2020 USA Presidential Election Candidates

[Blythe]

I'm starting this thread now because, well, we already have people declaring intentions to run.

As far as I know, the following have stated something:

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) - She announced an intention to run on Dec. 31st, 2018.
Senator Richard Ojeda (D) - He announced on Nov. 11th, 2018.
Rep. John Delaney (D) - He announced on Aug. 10th, 2017.
Current president Donald Trump (R) - He announced on Jan. 20, 2017.

Note, I pulled this from Ballotpedia. I did not include Julian Castro, because he only has an exploratory committee and isn't due to make a statement until the 12th of this month about a candidacy.

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

The only person so far I have any real excitement about is Warren; she is a serious candidate. The rest I either don't know enough about to give a qualified opinion or don't feel is a viable serious candidate for their party given their history.



Note: Major news about Trump should still go in the Trump thread unless it pertains to his candidacy for 2020.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don’t think Warren will find it easy.  She’s going to be tarred by the same brush as Hilary Clinton was.  Not to mention that damn ‘Fauxcahonas’ label. The trumpers and pundits are NEVER going to let her live it down. Especially after the DNA test fiasco

[Tolvo]

There are some more who are considering but I don't believe all have made an official declaration, such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton(She seems to want to run again but no official statement), Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris. Many have mentioned and interest but have not full on declared they will be running. I don't know how many would have good chances of winning though. Donald Trump has been so terrible for many a lot of people want him gone, but Clinton is still looked down upon massively due to a mixture of conspiracies, media coverage, and then her own actions and words. Biden I don't like but people do know who he is and generally like his personality though he's quite similar to Hillary and perhaps more conservative than her. Bernie it is unclear without DNC interference how he'd do, his steam has stopped but maybe he could whip it up again, age is a concern for many. Kamala Harris is fairly established but I don't know if most people know who she is. Similar to Beto O’Rourke who couldn't win in his own state(But did have a good run). Warren has lost many Native American voters with her recent incidents though they're not a big demographic. She's popular but yeah many consider her similar to Clinton.

Honestly we need another Obama type candidate for Democrats. People voted for Obama with such fervor and in such great numbers that no other candidate could even compete with him. While there was a lot of backlash to him he was one of the most voted for US officials in history. Democrats really need that kind of steam again and someone so likable that tons of people can rally around them. Though I care far more about actual policies these other things are very important for actually getting elected.

[Callie Del Noire]

Obama, prior to his push to president, wasn’t a well known name either. So don’t assume the ‘small fry’ will stay that way. As for Beto don’t assume he did that poorly. He got very close ina red star against a man many said he could never beat and his name recognition is very high. Kampala also is a lot more visit than she was a mere three years ago

Honestly the dems need to field someone who isn’t eligible for social security

[Tolvo]

I never claimed Obama was very well known prior to his campaign, or that Beto did poorly, or that Kamala wasn't known. I specifically said I wasn't assuming things and that it's hard to tell who could win currently.

[TheGlyphstone]

Trump seems to think Warren is a threat based on how hes mocking her so much. Or possibly she has filled up the tiny bit of his brain allocated to 'threat' and he forgets everyone else.

[Tolvo]

Also just for future reference in regards to polls, keep in mind the data and information regarding them isn't always accurate. Keep in mind, up until election night Trump was polling horribly and was stated to be doing so poorly Clinton would win the election in a landslide. Honestly US voting is quite complicated and a ton of data on it is really poor and inaccurate. There is some reliability on basing it upon specific groups and party alignment(Men going more Republican, Women staying more Mixed). But still it can't easily predict how elections will go, so it is very much guess work especially this early. We also aren't sure how investigations into Donald Trump will effect his public image. Among the general populace it has caused a lot of damage but he just needs his core to support him and many still do. A large portion of voting age Americans do not vote, for various reasons(Lack of motivation, access, suppression, seeing no clear choice, seeing no difference, etc).

[Blythe]

I don’t think Warren will find it easy.  She’s going to be tarred by the same brush as Hilary Clinton was.  Not to mention that damn ‘Fauxcahonas’ label. The trumpers and pundits are NEVER going to let her live it down. Especially after the DNA test fiasco

To be fair, Obama did pretty good back in his day, and he had that ridiculous 'birther' stuff to deal with. It'll be a challenge for Warren, but she might be able to navigate it.

