Who Will be the Democratic Nominee for President in 2020?

Who fills this spot in 2020?

It’s been more than a month since we did our last poll on this subject, which was so long ago that former Vice President Joe Biden wasn’t even an official candidate yet. When last we asked this question, that South Bend, Indiana Mayor Guy (Pete Buttigieg) led the way in our completely non-scientific poll in which we ask who you THINK will be the eventual Democratic nominee for President.

We’ve added two new choices to this poll: 1) Andrew Yang, who probably has no realistic chance but is nevertheless one of only 13 candidates to meet both the polling and donation requirements to make it into the first two Presidential debates, and 2) “One of Those 40-ish White Male Congressmen.” Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, Eric Swalwell — if they were all in the same room, we couldn’t tell you who was who.

Also…if you’re that person who thinks New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has a chance, go ahead and just mark “Someone Else.”

As always, we want to know what you think will happen here — not what you want to happen or who you personally might support. If you had to place a bet on the outcome TODAY, who do you predict will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?

And since there are still a bagillion candidates and we don’t want to take up the entire screen with this one poll, you’ll have to cast your vote after the jump…

 

Who Will be the Democratic Nominee for President in 2020?
Joe Biden
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Pete Buttigieg
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O\'Rourke
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Cory Booker
John Hickenlooper
Michael Bennet
Andrew Yang
Julian Castro
Steve Bullock
Jay Inslee
One of Those 40-ish White Male Congressmen
Someone Else
View Result
8 Shares

43 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DavieDavie says:

    Call me crazy, but I think a Harris/Buttigieg ticket would combine two of the strongest candidates that would stand up to and slap down *rump and his sycophants.

  2. unnamed says:

    Too early in the cycle for me to decide.

  3. Powerful PearPowerful Pear says:

    What difference-at this point, does it make? All KOOKS except for Tulsi Gabbard.

  4. JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

    I continue to think Biden will fade as "nice" proves to be not enough, that Sanders will maintain the true believers but be unable to re-attract those who think him too old, too male, too white, or too rigid in comparison to others with a similar policy stance.

    My initial guess is Harris will move up as she gets into a campaign rhythm and attracts additional professional staff.  One of the more experienced Washington folks comes on-board as Veep, but I'm uncertain if that will be Warren, Klobuchar or (as a signal to progressives and eco-warriors) Inslee.

  5. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Warren will continue to win people over by authenticity and policy strength. Classic Warren on the Hyde Amendment: we need to do the right thing, even if it’s not the politically expedient thing (my paraphrase of her comments in the 6/5/19 town hall  with Chris Hayes. ) That honesty attracts people, as it did with Sanders in 2016.

    • Oh, yeah. Warren and Sanders are basically doing the same sort of liberal social democracy thing in general. Warren's been doing a bunch of it better than Sanders and Sanders has been doing a bunch of it better than Warren. I mean, obviously, both are still bad, but they both have basically the same path to the nomination and who knows which of them can pull it off.

      (I'm still gonna bet on neither of them making it work and Biden getting the nomination, tho. Which'll be uggggggh.)

      • I said that about Warren and Sanders on Twitter a few days ago, it was before Sanders stuff where he held fast to his anti-war stuff in the NYT interview so I rated him just below Warren instead of neck and neck, and I got a bunch of Bernie fans get super upset at me for it, lol.

      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        OK, I’ll bite… why are Sanders and Warren “both bad”? Please, nobody except dp answer…. I’m curious about what an attack from the left looks like.

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          comment deleted

        • For both of them, they're still super into capitalism, tho Sanders describes his weak ass social democracy as ""socialism"".

          Sanders in particular is pretty consistently bad on immigration. There was the time when he toured those ICE detention facilities and, instead of endorsing their dismantlement, he said they should be made nicer. He's also consistently called open borders a "Koch brothers" policy, despite its looooooong history as a leftist policy. He also supported Biden's crime bill in the 90s, so, y'know, that's pretty bad.

          Warren in particular has been pretty bad on foreign policy, compared to Sanders. She had her push for a "green" military, but that's not really a thing since the US military is sturcturally bad for the environment because it's a military. She's also been wishy-washy on healthcare reform, tho neither Sanders nor Warren are willing to go anywhere near radical enough, and she's got a history of shitty statements about her relationship with first nations peoples.

          Are they better than the rest of the primary field? Other than Gravel, yeah. Does better than shitty people make them good? No.

          • RepealAndReplace says:

            I thought Warren had made amends to the First Nation peoples with her apology tour this past year. Not successful?

          • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

            Dp,thanks for your requested response. Bernie’s immigration position is more nuanced than your summary.

            The military will never be “green” as long as things like destroying vegetation for better targeting is an accepted tactic. ( Agent Orange, Vietnam). However, the top military strategists do see climate change as the biggest security threat (most Guatemalan, and many Syrian refugees are fleeing deserts where they can no longer grow food to survive. )

            New military buildings also have to use some % renewable energy and incorporate conservation in their designs. 

