It’s still more than a year away, but the presidential election of 2016 is already in high gear and looks to possibly have one of the most crowded fields of candidates in American history – at least for the Republican primary. Democratic candidates, though, are seemingly timid to enter the race, due at least in part to the presumption that it’s Hillary Clinton’s race to lose.

But some party insiders and opinion leaders are starting to float the idea that California Gov. Jerry Brown should run for president, and the idea may be catching on.

Democrats have a history of nominating underdogs, and Clinton isn’t a favorite of the far Left of her party or its intellectual leaders. And many within the party want the next president to govern from the left, even more so than President Obama.

The darlings of the political Left today are the likes of Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. But Warren, despite some liberal groups mounting a “Draft Warren” campaign has indicated on numerous occasions that she does not plan to run. And, well, de Blasio is going to have enough trouble with his reelection campaign for mayor given his tenuous relationship with powerful police unions in the city.

So some progressives are beginning to look West. Talk show host Bill Maher has floated the idea of a Brown presidency, and NBC News correspondent Chuck Todd touted the strength of Jerry Brown’s resume with the progressive movement.

Brown also is regularly praised by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, arguably the intellectual leader of the progressive movement in America. Krugman credits Brown’s agenda for a “California comeback” and as a potential model in national policymaking.

“Gov. Jerry Brown was able to push through a modestly liberal agenda of higher taxes, spending increases and a rise in the minimum wage,” Krugman wrote.

Aside from his credibility with progressives, Brown also has an expansive donor network and still has roughly $24 million in unspent campaign cash from his gubernatorial campaign.

And Brown is no stranger to presidential campaigns. He has run for president three times: In 1976, 1980 and 1992. His first run was a late entry that failed against the Jimmy Carter campaign; his second campaign, engaging both Carter and Ted Kennedy, left him overexposed and outshined.

His most recent run in 1992 was against Bill Clinton. In that election, