Who Should Run In 2020?

[CitizenZero]

We of course need to look towards the 2018 mid-term elections to regain control in the Congress, but I also think we should start discussions about who should run for the Presidency in 2020.

I also think we should be discussing Democratic Strategy, not just "who" should run, but also "how". As Democrats, we need to learn from our mistakes and develop strong winning strategies and tactics.

We do need to work every day to oppose the radical Fascist policies of the Trump Regime. Part of that is identifying who we might want to lead us and what sort of strategies we need to develop and deploy, right now, and in the near future.

I would hope for a productive discussion on these topics. What do you think?

[temporary311]

1. At this point, I just hope it's a good number of candidates.

No field clearing, please.

[CitizenZero]

2. I Agree

I don't think that we can afford to exclude anyone at this time, but I still think it might be helpful to talk about different possibilities and different candidates.

[LongTomH]

3. Right now, work on establishing a 50-state, bottom-up organization.

As for who, that will depend on who is willing to run, and how much support that person can build.

[CitizenZero]

7. Grassroots

I think that any effective strategy must have grassroots at its center. I think we Democrats maybe focused too much on polls and pundit analysis, and less on what was happening on the ground with actual citizens. Whoever runs will need to really listen to the people and their needs, and go everywhere in the country, reach as many people as possible.

[Chasstev365]

4. So far, I like Elizabeth Warren and Jay Inslee

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I think Liz Warren is gonna be at the top of many lists. Also Gavin Newsom.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

6. Democrats need to contest EVERY elected office in every town, district, county and state

Pry the power/control from the GOP's greedy little fingers from the bottom up...starting yesterday. Sessions' seat is going to need to be filled, so that is where to start.

And for the love of God ONLY candidates who are powerful, charismatic and convincing speakers. It doesn't matter how good the message is no one hears it. No matter how good a candidate is on paper...if they don't draw people in then they should not be running for the big offices because it's too easy to lose those races.

No just giving up on the southern states. Show up and talk to people, hear them, care about their concerns...and it will be rewarded.

[Phoenix61]

56. So agree about the charisma factor

Obama came across as someone it would be fun to hang out with, Hillary, not so much. Fair or not, people vote from their hearts not their heads. As much as I like Sen Warren and as much as I would like to hang out with her, I don't think the majority of voters would feel that way. I do think she would be a great vice-Pres candidate.

[RoadhogRidesAgain]

8. Nobody will see them coming

the candidates that end up winning it all will come out of nowhere. Nobody will see them coming

[HoneyBadger]

18. I would like to see Priscilla Chan go for it

Mrs Facebook

[metroins]

28. Somebody saw them coming

Because they were encouraged to run and had some kind of support.

[mentalsolstice]

9. One of two MN Senators

Franken or Klobuchar.

[independentpiney]

14. I'm hoping 2020 is the start of the Al Franken decade

If Trump hasn't been impeached yet, I can't think of anyone better to take on a half assed former reality tv star.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

10. Frankly it is about two years too soon to be even thinking about this.

I hate to point it out, but one of the problems with 2016 was that Hillary as The Only Possible Candidate got set nearly in stone around January, 2013. Without refighting the entire primary season, I honestly think the early selection of Hillary was not the best thing -- not to say she would not have still ended up as nominee, but there wasn't the kind of primary open to a field of candidates that might have been better.

And moving on to 2020, who knows what the country will be going through at that point? We need to allow new Democrats to show up and to have a shot at the nomination.

Oh, and the last thing we really need is to get locked into a never-ending campaign season. We're already almost there, and it's by no means a good thing.

[nevergiveup]

11. For the moment

all eyes should be on Delaware.

[CK_John]

12. We better be ready for every nasty nut that thinks they are Trump2.0

and also the true billion business guru under 50 and super rich that are ready to run the world such as Travis Kalanick.

