I know our focus now has to be the midterms, but I am beginning to get concerned

[Atticus]

about the sheer number of our potential 2020 presidential candidates. When I hear some say they are contemplating a run, my first reaction is "Really?"

Of course, this is ripe for "divide and conquer". I will work to elect the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. I wonder if all those seeking our party's nomination will publicly say that.

[mainstreetonce]

1. Agreed

The ridiculous primary process is how we got Trump.

We can't line up 25 people on a stage and let the loudest speaker get the most public attention.

[JonLP24]

4. I agree

But we need more than 2 I think at least that way they'll be less hard feelings like the 2004 primary when the nominee lost* to Bush.

[marylandblue]

2. I am not worried about it

There might be 30 people running, but only the top few will get much attention. I think we will have some good choice and everyone will back the winner because we can't afford not to.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

3. Pretty common to start with a huge number that gets whittled down quickly

[MichMan]

5. The party should just agree and force everyone else out

There must be some establishment candidate whose turn it is .

[Atticus]

8. . nt

[LuvLoogie]

10. They'll just force out the "outsider progressives" who run on shitting all over

established Democrats. I hope so at least.

[NurseJackie]

11. Many people have identical hopes.

[ismnotwasm]

12. Jesus.

[manor321]

6. I'd be more concerned about third party candidates

The press will LOVE any third party candidate who says both sides are awful.

And dumb ignorant voters love it as well because they can pretend to be "above at all".

[FM123]

7. you make a good point

[PoliticAverse]

9. Most of those people are running for VP at best. n/t

[genxlib]

13. It's easy top float your name at this point

It gets a lot harder down the road when you have to show legitimate funding capabilities and a public profile with an upside.

It doesn't really matter until Fall of 2019 when we get within sighting distance of Primary season. The rest is just jockeying for position.

I have little doubt that we will be well under 10 by Iowa and under 5 by Super Tuesday.

Regardless of the outcome, I will vote for them provided they are an animate life form. On second thought, I would vote for them if they were an inanimate object considering the alternative.

I do agree with the poster above that a third party candidate could have a major impact in this election. I just hope it is a Libertarian or disgruntled never-trumper instead of one of our factions. If someone like Jeff Flake were to run as an Alt-GOP it would devastate them. If someone like Bloomberg or the other B-name that I dare not speak were to run as an independent, it could really hurt us.

[Lee-Lee]

14. A big primary means the person with the strongest base gets it

And if Bernie runs, it will be him.

Let’s face it, last time was a two person battle all the way, even with a few also-rans on the early ballots.

This time it will be different. If you have 6-7 candidates on the ballot in early states and 3-4 are serious then you can win that primary with 30% or even less of the votes because the votes are so divided.

So whoever had the strongest base has the advantage. Right now that’s Bernie. Nobody else had a base at all or any existing infrastructure in any states, he has that.

By the time the field narrows he will already have a huge delegate lead from winner take all states.

A big field of candidates on the GOP side is what let Trump win the nomination on their side, becuse the anti-Trump right was divided among too many others.

[Funtatlaguy]

15. If Bloomberg runs as a Dem, his money may overpower the field.