            Point is, Warren’s not completely off base there. None of this will convince you to see these imperfect candidates as ..well, perfect, but I want someone smart, progressive, honest and electable, which I think Warren is. Are you going to be like R&R and declare that you won’t vote for Sanders or Warren , or go third party, if one of them is the nominee? It would be hilarious if you two were similar in that way. 

            I’m still in the midst of moving and between internet providers – poaching someone’s WiFi – so can’t put in linkfests or long posts as usual. Thanks for the info and ability to discourse reasonably.

            • Bernie's border policy is still pretty far to the right of this primary. Saying we should have "proper facilities" at the border is better than the concentration camps we have rn, but that doesn't make it good when we shouldn't be detaining people at the border in the first place

              She's not completely offbase in that she's better than the people who want the military, but don't want it to be green, but that hardly makes her correct. I might be right that it would be better to be shot with rubber bullets than with live ammo, but that doesn't mean that I'd be wrong to argue I should be shot with rubber bullets instead of not shot at all.

              And I obviously won't go like that. My argument essentially boils down to them being too far right, which would make me absurd if I treated them worse than I treated the other Democratic candidates since they are the furthest left candidates, beside Gravel.

              The candidates who concern me the most are Biden because of his horrendous history with criminal reform, his treatment of women, and his general conservatism and Harris because of her history of governing further to the right acting as a part of the executive branch than a part of the legislative branch, her history as a prosecutor, and her frankly terrible history with queer people. I'd be concerned about some of the others, such as Gabbard or Hickenlooper, if either of them had even a remote chance of winning.

              • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                So then you want open borders on the southern border, like we more or less have on the Canadian border?

                • Curmudgeon says:

                  Don't be dishonest, CHB.  No one said "open borders". 

                   

                • Not just on the southern border. Anything less than fully open borders is fully unacceptable. Restrictive border policies kill. They're inherently violent and discriminatory.

                  • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                    So, how about this? I've seen studies and reports that up to 50 million people want to move to the US, most of them poor, uneducated, and unskilled. Where do we put all these people? How are they to be housed? How are they to be educated? How are they to be fed? Who pays?

                    I think you've been fairly pro-environment in some of your past postings. How does admitting millions more people help and support our environment? 

                    Would it not be better to ramp up our foreign aide programs; both government and NGO; to enable people to stay where they are and make a life for themselves?

                    • We put them in apartments and houses. They'll be educated like everyone else and buy their food like everyone else. There's no reason to treat people who aren't from the US any differently from people who are from the US.

                      CHB, you know that the environment doesn't care about borders, right? All the people who will come to the US with open borders would still exist if we had closed borders.

                      On the other hand, climate change is absolutely already creating a mass of climate refugees and the only good way to handle them is to just let them in no questions asked.

                      You say ramping up foreign aide is incompatible with open borders. We should help others out more and we shouldn't have a restrictive border policy.

                    • Conserv. Head Banger says:

                      Ran out of Reply buttons. Death Pigeon: you haven't answered where the money will come from to serve these millions of new people. You say "we put them in apartments and houses." Are you aware there is a ballot initiative coming in Lakewood to put a limit on construction of new housing, as one example?

                      Yes, some border ecosystems don't care about borders, just as ecosystems can cross state lines.. But, let's get real. Many of these new people you want to allow in might settle on the Front Range. Where does the water come from? More trans-basin diversions? How wide will I-70 need to be to get people into the mountains? How many thousands of acres of agricultural land will be lost to build homes for all these people?

                      Doesn't seem like you're really answering the questions.

                    • People are paid for goods and services, CHB. People who move here will work at jobs like everyone else and get paid to work at those jobs and exchange the money they get for other goods and services, such as housing and food. I don't know why it's an issue for how we'll pay for these things with people moving here from other countries, but not for how we'll pay for these things with the people already living here.

                      More people living in the Front Range will have some deleterious effects on the ecosystems here, while some beneficial effects on the ecosystems where they lived previously. But, ultimately, the effect of people moving from one part of the planet to another on the environment worldwide is net neutral.

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      It's just silly to say the effect of migration is neutral on the environment, DP.  That single mom and her three kids in Guatemala draws very few resources.  Move her to the u.s., Let her two cars, a four-bedroom house, a couple guns, and the other accoutrements of our median $50 k a year life style and she'll do as much to destroy this planet as you and I do .

                    • V, not everyone in the US has a car, a few guns, and a median income of $50k and there's no reason to think that all the people coming here will magically get that standard of living. Someone who's poor like me most likely has no car, riding the bus everywhere, has much more limited energy consumption, and stuff like that, and, even with migrants having substantially better lives here, it's most likely they'll stay in relative poverty and people in relative poverty like that have far smaller impacts on the environment regardless of where they live than people who have a lot of money.

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      Dp. Just by.moving from Guatemala's diey of beans and rice to burgers and fries– the poor man's diet in America, a refugee here hammers the environment.  Veganism in this country is expensive.  And immigrants come here to get high paying jobs and SUVs.  With 6 percent of the world's resources, America consumes a fourth of its resources.  And, hell, a welfare mom in Denver lives better than a family in Chad..

