I find Beto O'Rourke and Kirsten Gillibrand too lightweight for my liking, but I do see Harris as a more substantive candidate. I was very disappointed in Warren's DNA test tactic. I can understand why she did it, but it turned out to be something of a political disaster. I'm not quite sure what she expected. You can't humiliate someone with no sense of shame or responsibility. However, I still like Warren for her potential to get things done. She is a policy wonk, which I like. And maybe she has learned that it is futile to try to beat Trump at Twitter wars. So I haven't been turned off to her candidacy in the same way that I have with O'Rourke's and Gillibrand's. I just hope that she can learn not to get distracted by Trump's antics.
First off, I think that there is great danger in democrats believing that Trump can be easily beaten with any half reasonable candidate. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that Trump is so terrible that anyone can beat him. It just isn't true. The problem with Warren is that she only appeals to a very small segment of people in the US. She appeals to some people in the NE who hates banks. Moderates aren't going to vote for her. Many liberals won't be motivated by her. As an example, in her own senate race, she won by a 24 point margin. That sounds great! However, an average democratic person in the same year would have won by 36 points (see link below)! At the same time, Klobuchar and Brown outperformed the baseline by 13 and 12 points.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/poli...warren-amy-klobuchar-sherrod-brown/index.html
I think that the dems should concentrate on finding the best candidate who can win. Then maybe put Warren in a cabinet position. Warren can do a lot of good. But I think that her negative personality just turns off too many people...
At this point, I think that you are way overstating Trump's electability. He did not even win the popular vote in 2016, and he is now extremely well known to the public. His popularity tanked shortly after he took office, and it has stayed well below water since then. The midterm elections were largely a referendum on his presidency. He made sure of that. And the result was a truly historic blue wave that wiped out Republican control of the House. Democrats did not retake the Senate, but they had the worst odds of doing so since the ratification of the Constitution. In 2020, Republicans will be at a disadvantage to retain the senate, and those races will have an impact on the presidential race. Even Hillary Clinton could probably beat Trump. Note that I am not saying a Trump victory is impossible, just highly unlikely.
As for that CNN piece, I would actually like to see Klobuchar and Brown compete for the nomination. Both would likely have an easier time than Warren of winning the general election. However, neither would turn out the Democratic base as well as Warren would. They are too moderate. Klobuchar has a reputation for being too cautious and understated. Brown is too wedded to old style Democratic labor politics in an era when labor unions have lost much of their former election clout. Warren would probably be a better choice. If she managed to win the nomination, I suspect that she would be able to rise above the GOP-flavored buzz that currently shapes her image as some kind of fringe leftist looney. And Warren can give a good speech in public, not to mention having consumer protection as a popular issue to boost her electability. That said, I actually prefer Kamala Harris over Warren right now. I think that Harris is underrated as a presidential contender.