[gloriouslyabsurd]

Just for the record, the polling in 2016 was not all that bad.  The analysis of the polling was bad.  On election night Trump outperformed the polling average by 1-2%, that's extremely accurate.  The big problem is that humans are absolutely terrible at understanding probability on a gut level.  538, one of the best polling analysis sites there are, had Clinton at a 70% chance to win going into the election.  That means that if the election were held 1000 times, Trump would win roughly 300 of them.  Most people see 70% though, mentally round it up to 'almost 100", and then are shocked when the still fairly probable event occurs.  Trump's win was well within the margin of error.

Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic.  I'm a stats guy and the 2016 election forecasts are a pet peeve of mine.

All that being said, I agree that polling is pretty much meaningless at this point.  People respond to names that they know, and a lot of people aren't as familiar with more regional names as they are with a Biden or a Warren.  Those gaps will close as we get deeper into election season.  I'd really love to see someone like Harris or Beto win, but we'll just have to see if the DNC has learned it's lesson from losing the most easily winnable race in history.  We need someone likable with newer ideas, not more of the same.

[Regina Minx]

Also just for future reference in regards to polls, keep in mind the data and information regarding them isn't always accurate. Keep in mind, up until election night Trump was polling horribly and was stated to be doing so poorly Clinton would win the election in a landslide....

Not quite. Nate Silver NS 538 got a lot of grief on November 4th for writing an article titled “Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton” in which this was written:

“Four years ago, an average of survey results the week before the election had Obama winning by 1.2 percentage points. He actually beat Mitt Romney by 3.9 points. If that 2.7-point error doesn’t sound like very much to you, well, it’s very close to what Donald Trump needs to overtake Hillary Clinton in the popular vote.”

A little early than November 4th, on Hallowee, Silver himself wrote that the odds of a split between the electoral college and the popular vote was increasing.

[A]s of early Monday evening, our polls-only model gave Hillary Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning the popular vote but just a 75 percent chance of winning the electoral college. There’s roughly a 10 percent chance of Trump’s winning the White House while losing the popular vote, in other words.

The polls indicated that something (popular/electoral college spllit) that ended up happening had a 10 percent chance of actually happening. And that something with a 29.6 percent chance of happening (a Trump victory in any form) ended up happening.

People have a probability problem. Most of the time, we don't recognize that a 71.4 percent chance of winning is not the same as a 100 percent chance of winning.

[WindFish]

As a progressive, I hope that Bernie Sanders stays as far away from the election as possible. It's not his message that I have a problem with - it's him. He's a terrible messenger and I still don't think he's gotten over losing the primary. I fear that he would try to cause the same division in the party that helped Trump win.

Ideally, I think I'd prefer someone who isn't part of the party establishment like Warren or Biden. Nothing against them, but I feel that someone more like O'Rourke, Harris, Booker, or Klobuchar would do well in both traditional Blue and purple states, but also the Midwestern states that just barely went to Trump in 2016 and competitive states like Arizona.

[Tolvo]

True I should have said analysis of the polling.

[Callie Del Noire]

As a progressive, I hope that Bernie Sanders stays as far away from the election as possible. It's not his message that I have a problem with - it's him. He's a terrible messenger and I still don't think he's gotten over losing the primary. I fear that he would try to cause the same division in the party that helped Trump win.

Ideally, I think I'd prefer someone who isn't part of the party establishment like Warren or Biden. Nothing against them, but I feel that someone more like O'Rourke, Harris, Booker, or Klobuchar would do well in both traditional Blue and purple states, but also the Midwestern states that just barely went to Trump in 2016 and competitive states like Arizona.

Honestly I don’t think anyone who can personally recall watergate in real time should consider running this time. As a 50
year old I can BARELY recall him resigning. Most of both parties options they are WILLING to back are way too old answt in their ways

[WindFish]

Honestly I don’t think anyone who can personally recall watergate in real time should consider running this time. As a 50
year old I can BARELY recall him resigning. Most of both parties options they are WILLING to back are way too old answt in their ways

I want someone younger to run as well. Someone with the same fire and passion that Obama had to energize the base. I have nothing against Warren or Biden personally, but I feel it's time to pass the torch to the next generation of leaders.

[Callie Del Noire]

I want someone younger to run as well. Someone with the same fire and passion that Obama had to energize the base. I have nothing against Warren or Biden personally, but I feel it's time to pass the torch to the next generation of leaders.

Most of the leadership has been in place or stepping up since the post watergate era. Or that is my take

[Yvellakitsune]

I want someone younger to run as well. Someone with the same fire and passion that Obama had to energize the base. I have nothing against Warren or Biden personally, but I feel it's time to pass the torch to the next generation of leaders.

