A large and growing number of Democrats are considering running for president in 2020. Who should run, and who should stay home? Here is my analysis, with the likely candidates in alphabetical order:
1. Joe Biden
Is he qualified? It would be hard to imagine anyone with better qualifications than Biden.
Is there a unique rationale for his candidacy? He can appeal to white working men in a way that none of the other potential candidates can. He also stands for a return to decency, competence, and moderate politics. There will be a market for that during the campaign, even though he will probably get lost on stage with the others.
Can he win? Absolutely.
Should he run? If his heart is in it, yes. Age and gaffes are an issue, but not standing next to Trump.
2. Michael Bloomberg
Is he qualified? Yes. His tenure in NYC speaks for itself.
Is there a unique rationale for his candidacy? He would be the only vocal advocate for business on the debate stage.
Can he win? No chance, and he has to know it. His reason for running would have to be simply to pull the party back into the center. I don’t think even that would work.
Should he run? No, but I would much rather see him run as a Democrat than as an independent.
3. Cory Booker
Is he qualified? Yes. Any reasonably experienced US Senator meets the standard.
Is there a unique rationale for his candidacy? There is no other potential candidate in this list who comes across as Obama Lite–cool, cerebral, optimistic, and inoffensive. Hey, it worked twice before.
Can he win? Yes. He can appeal to all segments of the party, and will not be too threatening to white America.
Should he run? Sure. Why not?
4. Kirsten Gillibrand
Is she qualified? Yes, just as Booker is.
Is there a unique rationale for her candidacy? Not really. She would split the MeToo vote with the other female candidates. To my knowledge, she doesn’t really have anything else to say.
Can she win? I don’t see it. MeToo is not exactly a winning slogan with white working men.
Should she run? She would be wasting her time and her few donors’ money.
5. Kamala Harris
Is she qualified? Same as Booker.
Is there a unique rationale for her candidacy? Yes. She is more likely (and better positioned) to embrace pure identity politics than any of the others. She is also smart and charismatic.
Can she win? Only if she figures out a way to communicate with white swing voters without losing her base support from women and minorities. That’s TBD.
Should she run? Yes. She figures to play a prominent role in the campaign. At worst, it’s good practice for the future.
6. Bernie Sanders
Is he qualified? Same as Booker.
Is there a unique rationale for his candidacy? I guess you could say that being the only seventies leftie with lots of stupid ideas about spending money sets him apart from the others, if not in a good way.
Can he win? The GOP would eat him for lunch. By the end of the campaign, you would think Maduro is his running mate.
Should he run? Feeling the Bern once was enough. He succeeded in moving the center of the party to the left; he should quit while he’s ahead.
7. Elizabeth Warren
Is she qualified? Same as Booker.
Is there a unique rationale for her candidacy? She has created one by setting out a series of leftish policy proposals that focus more on structures than ends. Unlike Sanders, she is a radical who doesn’t insist on spending huge amounts of public money. Unlike Gillibrand, she isn’t relying on the MeToo vote; her perspective is much broader than that.
Can she win? She looks and sounds a bit like Hillary, but I would say yes, particularly if things get worse in the next two years, which seems likely.
Should she run? Yes, and she clearly is.