock: Come on. You know why, and it doesn't matter what you think.
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.