It sometimes seems there are enough Democratic candidates that their votes alone would outnumber what Trump can muster. This initial assessment must of necessity be tentative. Some have already adjusted their positions on the issues. We must also consider their approaches. Which is more likely of success, someone aligning correctly on all of the issues or is a fighter or someone inspirational?
At this early stage in the 2020 presidential race, it is a certainty that I will put in writing many assertions and predictions that will seem bone-headed (no, not bone-spurred) before the weight-challenged lady warbles.
I offer my assessment on each potential candidate, whether they have a chance at the nomination and whether they are acceptable to me. I feel that my calls on the former is fairly solid, at least this early. Whether they are acceptable or not is my own opinion and whether I feel the progressives will find them so. However, all of those with a chance at the nomination are far preferable to Trump. The order in which they appear is random. It in no way is indicative of my preference.
Joe Biden, Former Vice president – Everyone knows Joe. He gets a lot of love but does have several right of center positions. He would have more trouble fund-raising than some but he is probably the one most feared by Trump. With his background in foreign relations, simply being elected would go a long way to restoring the image of the nation around the world. Would he get the nomination? Probably not but acceptable.
Bernie Sanders, Vermont Senator – Bernie still has a following and can raise money. Were it not for The Democratic National Committee stacking the deck, he would have beaten Hillary. However, his time has come and gone. Also, he would have some trouble even with a Democratic Congress, similarly to Jimmy Carter. Unlikely to get the nomination but acceptable.
Beto O’Rourke, Former Texas Representative – He was lionized during his run against Ted Cruz (pardon my use of profanity). I am not fully conversant with all of his positions but so far see him as a bit less progressive than his image, So far, that is not a killer. He can raise the funds and could possibly take the nomination. He is tentatively acceptable.
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Senator – She may be the candidate of the female persuasion with the best chance to grab the nomination. She isn’t as close to matching my druthers as I would prefer. She has mastered the etiquette of legislating and might bring some sanity to the swamp. She does need to put in a great deal of study of economics, though it wouldn’t hurt any of the others to set aside the time. If she fails to get the nomination, along with Elizabeth she would be a great vice presidential pick.
Sherrod Brown, Ohio Senator – Was one of my favorites but he has pulled in his horns on healthcare. I pulled back somewhat. As I look at the issue I need more consideration. To go whole hog on universal single payer means a vicious fight with entrenched forces. Some of the candidates are looking to ways of expanding Medicare but allowing private insurance a place at the table. That makes an overhaul more attainable but leaves the fox in the hen house. The private insurance industry is the reason we have, by far, the most expensive system with the most restrictive coverage. I like to see myself as both practical and an idealist. That’s not the easiest track.
Cory Booker, New Jersey Senator – Here’s another that owes Wall Street and other corporations. His campaign mode is likely to be inspirational which, with some Wall Street money, might keep him in the race longer than he deserves. Possible for nomination but unacceptable.
Kamala Harris, California Senator – Has come on stronger than expected but I have a problem with the attitude common among prosecutors. Some of her positions are acceptable but appear to be of recent vintage. Many are reminiscent of a moderate Republican, if there are any remaining. Could possibly get the nomination. Would beat Trump, unless there are skeletons. Possible for nomination but it’s a struggle to see her as acceptable. The more speeches and interviews I see the lower she goes in my estimation. I share little more with her than a surname.
Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Senator – A favorite of mine but she may be vulnerable on the non-issue of her DNA. She draws fervent crowds which would seem to translate into adequate fund-raising. However, she must split the votes with Bernie. She does have a relatively slim route to the nomination but probably not be able to take the prize. She is very acceptable.
Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles Mayor – I admit to lacking sufficient knowledge of him. My having lived in Los Angeles for 3 years in the 1960s hardly qualifies me as an expert on him. My quick impression of him is that he may be correct on several major issues but a lack of name recognition and inability to gather adequate funding doesn’t inspire as to his chances for the nomination, though he is another who could best Trump in the general election.