[CitizenZero]

13. Fighting Trump

I think a good candidate would be one who can really counter punch against the obnoxious Trump. I beleive that Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, might be a good choice. He is a political street fighter and he has adopted several of Bernie's policy positions (free State University tuition, $15 minimum wage, New York as a sanctuary place for immigrants, etc.). He is a pragmatic politician who does what he needs to do to get elected.

That said, I think one tactic might be to balance a ticket with Centrists and Progressives. We should try to avoid too much internal combat in the Party and bring these two factions together early on in the process. Imagine if Hillary and Bernie were both on the same ticket! I do not believe we would have lost that election.

So, not only who might be a good candidate, but also "why" they might be a good candidate.

[oasis]

24. +1

[alarimer]

65. Not Cuomo.

He's really a corporate Dem. Well, maybe an opportunist, more like. Not in any way like his father. Can't polish his shoes, in fact.

[CitizenZero]

68. Cuomo

Cuomo is definitely self interested, but he is a street fighter who could counter-punch Trump. I agree that he is an opportunist, but maybe we need someone like that. We have tried to be polite and respectful. Maybe the Democrats need someone who can fight dirty. And Cuomo is adopting a lot of Bernie's positions. He has a sort of rough charisma. He certainly is not his Father.

Anyway, I think we could use someone like Cuomo who is willing to appeal to both Sanders Voters and people who backed Hillary. For those who think he is too Centrist or Corporate, we could balance the ticket by choosing a Progressive Vice-President. Cuomo/Warren?

So, that is my view on Cuomo. I am certainly open to discussing other Democrats, but I bring Cuomo up because I know him and how he operates as Governor (I am from New York). He is a bit crude and rough, but maybe that is what we need to fight Trump and his Criminal/Fascist Gang.

[alarimer]

70. I'd just worry that he'd be another sellout.

Someone willing to compromise SS or Medicare or anything else in the interests of "bipartisanship." I'd prefer someone will a proven track record of a progressive agenda. Someone who advocates for, say, Medicare for all and shoring up the social safety net and cutting military spending.

I mean, I've only heard a few people like this in my lifetime (Sanders, Warren, Ellison perhaps, Wellstone). Where the future candidates like that are, I have no idea. Maybe some of the people who were recently elected to Congress. I like what I've heard of Jamie Raskin so far, but he's unknown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Raskin

Raskin has been a strong proponent of liberal issues in the Maryland Senate. He has been the sponsor of bills advocating same-sex marriage, the repeal of the death penalty in Maryland, the expansion of the state Ignition interlock device program, and the establishment of the legal guidelines for Benefit Corporations, a corporate form for-profit entities that wish to consider a material societal benefit in their bylaws and decision making process.[13][14][15][16]

A former board member of FairVote, Raskin introduced and sponsored the first bill in the country for the National Popular Vote, a plan for an interstate compact to provide for the first popular presidential election in American history.[17]

In March 1, 2006, during a Maryland State Senate hearing regarding same-sex marriage, Raskin, speaking as a constitutional law expert, told a lawmaker, "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."[18][19][20]

Raskin also introduced Senate legislation to legalize medical marijuana in Maryland in 2014. The bill was signed by Martin O'Malley and went into effect in January 2015.[21]

In his first action as a Congressman, Raskin, with several other members of House of Representatives, objected to certifying the election of Donald Trump as President because of Russian interference in the election and voter suppression efforts. Vice President Joseph Biden ruled the objection out of order because it had to be sponsored by at least one member of each chamber, and there was no Senate sponsor

[CitizenZero]

73. Protecting Social Security And Medicare

I do not think Cuomo would do anything but protect and support Social Security and Medicare. He is in some ways a Traditional New Deal style Democrat for the 21st Century.

He is also willing to adopt policies that appeal to certain Democratic factions. While he is far more Centrist than Sanders, for example, Cuomo is not afraid of adopting Sanders-like positions. Cuomo sees how popular Sanders was with the Grassroots and the Millennials, and he clearly wants to capture some of those votes and excitement. So Cuomo is about the $15 Wage, Free Tuition at the State University, LGBT Rights, fighting Climate Change, etc.

