Sorry fellow Democrats, but there is no "Safe" Presidential candidate for 2020

[Tom Rinaldo]

Once upon a time, though long after dragons and unicorns allegedly walked the earth, there may have been one: a former two term Vice President who served under America's first and very popular African American President. That is how Joe Biden was presented to us, or to be more precise, how he presented himself to the Democratic electorate: A safe bet as the one man who could take it to Trump convincingly, unifying the party while he did so.

There was nothing obviously wrong with that thesis, that case certainly could be and has been made. The evidence to prove it however has so far come up sorely lacking. Yes, Joe Biden might possibly regroup and regain some lost footing as the primary contest moves south. He could in fact still win the Democratic nomination, but Biden's aura of near invincibility has been erased. Now Joe Biden is just one of several candidates with relative strengths and weaknesses for voters to weigh. Though no doubt still ready and extremely able to take on the duties of the Presidency, much of that fizz has left the bottle on the primary trail, and his campaigning has gone flat. Electable? Maybe, but Biden has some serious losing to account for first.

Then there is an up and coming fresh new face with a sharp command of his words and a good grasp on the issues, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg. He embraces both his youth and his identity, is at ease while talking about religion, and has served our nation honorably in war. With Mid Western roots, and a capacity to relate to Americans in the center, Pete argues he is most electable. Perhaps, but a safe bet? Seriously? An openly gay man has never previously run for President on a major party ticket. Almost by definition his electability is not a "safe" bet, it involves core unknowns. How far, and how deeply has America changed since gay marriages were outlawed? How ready is the American electorate to hand the leadership of our nation over to a man still in his thirties, the former two term mayor of America's 306th largest city? And critically important African American voters continue to be slow to warm to him. Pete's talent is undeniable. He might become our nation's next President. But a safe bet? Not even close.

What about our two leading women candidates, each of whom has distinguished herself in the United States Senate? I've seen reports that a fifth of the female Democratic electorate harbor real doubts that a woman can actually defeat Donald Trump in 2020. That's not the male chauvinists among us talking, these are people who want a female President. It might be the daring move, it might be the right move, and it may be the winning move, but it can not be described as the "safe" move to attempt to elect America's first woman President this November.

Meanwhile, though not quite to the same extent as Bernie Sanders with whom she somewhat share's the Left, Elizabeth Warren raises concerns with some as to whether she is too extreme in her own views to be elected, while simultaneously raising new doubts over her ability to elicit the enthusiasm needed to win the Presidency, given her third and then fourth place finishes in the contests held so far. Amy Klobuchar, for most Americans, is also a fairly fresh face, though she comes with a substantive political resume, one that most Americans know little about. She, perhaps more so than anyone else, has not been thoroughly vetted on the national stage. Can she capture the loyalty of leftist leaning voters? Will African American voters warm to this one time prosecutor who now registers essentially at 0% among Blacks for voter preferences? Amy presents too many unknowns herself to be called a "safe"presidential candidate in 2020.

Then there is Mayor Bloomberg, the man with bottomless pockets who opened them up in the not so distant past for Republican candidates for office. It wasn't so long ago that he himself was a Republican running for office, and he used that office, the Mayor of New York City, to warmly welcome and endorse George W. Bush for President at the Republican National Convention in 2004 - after the Iraq invasion. His time in office as New York's Mayor offers a checkered picture from a Democratic perspective. He was not exactly known for his warm relations with NYC's minority communities. He has never been seen as a man of the people. And for a lot of people concerned about our Democracy being for sale, Bloomberg looms large as the largest potential buyer. Not to mention that he is anathema to most leftist voters, a minority themselves to be sure but one whose votes could prove decisive in a showdown against Trump.