Michael Bloomberg, Former New York Mayor – From all reports he was a good mayor of New York but is far from progressive. He’s against universal health care. While correct on some issues, he will not make the progressives happy, unless he uses some of those billions to help candidates more in tune with the mood of the country. A long shot for nomination but unacceptable.
Steve Bullock, Montana Governor, John Hickenlooper, Colorado Governor, Jay Inslee, Washington Governor – At least for the present I will group these together. As governors they have executive experience. I realize that is not a necessary qualification but it is a positive. Colorado and Washington are generally seen as progressive states. Montana has not really been on my radar. Any could beat Trump but getting the nomination takes money. It also requires wide name recognition, though, as Jimmy Carter proved, is not a fatal lacking at this stage. All appear tentatively acceptable, based on my present limited knowledge.,
Terry McAluiffe, Former Virginia Governor – Nice, personable guy but from the neo-conservative Clinton wing of the party. Too closely identified with Hillary. Both no chance for nomination and unacceptable.
Chris Murphy, Connecticut Senator, John Delaney, Maryland Representative, Jeff Merkley, Oregon Senator, Tim Ryan, Ohio Representative, Michael Bennett, Colorado Senator, Julian Castro, Former Secretary of HUD under Obama, Eric Swalwell, California Representative – This bunch is unlikely to have the ability to raise the monies needed to be viable. Perhaps this represents a pool of potential vice presidential candidates. They are generally attractive and based on my knowledge about them are acceptable but there are too many ahead of them who actually have a chance at the brass ring.
Eric Holder, Former Attorney General under Obama – I see him as frequently on the right side but his closeness to Obama is bothersome. I voted for Obama in the general elections but not in the first primary. Obama began with progressive intent but was quickly co-opted by Wall Street and intimidated by the insurance industry and drug dealers. I truly liked him personally and preferred him over the GOP alternative jokes. I don’t expect Eric to gain the nomination but he would certainly be preferable to Trump, as would almost everyone else mentioned in this post.
The following are truly the bottom of the barrel.
Tom Steyer, Hedge Fund Billionaire – I’m glad he puts his money on the progressive side but he is far from sufficiently progressive and I am unaware of any billionaire that I would be happy with, or even content with. No chance at the nomination and not acceptable.
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Senator – Other than being a woman, a constituency she would have to split with other, better candidates, her primary constituency is Wall Street, which she will also have to share. Both no chance for nomination and unacceptable.
Howard Schultz, Starbucks CEO – If he really is a Democrat, he’s firmly planted well on the right of center. I am not inclined to look favorably on another inexperienced billionaire businessman. Sure he was successful nursing a single fortunate idea to the financial holy land but government is far more multi-faceted. And, herding the two houses of Congress and a bunch of prima donnas in a cabinet is not similar to bulldozing shareholders. If he runs, as an independent, as he says he will, get ready for four more years of Trump (if he stays out of prison). He is against providing health care for all by the government while, at 65, he takes advantage of his Medicare benefits. Ironic or just not self-aware? No way. Both no chance for nomination and unacceptable.
Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii Representative – Three weeks after announcing, her top staff all resigned. She lacks any semblance of ability to run a national campaign. She took over $100,000 from arms dealers but claims to be a dove. There are other inconsistencies. Winning by large margins in Hawaii makes her think that translates to nationwide support. No Way. Both no chance for nomination and unacceptable.
Hillary Clinton, Former Secretary of State – I hear that she is actually evaluating a run. As an infamous president is fond of saying, “Sad.” Either ambition or a lack of self-awareness is sufficient to make many take an unwarranted flyer. She has an abundance of both. She missed the train when she had a ticket. I hope she realizes there is no requirement that she embarrass herself again. No way. Both no chance for nomination and unacceptable.
It’s likely I’m also confused. That’s my excuse for any that I have failed to include. I promise to make amends. I’m sure we share a desire to see this list become considerably shorter.
It’s a long time to keep modifying this and keep it at the top. I’ll update it with new posts. I have yet to decide how to identify the updates.
.
.