I think Cuomo is a very smart strategist who would never consider messing with Social Security or Medicare. That is the famous third rail of Democratic Politics. Cuomo would never alienate his base, which is part of the reason I like him. He is a tough street fighter who does what is necessary to win, and it would be political suicide to tamper with those issues and with his base.

Anyway, enough about Cuomo for the moment. Thanks for bringing Raskin up. I was not familiar with him before now, and that is exactly one of the things that I was looking for on this Thread: finding talented Democrats that I have not heard of before and learning about them. Raskin seems like a rising star.

[alarimer]

74. Well, I agree with you that we need a fighter.

One of Obama's main shortcomings for me was that he was to conciliatory. Some of it is his nature; he is not a scrapper. Which isn't to say that he never stood up for things; he did. But I do think the times now call for something a bit different.

Winning right now might be more important than just about anything else at the moment. There is a LOT to undo.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Most of the country wants marijuana legal. Cuomo and other E. Coasters need to catch a clue.

I think Gavin Newsom is a much better bet and much more in line with the future, as opposed to the past.

[CitizenZero]

98. New York And Marijuana

New York has made Medical Marijuana legal and has decriminalized possession of small amounts. I think that it is just a matter of time before Recreational Use becomes legal. These things take time.

[Warren DeMontague]

112. Sure, but you need to catch up to where the rest of the country is at. Particularly the West.

At the very least we need national leadership that isn't going to stand in the way of progress on the state level.

"Decriminalization" is a fine example, how E. Coast pols think it's the height of advanced thinking on the matter. Oregon decriminalized marijuana in 1973.

[djg21]

15. Someone from a traditionally red state

Or the Midwest on the top of the ticket, and Gillibrand as the VP candidate. We are more likely to lose the electoral college again if we run a ticket of candidates from the Northeast and/or California, which are reliably blue already. We need to capture red states.

[Chitown Kev]

35. Gillibrand (who I frankly would have preferred in 2016)

is from a slightly Republican House district in New York prior to the Senate seat) so I have no worries about her on that account.

[djg21]

59. She's my senator, and was my Representative and she's great.

Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2017, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

But she cannot deliver a swing state. NY votes dependably blue because of NYC, notwithstanding the fact that rural upstate NY is Dumbfuckistan. I think it's a mistake to have someone at the top of the ticket who cannot deliver electoral votes from a State the Dems cannot otherwise count on. Make Kirsten the VP candidate. She's young and can run for President down the road.

[crazycatlady]

84. John Hickenlooper

From a swing state (CO) and soon to be termed out. Not the traditional Democratic northeast or west coast.

I also like Steve Bullock (Montana). I believe he's termed out in 2020.

[CitizenZero]

16. I Like Gillibrand

She is principled, smart, and honest.

I know that we are supposed to "go high" when they "go low", but I think we might might need a candidate who is willing to fight dirty. Politeness and the High Road do not work against Trump, I think.

If there is a street fighter like that from a Red State, I would love to here about them. I think one of the things that I was interested in when starting this Thread is learning about Democrats from across the Country that I do not know much about.

Glad to hear People's ideas.

[Sugarcoated]

40. I know Jerry Browne doesn't check most of the boxes

but he's as authentic and one of the toughest street fighting Dems out there. If only...

[oberliner]

42. He is 78

Hard to believe, I know.

[Sugarcoated]

61. Sure hope I have that kind of spirit at his age.

He doesn't seem "old" to me.

[rusty fender]

69. I agree

I'm with her, and others, but she would wipe the floor with Boss Tweet

[HoneyBadger]

17. Warren is the front runner

And Ellison will have her back.

[Wounded Bear]

37. I don't think she wants to...

but if she does, she'll have my vote and support TBS.

