Before I explain why, here are some recent developments:

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who just won a comfortable reelection in a state that Democrats have increasing problems winning, said publicly that he’s thinking about running for president.

Richard Ojeda, a West Virginia state senator who just lost a bid for Congress (though by only 12 points in a district Donald Trump won by 49), has announced he is running for president.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, asked on “The View” on Monday whether she’s running, replied , “I’m thinking about it.”

Steve Bullock, who is in his second and final term as governor of Montana, traveled to New York after the election to meet with potential donors for a presidential run.

That’s not to mention the work that continues to be done by other likely candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders; or the potential candidacies of Deval Patrick, Eric Holder, Joe Biden, Mitch Landrieu, John Hickenlooper and Terry McAuliffe; or the people who are getting encouraged to run but haven’t said much about it such as Beto O’Rourke and Amy Klobuchar; or the other announced candidate, John Delaney. It’s a big field.

AD

AD

But as we begin to examine these potential candidates, we inevitably slip into a discussion not about the particular person we’re talking about but about the broader type they’re supposed to represent. Brown should run, some say, because Democrats need to put up a Rust Belt populist who connects with working-class voters. Or someone like Warren is compelling because women just propelled Democrats to a historic win and because a woman can effectively contrast with Trump. Or they shouldn’t nominate a woman at all because rampant misogyny will hamper her.

The problem with all those arguments is that we don’t elect types of people; we elect particular people. Imagine that in 2006 you had said, “What Democrats need to do is nominate an African American from a big city with brief national experience, and oh yeah, it would help if he had an Arabic middle name.” That would have been ridiculous. But the person they nominated, and who won two elections with a majority of the vote (something only one other president in the last half-century accomplished), wasn’t just a candidate matching that description. He was Barack Obama, someone of unusual talent and charisma.

Don’t forget, at this stage of the 2008 process there was a lot of skepticism within the Democratic Party about Obama. Sure, he gave a great speech and he seemed to have a bright future, but most Democrats thought him running for president was premature. Even most African Americans in Congress were reluctant to back him until he won the Iowa caucuses and it became apparent he had a real shot to beat Hillary Clinton. But Democrats flocked to him because of how he made them feel, not because they thought other people would vote for him in the general election. You could say something similar about what happened with Trump and the Republicans in 2016.

AD

AD

The idea that other people will support this candidate and therefore I’ll support him is at the heart of “electability,” which is what a lot of these discussions come down to. Primary voters (and pundits) who care about it are putting aside their own feelings and judgments about a candidate to make a guess about how others will feel about her and judge her. But while successful candidates always look electable in hindsight, it’s usually a mistake to concern yourself too much with it during the primaries (or the pre-pre-primaries, where we are now).

That’s because the earlier we are in the process, the less we know both about how the general electorate will respond to a particular candidate and how good a candidate that person is. It can’t be said often enough: Until they’re tested in the unique arena of the presidential campaign, we don’t know what all these people are made of. Primaries are littered with failed candidates who looked strong before the campaign actually began but then turned out to be duds.

Democrats have to decide exactly what they believe, what they want to do and how to go about it — and most importantly, who they are. The person who wins their nomination will be one who embodies the party’s spirit at this moment in history, just as Obama did in 2008. One of these many candidates will prove to be that person; we just have no idea yet which one.