MSW: Why isn't Cory Booker in the lead for the presidential nomination?

MSW: Why isn't Cory Booker in the lead for the presidential nomination?
MSW claims that Cory speaks too pastorally to gain popular support, which is odd for a writer who otherwise demands more religious Social Justice references in campaign speeches. One answer for progressive voters is that he has taken more money from rich donors than they like. They seem to be allergic to money as though it renders a candidate inauthentic.

Personally, I think that if he had been on the ticket in 2016, he would be Vice President today and, if Clinton chose not to run, the only candidate in 2020.

Stop reading if you remember me saying it before. Even now, if Mueller has evidence that will cause Pence to resign and Pelosi gets her head on straight on impeachment, she is the likely President and is as likely to retire in 2020. If she is leaving her options open to run, she will pick Booker as VP, which makes him the nominee in 2020 if she opts out or 2024 if she takes a turn of her own.

If Pelosi makes Harris Veep, then Harris Pelosi is out in 2020 and Harris wins the nomination and the White House. Harris could safely put Kaine on the ticket, or some other White Guy out if central casting. It does not matter who.

If Warren pulls the upset, she will put Booker on the ticket and he will win in 2028, assuming no major realignment because MAGA has killed the GOP. Of course, that is not so unlikely. If Bernie wins, Kamala is Veep and the 2024 nominee.

There is nothing untoward about such distinctions in identity politics. If the Democrats don't give attention to their main constituencies, they will be ignoring the lesson of 2016.

The days of WASP male monopoly over politics are over. No more capitalists either. Not after Trump.  This gets us back to Booker's donor problem. We'll get over it for the win.