[gopiscrap]

19. about a Warren/Booker ticket

Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2017, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

[CitizenZero]

22. I Like Both Of Them Also

There sure is no shortage of talent in the Democratic Party. Warren is a standout. I've seen Booker on the news and he always impressed me. Both are from the Northeast, though. Conventional Wisdom is for a ticket to be geographically balanced, but that might be outmoded thinking.

[gopiscrap]

44. welcome to DU

[CitizenZero]

85. Thanks

Good To Be Here.

[truebluegreen]

83. Not Booker.

[CitizenZero]

86. Why Not Booker?

Just wondering.

[truebluegreen]

89. I have a real problem with,

among other things, his recent vote on the Klobachar (sp?) amendment regarding re-importing medication from Canada. It had a real chance of passing in the Senate: 12 Republicans voted for, while 13 Democrats--including both from NJ--voted against.

Booker said he did it over safety concerns BUT he also recently voted to loosen safety standards for FDA approval--something Big Pharma has been lobbying hard for. Pharma is a big presence in NJ.

That bothers me when too many Americans--still!--skimp or skip meds because of the cost. I've done it myself and I'm not on the edge. Of course it would be better if the government used its clout to negotiate drug prices but failing that, this could have helped a lot of people and it was something that could have been accomplished even in this day and age. I've kept a list of the D "no" votes and I won't forget. Booker was one, my own Senator was another.

[CitizenZero]

95. Thanks

I did not know that about Booker. Yes, Pharma is big in New Jersey. I guess Booker is less Progressive than one might think.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. I think O'Malley was setting himself for a later run.

If our nominee had won, he would have been focused on 2024. Now I must believe that he is already planning on 2020.

I would be surprised if he doesn't run.

[loyalsister]

38. He's spending time in Iowa already

I have been getting FB updates about it. He seems to have learned to start early.

[Motown_Johnny]

39. I think he is going to be a serious contender.

Hillary and Bernie are both too old to run again. He will be the only candidate who has already been through this.


It is very early, but MoM is looking good right now.

[CitizenZero]

100. O'Malley

He seemed like a smart guy and I liked his policy positions, but to me he was lacking in charisma. He did not draw many votes in the Primary and I think that he has had his chance to run. He has not shown that he is a strong or capable campaigner. Nice guy, though. We maybe need someone who is not so nice and is willing to engage in combat with Trump.

[Motown_Johnny]

109. He was up against Hillary and Bernie

Those two are/were Titans.

I'm pretty sure he was just on a test run and didn't really pick any fights. He didn't want to make enemies or have embarrassing video out there for the next time around.

I am not predicting a win for him, just that he will run and be in the mix.


He might make a good VP for someone, but Senators seem to be the trend for picking a VP now.

[Initech]

21. Franken / Warren or Warren / Franken

Either way that ticket wins.

[frazzled]

23. The question is a distraction

at this point, imo. Right now we have a hundred different critical issues to juggle just to save our democracy and its institutions, not to mention the environment, financial regulation, a rational immigration policy, schools, and justice.

I don't want to hear the word 2020 until at least halfway through 2018. We've got too much work to do right now and too many other decisions to make.

[Skittles]

25. agreed

[CitizenZero]

26. Fair Enough

I think one way to deal with those current problems is having a clear counter-agenda to Trump, and that counter-operation needs to be run by Democratic Party Leaders. So, I think a discussion about Leadership and Tactics could be useful. Four years is shorter than some might think. We need to think about 2018 now anyway. The Mid-Terms will be a good test of our Organizational Power.

I also find it to be helpful to think that Trump and his Cronies will be gone in four years. It is good to think about this, and helps me to face the day, right now. So, I do not personally find the question to be a distraction, but I understand that some others might.

Hopefully we can have Solidarity amongst ourselves. The one good thing about Trump is that he provokes a strong and unified Opposition.

[FSogol]

27. +1 n/t

[oberliner]

43. This is a discussion forum

It's OK to discuss stuff.

