36 Potential 2020 Candidates Listed by The Hill: A Historical Retrospective from 2026

In late 2017, the political publication The Hill identified 36 potential Democratic challengers for the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. This expansive list featured a mix of veteran senators, rising governors, and unconventional outsiders, setting the stage for one of the most competitive and diverse primary seasons in American political history.

The 2020 election cycle is now a cornerstone of modern political studies. Looking back from 2026, the list of 36 candidates curated by The Hill serves as a fascinating time capsule of a party in transition. At the time of the list's publication, the Democratic Party was reeling from the 2016 election results and searching for a path forward. The names included ranged from the eventual winner, Joe Biden, to figures who have since faded from the national spotlight or transitioned into influential cabinet and advisory roles.

Understanding this list requires an analysis of the "Invisible Primary"—the period between the previous election and the first official caucuses—where name recognition, fundraising prowess, and media coverage dictate which "potential" candidates become "actual" contenders.

The Political Landscape of 2017 and the "Invisible Primary"

When The Hill released its list of 36 potential candidates, the political environment was defined by intense polarization and a Democratic base eager for a candidate who could unify a fractured electorate. The list was not merely a roll call of interested individuals but a strategic assessment of who held the most political capital at that moment.

The "Invisible Primary" is a term used by political scientists to describe the behind-the-scenes jockeying for donors, endorsements, and staff. By listing 36 names, The Hill captured the sheer breadth of the field. This was a departure from previous cycles where usually only three to five serious contenders emerged early. In 2017, the lack of a clear heir apparent led to a "gold rush" of sorts among Democratic hopefuls.

Categorizing the 36 Candidates

To understand the 36 names, it is helpful to categorize them by their political standing at the time. The list was roughly divided into four segments: the "Old Guard" and established frontrunners, the "Senate Heavyweights," the "Executive Leaders" (Governors and Mayors), and the "Wildcards" or Outsiders.

The Old Guard and Established Frontrunners

This group included individuals who had already run for president or held the highest offices in the land.

• Joe Biden: The former Vice President was the most prominent name. In 2017, there were questions about his age and whether his time had passed, yet he remained the "scrimmage line" for the rest of the field.
• Bernie Sanders: After his 2016 run, Sanders entered the 2020 cycle with a massive grassroots donor base and a clear ideological platform that had moved the party's center of gravity to the left.
• Elizabeth Warren: Though she had not run in 2016, she was widely viewed as the intellectual leader of the party's progressive wing.

The Senate Heavyweights

The U.S. Senate is traditionally the most common launching pad for presidential bids. The Hill identified several key senators who were actively building national profiles.

• Kamala Harris: As a first-term senator from California, Harris was frequently cited as a "top-tier" candidate due to her prosecutorial background and demographic appeal.
• Cory Booker: The New Jersey senator was known for his oratorical skills and high-profile work on criminal justice reform.
• Kirsten Gillibrand: A leader in the #MeToo movement, Gillibrand was expected to make women's rights a central pillar of her campaign.
• Amy Klobuchar: Representing the Midwest, Klobuchar was positioned as the pragmatic, moderate alternative who could win back "Blue Wall" states.

The Executive Leaders

Governors and mayors often argue that their "real-world" executive experience makes them better suited for the presidency than legislators.

• Steve Bullock: The Governor of Montana was included as a candidate who knew how to win in a "red" state.
• Jay Inslee: The Governor of Washington focused almost exclusively on climate change, a strategy that highlighted the growing importance of the issue within the party.
• Eric Garcetti: Then the Mayor of Los Angeles, Garcetti represented the growing influence of urban leaders in national politics.

The Rise of the Outsiders and "Wildcard" Names

Perhaps the most discussed aspect of The Hill’s list was the inclusion of non-politicians and business leaders. Following the 2016 election of Donald Trump, the "outsider" mold was seen as a viable path for Democrats as well.

• Oprah Winfrey: Her 2018 Golden Globes speech sparked intense speculation, landing her on many lists of potential 2020 candidates, including The Hill's.
• Mark Zuckerberg: The Facebook CEO’s nationwide tour in 2017 led many to believe he was testing the waters for a political run.
• Howard Schultz: The former Starbucks CEO eventually explored an independent bid, but his inclusion on early Democratic lists reflected the party’s internal debate over the role of billionaire candidates.
• Andrew Yang: While he was a virtual unknown when early lists were being drafted, his inclusion signaled a shift toward "idea-driven" candidates focusing on automation and Universal Basic Income (UBI).