                      America's material wealth, not our vaunted and mostly ignored constitution, is what brings people here.

                      Hell, some day you'll write a video game "The Ukainian Soviet lives". Sell it to Goggle for $50 million and buy a dozen hummers of your own.  Fascism kills its critics.  Capitalism just co-opts them.

                       

                    • A rich person in Guatemala does more to harm the environment than a poor person in the US. While, yes, one of the reasons people come here is for a better life, there are a lot of reasons for it, including escaping the effects of climate change which they did not cause and they will likely continue not to cause when they're here.

                      The lifestyle of a poor person in the US has a negligible effect on climate change compared to the practices of even a few companies thanks to the way in which capitalism structures its production.

                      That's why, as someone who cares deeply about combating climate change, I'm not going to focus on stopping a Guatemalan family from coming here to the US, but, instead, focus on combating the massive corporations who actually drive the current ecocidal crisis.

                      Let people be free to cross any imaginary line they want without being stopped or harassed and, instead, let's fight against the way in which the structure of production under capitalism leads to deleterious effects on the environment.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          Sorry, mJ, this isn't your Fourth grade class and you don't get to decide who can speak.  Warren has some good ideas, but the tally of her "free" college, health care and teacher pay hikes is $3.265 trillion over ten years while her wealth tax would raise, at most, $2.75 trillion.

          So, that adds at least a half trillion to the debt.  We could probably do that except that the Trump deficit is already $1.3 trillion ANNUALLY and climbing.  Without addressing that, Lizzienomics would add about $14 trillion to our debt in ten years.  

          In contrast, Clinton had us on a path to totally pay off the debt before Bush and then Trump decided that making the rich richer by piling debt on generations yet unborn was the key to victory.

          At some point, the BushTrump policies will collapse the economy.  Warren is not alone in failing to draft a plan for fiscal sanity.  But Climate change and fiscal sanity are both necessary to save this planet and somewhere, some how, somebody is going to have to pay some taxes.  Lizzie's pledge that only people with net worth over $50 million will have to ante up is transparent demagoguery.

          (Source on Warren’s cost is Reason magazine.)

          • RepealAndReplace says:

            They are not really big on math, Voyageur. And when they are called to task on their screwy numbers, they declare that "rich people" will be made to pay their "fair share." 

            The wealth tax is interesting, to say the least. Assuming it passes constitutional muster – I can just see Gorsuch's decision on the test case – it might work and generate some money the first year after it is enacted. But what happens as wealth starts getting shipped off shore in the subsequent years?

            Has anyone thought this through. Probably not. But it makes for a nice sound bite.

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              We have a "wealth tax" called the "property tax," RandR.  Reason said in 1 990, 12 European nations had a wealth tax while only four still have it today.  They didn't specify which four.  It takes a lot of mansions to total $50 million, so presumably Warren wants stocks and bonds.  Good luck with that — probably a 4-5 loser in SCOTUS.

              • Wealth taxes and property taxes aren't the same thing. A wealth tax is a tax on assets whereas a property tax is a tax on the value of property. With a property tax, if you have a million dollar home and nothing in the bank, you get taxed a lot, but, if you have a million dollars in the bank, but no expensive homes, you don't get taxed very much. Depending on how the wealth tax is set up, either only the second person gets taxed or both get taxed to about the same degree.

                Ultimately, I think Piketty has a better idea with his call for a global tax on the return on capital, but a wealth tax is much easier to implement politically than that, so it makes sense a politician would support it.

  6. Meiner49erMeiner49er says:

    The poll numbers are nothing more than name recognition at this point, so Biden and Bernie fade, hopefully passing the torch to the next generation. I suspect the same will happen to Warren, who I like, but who will seem "old news" by 2020. Among the younger candidates, Harris has the best campaign foundation, though I'm not sure I'll ever get excited about her. The question for everyone else, is who gets to ride shotgun with her. Call me crazy, but I still think Harris/Bennet is a very likely possibility as the California/New York and Carolina/Colorado results would be very good for that ticket. 

    • DavieDavie says:

      The reason I like a Harris/Buttigieg ticket is the fact that the debates with *rump/Pence would be entertaining, enlightening and likely cause the SS Trumptanic to sink with the entire GOP aboard.

      Also, a rapid winnowing of the presidential contenders would allow a stronger focus on the Senate. All the more reason Beto and Hick should drop out of the Presidential race and jump into the Senate race.

      To accomplish every major goal that Democrats have — fighting climate change, reducing economic inequality, improving health care and so on — the party must win the Senate. Doing so in 2020 would require winning a net of three Senate seats as well as the White House (because the vice president can break a tie). One Democrat, Doug Jones in Alabama, is likely to be an underdog next year, and his defeat would mean the party has to win four seats elsewhere. The party’s best opportunities are in Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Montana, North Carolina and Texas, although most of those states lean Republican.

      https://static.nytimes.com/email-content/TY_14077.html

  7. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    Deleting duplicate

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.