[phylny]

66. I'm not distracted by it.

There is lots of work to be done locally, but this question allows me, at least, to focus on the future with some hope

[putitinD]

29. if we want to win, it needs to be someone who talks like a 4th grader, sadly

that is where America is, that is what they understand, and that is what they are comfortable with.

[2naSalit]

33. Geeze, and I remember lamenting taht

the nation was only dialed in at the eighth grade level back... well I guess it was a while ago but still.

[putitinD]

67. Just wait until Betsy Devos gets started.

[2naSalit]

88. I am so glad that anyone in my family and close relatives

are either all done with school, live in California, or won't be in school for another four years at least. I don't know if I can bear to watch much more of what was an excellent education system be cast into the finality of darkness. I was a public school educated kid, I may have bailed in the 9th grade - out of necessity/survival - but even that much prepared me with enough skills to go to college 25 years later and ace all my English classes in particular. Turns out I was prepared with what the primary education had to offer back in the 60s/70s. Lately I find it appalling that so many have few of reading/math/critical thinking skills that earlier generations developed in public schools.

[putitinD]

91. I just retired from a Michigan public school, I've seen first hand the damage

that Betsy Devos has done. I couldn't stand to watch it any longer.

[2naSalit]

94. Oh gosh,

my condolences! I am certain you, of all people, would know. And I thank you for your service!

I am saddened by the constant decline in our education system, I noticed even when I was in college in the 90s, how bad it had become. I am a proofreader and I was asked many a time to proof papers for my professors and work study bosses and fellow students, including graduate work while I was an undergrad. I was often horrified by the lack of understanding of the language even then. I live out in the northern Rockies and I swear there is the possibility of a genetic "thing" where they can't seem to get simple stuff like; the difference between the words then and thanwhere to use an apostrophe, I could go on with or examples but I'm sure you've seen a lot yourself... my highly educated colleagues couldn't write which made me question their reading skills. But I digress.

I feel for anyone in your field, this is like a big poke in the eye - like that avatar pic of the moon with a big peg in its eye. I'm dealing with the public lands protection in my world, there's a lot of it out here and it's horrifying how so many think that the destructive industries that were close to the only employment in the 60s and 70s will ever come back and be as enriching as they were back then. These industries have been dying off as the rest of us realize the damage to the biosphere these industries caused and that we can't do that anymore. Public education on that topic and the importance of our wildlife and their habitats has been my gig for a while, I get that it's a job just holding the attention of the general public, kids are the biggest challenge for me.

[unblock]

30. Watch "the bachelor" and find out!

[malchickiwick]

31. Elizabeth Warren, full stop.

[2naSalit]

32. Women.....nt

[DonCoquixote]

34. In the name of the Goddess please

Please don't let this become some telegraphed, choreographed, overplanned a game of chess. . Yes Clinton did win the popular vote, no need for anyone in the back to scream it! But if we want to go ahead and actually win this election, we're going to need to first avoid mistakes that lost his 2016, second think of a new way to get everybody from all 50 states and yes even the people do not like to vote normally out to do that. The worst thing we can do is telegraph are moves and look for difficult, because then the GOP will know exactly how to attack us, just as they knew how exactly attack us in the 2016 election.

I will say one thing, where does run the show in both 2018 and 2020 better not be from the same team of pundits that has been losing us elections for the past 10 years. And quit blaming Obama for losing all those people, yes racist were emboldened did you bake and do damage, but there has been a tenure of mistakes and waste that stinks to high heaven! Who the hell called Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania the "blue wall?" No I am not being unreasonable when I expect, yes demand that the people who took so much money and still managed to go ahead and lose the 2016 election do not get to bark orders for the next campaign, because outside of any issues of morality, purity, or what ever adjective is used to cloud the issue, the fact is they were incompetent! No, I do not want a bunch of pundits, consultants, and marketers the flush several hundred million down the toilet again only to hear president Trump wins 2020. Outside of any discussions of method, grassroots versus super PACs, hard left versus centerleft, we need to make sure that whatever captains the DNC is someone who is prepared and confident enough to win.