Tracking the Outcomes: From 36 to 1

The transition from a list of 36 potential candidates to a single nominee is an arduous process governed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules. For the 2020 cycle, the DNC implemented strict polling and donor thresholds to qualify for televised debates. This system effectively winnowed the field.

By the time of the Iowa Caucuses in early 2020, only a fraction of the original 36 were still in the race. Many names on The Hill's list never officially declared their candidacy. For example, while figures like Sherrod Brown and Deval Patrick were heavily scrutinized, they either declined to run or entered too late to gain significant momentum.

Key Performance and Trajectories of the "Hill 36"

The Impact of the List on Political Media

The practice of listing dozens of potential candidates has been criticized by some as "horse-race journalism," yet it serves a vital function in the political ecosystem. For the candidates, being included on a list by an authoritative outlet like The Hill provides a "seal of approval" that can be used to solicit donors.

From an SEO and digital perspective, these lists generate significant traffic because they cater to the primary search intent of voters looking to "meet the field." In the 2020 cycle, the sheer volume of candidates meant that voters relied heavily on these consolidated lists to distinguish between the various platforms and personalities.

Why Some Candidates Failed to Launch

Of the 36 names listed, many failed to capture the public imagination. The reasons for this are varied and provide a lesson for future election cycles:

1. Fundraising Fatigue: With 36 potential candidates, the donor pool was stretched thin. Small-dollar donors gravitated toward established names like Sanders or viral sensations like Beto O’Rourke.
2. Lane Congestion: Several candidates occupied the same ideological "lane." For instance, the "Moderate Governor" lane was crowded with names like Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Delaney, making it difficult for any one of them to stand out.
3. The "Social Media" Factor: Candidates who failed to create "viral moments" or build a digital-first campaign struggled to maintain relevance. Pete Buttigieg, who was a late addition to many lists, succeeded precisely because he mastered the art of the cable news interview and social media clip.

The 2020 Candidates in the 2026 Context

As we observe the political landscape today in 2026, the influence of the "2020 Class" remains pervasive. Many of those 36 potential candidates are now the elder statesmen and women of the Democratic Party. The 2020 primary was not just an election; it was a massive talent-scouting event that populated the Biden-Harris administration and reshaped the Congressional leadership.

The diversity of that initial list—which included more women and people of color than any previous list of potential candidates—has led to a 2026 Democratic Party that is fundamentally different in its representative makeup. The "36 potential candidates" list was, in many ways, the first draft of the party's future.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who were the most surprising names on the Hill's 2020 list?

The most surprising names were often the non-politicians, such as Oprah Winfrey, Mark Zuckerberg, and Howard Schultz. While they generated significant media buzz, the Democratic primary electorate eventually showed a strong preference for candidates with governing experience, as evidenced by the success of Joe Biden and the "Senate" tier.

How many of the 36 candidates actually made it to the first debate?

Roughly 20 to 25 of the candidates frequently mentioned in early lists like The Hill's eventually qualified for the DNC debates. The DNC used a combination of polling (reaching 1%) and donor counts (65,000 unique donors) to limit the stage. This was the first time such strict digital-age metrics were used to winnow a field of "potential" candidates.

Was Donald Trump on the original list?

No, The Hill's specific list of 36 was focused on the Democratic challengers. However, The Hill and other publications did run parallel analyses of potential Republican primary challengers to Trump, which included names like Jeff Flake and John Kasich, though those challenges ultimately gained little traction.

Why is Joe Biden’s presence on that list significant today in 2026?

In 2017, many analysts viewed Biden as a "yesterday's news" candidate. His inclusion on the list of 36 was seen by some as a courtesy to his service as Vice President. His eventual victory and presidency (2021-2025) proved that traditional name recognition and a "middle-of-the-road" approach could still triumph over a fractured, multi-candidate field.

Where can I find the original article by Niall Stanage?

The original report, titled "The 36 Democrats who could challenge Trump in 2020," was published on The Hill's website in December 2017. It remains archived as a primary source for political historians studying the evolution of the 2020 campaign.

Practical Recommendation for Political Researchers

For those studying the 2020 election cycle from our current 2026 perspective, it is essential to compare early "potential" lists with the final FEC filing data. This comparison reveals the "conversion rate" of political ambition—showing exactly which leaders were able to translate media buzz into a functional campaign infrastructure. Researchers should also look at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) archives to see how fundraising totals in the early months of 2018 correlated with the names identified by The Hill.