So who did I leave out? Oh yeah, Bernie Sanders. who so many leaders of the Democratic Party and people here as well dismiss as unelectable, even while he wins elections, tops the polls, matches up well in head to head match-ups against Trump, shows strength with all racial groups, and consistently registers approval numbers that put him among the best liked and most trusted people in national American politics today. Is Bernie Sanders a "Safe" bet for President? Of course not. That option today is as rare as Dragons and Unicorns. I don't have to here review the ways in which Sanders presents a risk, plenty of other people have already done so for me. 2020 is ripe with risks, but contrary to what some like to assert, those risks are distributed all across our current field of candidates. But what might present the biggest risk of all is for Democrats to nominate another candidate for President who fails to capture the imagination of the public. When we do so is when we most often fail.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. I agree. No one is 100% with all A's on their report cards, otherwise, we would already be aware...

of them and they would be easily the top notch candidate to all. This is why we have primaries and caucuses. At least this process has started, and the numbers are pouring in, as to the candidate(s) with the most delegates, the most votes, etc. An exciting time for all, after such a long wait, with gutter mouth constantly mouthing off all of the time in the background. Screw him, he's on his way to a thorough whopping in Nov. 2020.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. We agree now on this, and we will agree later on stongly backing whoever is our nominee

[SWBTATTReg]

6. You got it! Better words never spoken. Take care!

[Uncle Joe]

3. Well thought out Tom Rinaldo

and thanks for the thread.

[apcalc]

5. There may be no totally safe candidate.

Being mathematically inclined, with some knowledge of statistics,
I do understand probability.

I’ll go with the best bet. All one can do,

Plus, I do expect the bastards to cheat .

[uponit7771]

7. Some are safer than others

[still_one]

9. +++

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Undoubtedly, and we all have our (often differing) opinions as to who they are

I am tired though of a prevalent media narrative that only one of our Democratic candidates warrants concerns about potential "electability". Further I see real potential electoral dangers ahead if our primary voters start tuning out their own instincts regarding who they themselves enthusiastically support in favor of another option because they think that "other voters" will prefer them. The enthusiasm factor is a critical aspect of success in winning elections. When people start voting for those who hold positions that they don't exactly agree with over those who hold positions that they strongly support it skews the whole picture, and can lead to something known as "shallow support", with negative consequences.

[we can do it]

8. Some are much better than others.

[frazzled]

10. I have one question about your analysis

Exactly what elections has Bernie Sanders won (you said "he wins elections" ), aside from in his (tiny) home state of Vermont (population 628,061), and by a minute margin in the primary in the neighboring state of New Hampshire (population 1,371,246). He lost the last Democratic primary hugely by more than 12 points (55.2 to 43.1), 3,708,294 votes, and nearly a thousand delegates. So I don't see where "he wins elections." That is not on the plus side for that candidate, given that it has not been tested on a national level.

I agree that none of the candidates are a safe bet, and all have deficits—which is why so many people (myself included) are reserving judgment about whom to vote for. Unfortunately, we are all at the mercy of those who vote before we do before we can make our decisions. This has never happened before, at least to me. I've always been able to vote for the person I considered the best candidate in primaries, since 1972. This time is different. It depresses the hell out of me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Fair question

In the narrow sense I meant winning the popular vote from both rounds of the Iowa Caucus and then winning the NH Primary. But Sanders started winning elections in Vermont when it was much more of a red leaning state. It hasn't always been the way it is today and Sanders gets good grades from a wide swath of Vermont constituents, across the political spectrum which is why is recognized as the most popular Senator in the Senate (based on home state sentiments. As to the prior Primaries, when 2016 began Sanders had about as much power in the Democratic Party relative to Hillary Clinton as Ukraine has relative to Russia (and no, I don't mean to imply anything political or ideological about that analogy - simply referencing relative strength). Today Sanders has a national machine and a strong national backing, but he had to build that from scratch in the heat of an initially one sided battle when he announced against Secretary Clinton. And he won quite a few state contests then even so.

[Jamastiene]

11. I understand what you are saying, but also,

I would like to add that there is no "safe" vote. Until we address and correct all of the various methods of cheating that Republicans use to "win," none of our votes are even safe. During a recent NC election, one candidate even had his workers going around collecting absentee ballots and then trashing them. His punishment when caught? Nothing, really.

Until we can find ways to stop the Republicans from stealing elections, our votes, no matter which Democrat becomes the nominee, are not safe. IMO, that is the bigger problem, above all else.

[Amimnoch]

13. You are right. That's why I support the one that's actually going after Tramp..

instead of the "establishment" (meaning Democratic Party supporters/members).

Bloomberg 2020 baby!