However, I'll play this game. Of course Elizabeth is a front runner, because she spoke exactly about the issues that many Trump voters did not hear us talk about in a competent way. Yes I know Hillary did talk about those issues, but somehow those she trusted, and for that matter we trusted, to get that message out did not. I will also say that we need to cultivate voices that can and will speak to the red states without blue dog compromise. Does that sound like a paradox? Not for Michael Moore, not for Jim Hightower, not Bruce Springsteen, not for Oprah Winfrey. The four people I mentioned have all taken political positions that are well to the left of Joe Manchin, yet they have a damn big microphone. Alfred and seems to be doing a very nice job to. Yes we didn't want to poach Senators because we would lose the Senate, so that is why for all the veepstakes we ignored people like Cory Booker, Warren, Franken, Sherrod Brown and any number of people that could have signaled to others that yes, there will be someone that can hear their concerns, and someone that will not be a yes person to their boss. Indeed, I have a humble idea to make the conventions go smoother instead of being blood that they were this year, make the candidates agree that whatever comes in second in votes becomes the VP, that way even if one candidate wins after a battle, those who like the other candidate will still rally behind, instead of being picked off by the Gary Johnsons in Jill Stein's of the world.

[herding cats]

36. We need to learn how to focus on our battles, 2018 is first...

And in many ways more important. The Republicans out did us on this in 2010, they understood it's a long game. The presidency is cool, and nifty, but it's nothing without congress, and 2020 IS a census year. Which means we need to focus on our district races if we ever hope to repair the GOP gerrymandering of 2010. This is what they did to us, we need to undue it NOW! This is possibly our last hope.

Focus people! No shiney objects needed here!

[oberliner]

45. We can talk about both things

Discussing 2020 on a discussion forum doesn't really hamper efforts to do well in 2018.

[herding cats]

81. Personally, I feel many Dems put too much emphasis on the presidency

And not enough on local or congressional races. Which are where the real power to effect change begins. My pointing out the importance picking up seats in 2018, and focusing on that now, seems relevant to this conversation.

Dems have a history of not turning out well in non presidential election years. I'd like to see that change in 2018.

[oberliner]

82. That's a fair point

But I guess it's always fun to speculate on who our next POTUS candidate might be.

In terms of 2018, things don't look great for us, sadly, in terms of the number of seats we can take.

[Hekate]

48. +10000 herding cats!

[Sugarcoated]

41. Okay, this might sound really off the wall

but here's my first thought: Al Franken, for Pres, Jerry Brown for VP

[oberliner]

46. Jerry Brown will be 82

Highly unlikely.

[Sugarcoated]

49. That's why I'm suggesting vp

If he's still as sharp then as he is now, he'd be a great, if unconventional, choice. I love his passion and he's a fighter

[oberliner]

50. Al Franken would be 69

It would be the oldest Pres-VP combination in American history.

Might be time to go a little younger

Also - maybe not two white males?

[Sugarcoated]

60. Maybe

But i still like it. Age is a number, i think they transcend it. I don't look at Al and see old.

[Hekate]

47. Eyes on 2018, first and foremost. 50 State Strategy.

[Mike Nelson]

51. It's not possible...

...to see how the country will feel in the future. I do think Elizabeth Warren is "running" in that preliminary way. Others are "visible in that "way" too - like Booker and Franken.

Several are mentioned above as too old. Hillary will always be younger than Trump. I think their age will only be an issue if voters associate their bad feelings with Trump specifically due to his age; don't see that happening, now. Age worked for JFK since Ike seemed "old" and after a run of older men.

Personally, I don't think the "media" has it correct when they keep saying the Democratic possibilities are "too old" and we have a problem. We have great veterans who could run again and many new faces, too. I hope it's a big field and mix!