This didn't get a lot of coverage when it came out, but Republicans and Republican leadership especially is actually younger than the average Democrat or Democrat leader.  This article also points out that Obama is best seen as reflecting what Democrats feel, but at the time the top 5 contenders were older than him.  I have not seen how the new House has impacted this yet, but the issue has been noticed.  This article also points out that Obama is best seen as reflecting what Democrats feel, but at the time of the article the top 5 contenders were older than him. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/10/politics/democrats-age-problem/index.html 

[elone]

I saw Bernie Sanders speak during the primary run. I can assure everyone that the old man drew crowds that were young. His ideas resonated with the youth from what I saw. I don't see him in the same way I see a Biden or a Clinton who represent the establishment of the Democratic party. Bernie has said he will run if eh thinks he is the only candidate who can beat Trump. Hw will run, no doubt about it. Listen to his campaign manager. Bernie, however, my be to extreme for the main stream of the Democratic party, and I doubt he would get Republican crossovers.

Get ready for 4 more years of Trump if Hillary runs again. She still does not get it that she lost because of herself, not the Russians or anyone else.

Not a big fan of Warren. She seems like a Bernie knockoff, or is it the other way around. I know ideas should rule, but personality plays a big part in getting elected.

I do agree, some youth is needed here.

Kamala Harris is impressive, capable, but I and others don't know a lot about her. She could rise in my opinion.

Beto could come out of nowhere. There are a lot of others who will step forward. Remember how many Repubs ran and Trump triumphed. Dumb asses.

Should be interesting to see how it plays out. Remember, as horrible as Trump is, he gets around 40%  of the vote just by turning out the Republican base.

Democrats need to put forward another Obama-like candidate. Personable, smart, and able. Also one who can use more than one syllable.

[Oniya]

Tulsi Gabbard has tossed her hat into the ring.  She's another one that I'd consider voting for.  She's young (as politicians go), newish to the 'machine' (Rep since 2013), a veteran of the Gulf War, and progressive.

[WindFish]

Julian Castro has just announced his 2020 Presidential bid.

He's a former Obama cabinet minister, very supportive of LGBT rights, and from what I've heard about him is also a solid progressive choice. He's someone I'd support.

[Callie Del Noire]

I think it’s good a lot of younger folks are hoping it but I’m worried that it will be too many. Which is what I feel was the mistake with the GOP in the last election

[sdparquinn]

This is a mess if these are the candidates they are putting forth. Warren is the only one I see as palatable to the public but even though she has fire she still lacks the smooth charisma of Obama or B. Clinton or JFK. 

One thing so many winning candidates have that so many of the losing ones lack, above all: The ability to "act natural" like nothing they say or do is forced or focus grouped. I know, thats an ill defined and slightly nebulous idea, but it holds none the less.

You can pull out all the policy and history and whatever else you want. But you're not the average American and the average american doesn't know jack shit about policy and have a political attention span that doesn't go farther than a decade (if even that). In truth that kind of stuff doesn't matter for most voters even if they think like to think they care about it. And of the few issues americans really do get on board for, you know why?

Cause the proposed solution is simple enough to wrap their brains around.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall? How many people got revved up about that? almost no on, on either side really. Because it's not simple or sexy.
Border Wall? Hells yeah that got voters revved up and ready to go to the polls? Tons? Why? Cause it's an easy (even if it is wrong) solution to a problem people can wrap their heads around (people breaking immigration law).

The instance the Clinton-style democrats start pulling out their calculators to explain means testing for the newest welfare program you just watch the audience's eyes glaze over.

[legomaster00156]

Which is unfortunate, because the complex solutions are more often the better ones for the country.  :-(

[RedPhoenix]

Reminder that at this point in 2007 Barack Obama hadn't even put together an exploratory committee on whether to run.

I expect, in fact I hope, that if I've heard the name of the eventual candidate it's only been in passing and I don't remember it. All the top mentions I think are either not viable or I hate. Or both.

[gloriouslyabsurd]

I'd really love to see a candidate like Alexandria Cortez step forward.  Not her specifically, she's brand new and needs a decade or so of experience before I'd feel at all comfortable with her taking charge even if she was eligible, but someone like her.  She's passionate, and she has the ability to take complex issues and make them digestible to the public at large.  The Green New Deal is a big idea, one that needs to be fleshed out more but also one that has a lot of energy and potential to do good behind it.  She didn't come up with it, but she did a lot to popularize it.  I like to think I'm fairly well read on politics and current events, and it's not a term I'd heard before she started throwing it around.

We as a country desperately need big ideas.  We need to strive for something.

[Muddy Waters]

How do you all feel now that Bernie has tossed his hat in the ring again?