Any crossover appeal for 2020 Dem candidates?

I don't think so. Although Beto could help in Texas, but I doubt he could deliver Texas. I think Georgia is up for grabs with the right candidate. Who's VP doesn't matter much as no one I know decides their vote on who the VP nominee is. That is unless the VP could deliver a swing state. Brown from Ohio, but then that would be two midwesterners on the same ticket. Now let's not overlook you had two southerners in 1992 and 96 with Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Gore was strong enough to deliver Tennessee to Bill both times, but not strong enough to win Tennessee when he ran. Which once again brings up back to the top of the ticket.

If I were Klobuchar, I think I'd first look toward Florida. If not there, go with Hickenlooper. You'd have a former senator and a former governor. Colorado is a swing state which Hickenlooper would help cement. I wouldn't look at any VP choices from the West Coast or Northeast, they're in the bag anyway.

 

Does it matter? The Democrat primaries are rigged anyway. Seeing how the party is moving, with the socialists, racists, and anti-Semites, I'm not sure a Midwestern white woman has any chance to represent the new Democrat brand...

 

Florida, Florida, Florida. Lest we forget Florida, my home state. Florida is not just a swing state, Florida has lately swung national elections. As an aside, I wonder if Rubio will challenge Trump in the primary? There's enough hot hate there to fuel a New Hampshire tailgate party.

I don't know what rising star Florida has on the DEM bench.

 

The one who potentially had great crossover appeal Michael Bloomberg, decided not to run.

 

Weld has already said he would challenge Trump in 2020. He isn't going anyplace. Rubio would be interesting and a much more credible challenger. The problem as of today to any one challenging Trump is that 67% of republicans view Trump very favorably. They're avid Trumpers. 20% view Trump somewhat favorably and would be willing to vote against him if he is seen as a sure loser. Question 61A.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/9d5s05pspt/econTabReport.pdf

Even adding the somewhat unfavorable, the very unfavorable and even the undecided, 67% is easily enough to win renomination. That could change in the coming year. Check out question 56A. Future Event Likelihood — Donald Trump will not win reelection in 2020. 28% of republicans say that is very likely, 22% say it is very unlikely. That's reverse logic for only 22% of Republican saying Trump will win reelection. Throw in the somewhat likely, reverse it to mean Trump won't win reelection you have 48% of Republicans thinking Trump will lose to a total of 41% thinking he will win reelection.

I know, it would be much easier if the question was will Trump win reelection instead of will he lose. I think outside of the avid Trumpers, a lot of Republicans know Trump is in trouble. The history of a sitting president who had a credible challenger isn't good.
1952 Truman challenged, he withdrew, Stevenson lost to Eisenhower
1968 LBJ challenged, he withdrew, Humphrey lost to Nixon
1976 Ford challenged, he survived, but lost to Carter
1980 Carter challenged, he survived, but lost to Reagan
1992 G.H.W. Bush challenged, he survived, but lost to Bill Clinton

The above shouldn't come as a surprise. If a credible challenger challenges a sitting president, that means the sitting president is in a very weak position nationally or it looks like the sitting president is going to lose the election if his party doesn't choose someone else.

Weld is no threat, although a Rubio or a Kasich might become one. Not today, but as the election nears. Especially if more republicans than not continue to think Trump will lose. But all that does, even with a different candidate, the party of the sitting president is split, not unified making it easier for the out of power party to win.

 

100%

 

Ham sandwiches are all-purpose.

Klobuchar's politically dead, but interesting idea.

The Dems are too corrupt/conservative/warmongering to do it, but a Biden/Gabbard ticket might not be too revolting...

 

2020 is the Democrat's to lose. I think the majority of new and traditional Democrats are aware of this, they have 2016 to see as an object lesson in presumption gone awry. While it is unlikely the overwhelming sense of entitlement is absent, the Democrats proclivity to "blow it" through radical moves in either direction is always a possibility. Leader Pelosi has here hands full with some freshman Congressmen/women, but I believe she is up to the challenge.

Trump? An enigma even to himself. I believe Mueller has all the Aces on this hand. How it gets played will tell us a lot about the direction of 2020. Fasten your seatbelts.

 

Hillary Jr. Harris + Abusive Amy K = A very bad look for the Dems

Possibly so bad they could be beaten by Trump.

Sure winners are still:

MObama
Bernie

 

Not even 3rd party.

He could have created such havoc...

Oh well.

 

Nobody.

In the Deep South, outside of Florida (the GOP has all the rest locked), it won't matter who the Dems run.

 

The ONLY Democrat that might have had any crossover appeal would have been Bob Iger, and he's stated a presidential run is off the table. If I absolutely HAD to pick one, it would be Gabbard with Biden having maybe an outside chance of crossover appeal. But Fauxahontas, Kamalalala, or Spartacus? No way.

 

Like I said, I’m kinda biased. I know for certain that if Gabbard was the Democratic nominee, she’d have my vote, and I’ve never voted for a D in my life. I think it’s a long shot though. I think she’s made to many enemies in the establishment.
Booker, Warren, Harris, and Gillibrand are neoliberal clones of Hillary. I don’t think they’ll get much traction with any crossover voters.
I think candidates like Hickenlooper, Inslee, Delaney, and Klobuchar are really going to have to shine at the debates to catch the eyes of independents, just because they’re unknown to most of the country.

 

I think Klobuchar and Beto would take 60% of the vote.

 

That's the sounds I'm hearing from my US friends. They seem to think there'll be some new blood.

 

Joe/Tulsi would be interesting.

However, it may be too "Moderate" for the Progressive Wing.

 

That is a pretty odd combination.

 

Agreed.

Most observers think Biden will need someone like Harris or Beto to placate the Progressive Wing.

 

Even if I still voted Dem I wouldn't go for it...

But I'm still somewhat open to being convinced that Gabbard isn't a conniving snake; she's talked a good game of late, so I'm open to the possibility that she may be halfway decent.

Gabbard/Biden is a better sell for the actual left IMHO.

 

Progressive = Closet conservative

(But not quite as conservative as everyday liberals.)

Horrifying how far right both parties are at this point; that a scheming fascist like Hillary Jr. Harris is considered progressive by anyone makes me want to vomit.

 

I LOVED Tulsi tonight on CNN.

HOT, 100% Woman, and an Absolute BEAST.

5'8". Thick in all the right places.

Just YUM!

 

Yeah, brother.

Politics (per se) really is "all relative".

Who knows where the Dems will be in October '20?

Gonna be a fun ride.

 

She's an interesting mix; she's expressed some very troubling views in the past, but is the only outspoken anti-war, non-neo-con Dem with any credibility and a real base at this point. (AOC and Omar are too green.)

I'm open to being convinced she's evolved, but suspicious that she hasn't.

 

Howard Schultz maybe, but Trump is still winning

 

Every "politician" has "baggage".

It goes with the territory.

That said, at this point, it would be (virtually) impossible for the Dems to nominate someone that I wouldn't prefer to Trump.