[ALBliberal]

52. I like OMalley. Would love to hear much more from him...and

Julian Castro as well.

[JustAnotherGen]

53. I think after the brutal primary discussions at DU

We need to focus on networking and activism.

A lot will happen in the next two years and that's when the leaders will emerge.

I'm not willing to hang any hopes on anyone until after I have a Democratic Governor and we flip NJ 7th blue.

[lamp_shade]

54. Sally Yates/Chris Murphy or any combination of the following:

Warren, Klobuchar, Coons, Booker, Brown.

[Buckeyeblue]

55. I like warren but...

I'm not sure how she would play among the white working class. I tend to think there is going to be someone who isn't in the news a great right now who will strike everyone's fancy. I think 2018 will also help determine. What types of candidates do well.

We don't even know if Trump will run.

Will Trump be primaried in 2020? Will he say his work has been done? Will he even be president then?

The times right now are ah fucked up...

[StevieM]

75. I think Kasich will primary him but Trump will win. And I can't see him being impeached.

He is already committing impeachable offenses right out in the open.

A few months ago I would have considered the possibility that Trump wouldn't run again. But it sounds like he is already making plans for 2020.

Ironically, I don't think Hillary planned on running again if she had won.

[RelativelyJones]

57. Gillibrand

[pressbox69]

58. Isn't it usually the keynote speaker at the convention?

I think that would be Warren. Franken is good too but I hope someone younger rises. If it is Warren we need to find ways to shoot down their dumb Warren/Indian memes.

[Sugarcoated]

63. Those attacks shoot themeselves down

When Scott Brown started that incredibly stupid attack he went down in the polls, she surged.

[StevieM]

76. I am hoping that the people will have a better understanding of how they were scammed during the

fake email scandal by then. Maybe that will provide an inoculation of sorts for the next Democratic nominee, and maybe that will help to undermine the GOP lies about Warren's Native American heritage.

[highplainsdem]

62. Way too early for this, IMO, and too likely to divide the party into primary-style factions.

We need a 50-state strategy, and we need Dems across the country to speak up, both against Trump and the GOP, and for our own values and vision.

What we don't need at this point is infighting over who's the best candidate and spokesperson for the party.

Much as the GOP, and many in the media, would like us to be debating this already.

[Stellar]

64. Way to early to talk about who should be running in 2020.

Besides, you'll never know what new young whipper-snapper (Obama) may appear on the scene.

[CitizenZero]

71. Strategy

I think that it is important that we do not get split up into primary factions as someone mentioned. It was unfortunate that there was so much bad blood between the Hillary Camp and the Sanders People. Imagine if we had been able to make peace and put them both on the same ticket. I think we would have defeated Trump.

So we need to learn that no matter who runs in the Primaries, we must not divide ourselves like we did in 2016. Someone else mentioned that whoever comes in second in the Democratic Primaries should become the de facto Vice-Presidential Candidate. I think that this is a good idea.

This Thread is not about taking sides with different candidates. Rather, it is to hash out ways we can learn from 2016 so that we will be victorious in 2018 and 2020.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

72. Stop with the 2020 talk please.

let's live today. I, for one, don't want to live through 4 years of campaigning. There is time enough for that. Besides, the real work is getting the systems changes to represent more of our voice in the selection process and less of the wealthy/professional politicians.....

[NCTraveler]

77. I might throw my hat in the ring. Don't think the names are all out there.

It's going to be big. The biggest and best primary you have ever seen. I'm going to be fantastic.

[pangaia]

78. Don Viejo, Yuiyoshida and malaise would be great !!!!!!!!!!

[Adrahil]

79. Not ready to endorse him, per se....

But Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington, impressed me by stepping up and challenging the Cheeto Chump right out the gate. I LOVE that kind of guts.

Don't really know anything else about him, but I am checking him out...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

80. Let's worry about the 2018 congressional elections first

Many progressives stayed home in the off year elections. The Republicans took back the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.

To prevent 4 years of the Trump agenda we need to take back one or preferably both houses of Congress.

[CitizenZero]

87. Good Point

We need to work on taking back as much of Congress as is possible in 2018. Also Governorships and State Legislatures. The subject probably deserves its own Thread, but we can discuss it here also.

I think winning in 2018 is a pre-cursor to winning in 2020, so the two topics are somewhat connected. Not just about which person would be a good candidate, but also about Strategy and Organizing the Democratic Party, nationally and at the grassroots.

[LaydeeBug]

90. Depends on how 2018 shakes out...can they hack it again?

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Gavin Newsom.

[CitizenZero]

96. Newsom

I like Newsom, but he seems a little green, by which I mean a little underqualified. Most successful Presidential Candidates have usually been U.S. Senators, State Governors, or high-ranking Military (General Eisenhower). A Lieutenant Governor has never run successfully. So, maybe Newsom should look beyond 2020 and maybe run for higher office before being considered for the Presidency. Just my two cents.

[BannonsLiver]

99. He'll be governor by the time 2020 rolls around

His problem is that he would only be governor for about a year before running if he chose to run.

But then again we just elected a fucking game show host as president so all bets are apparently off.

[CitizenZero]

101. Game Show Host

Funny. Trump is not just a Game Show Host, but a real life political Clown. Anyway, thanks for the info on Newsom. I do hope he has the opportunity to become Governor. He seems like a rising star.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Newsom is definitely one to watch.

And I would give really good odds he gets that CA Governor seat.

[kimbutgar]

107. He was one of the better mayors in San Francisco

Was able to bring consensus among the factions in San Francisco. We were sorry to lose him when he became Lieutenant Governor.

[TrekLuver]

97. Al Franken

[smirkymonkey]

102. I still like Seth Moulton of MA

He's young and liberal but he has enough to appeal to middle America, such as being an actual VETERAN.

Also, and these are shallow things I realize, but they seem to matter to many in a presidential race - he's handsome, charismatic and charming. He's on the right side of all the issues for us, but I think he would appeal to a lot of people that are usually turned off by establishment democrats. He's fresh blood.

https://moulton.house.gov/about-seth/

[CitizenZero]

103. Moulton

Moulton is an interesting guy. Thanks for bringing him up. Maybe he will run for U.S. Senate or Governor at some point?

[smirkymonkey]

104. Yes, I still think he's a little green, but maybe 2024?

Still, I think he has great potential.

[mvd]

105. A few I like are Warren, Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand,

Keith Ellison, Al Franken, Julian Castro (not sure how progressive he is, but someone of Hispanic heritage would be nice). By then there should be new choices to consider, too. Maybe a younger Sanders type. If Sanders himself is still very healthy, can't rule him out.

[kimbutgar]

106. Gavin Newson, telegenic, smart and going to be governor of California in 2018

[lynintenn]

108. I think Warren would be another disaster .

I put her in the same lane as Bernie. Too divisive!

[StevieM]

111. I think there is a big difference between Sanders and Warren. There are people who would never vote

for a candidate who identifies as a Socialist, or even a Democratic Socialist. The word is a game stopper.

I think Warren would win a lot more votes. She wouldn't be seen as a Socialist by most voters, even if the GOP tried to paint her that way.

[Barack_America]

110. O'Malley/Warren.

That's where I'm at right now.

But I'd like to see a couple of Dem governors contend as well.

[Tiggeroshii]

114. One of othe Kennedys. Caroline or Chris.

[CitizenZero]

115. Caroline Kennedy

I like Caroline as a person, but I do not think that she would be a good candidate. Her name was floated for the U.S. Senate seat that Kirsten Gillibrand eventually held. Caroline was looked at initially, but she seemed to have problems with public speaking. Just because someone is a Kennedy does not make them qualified. Caroline probably should remain a private citizen.

[Tiggeroshii]

116. Chris it is!

He will easily get the nomination and elected governor,.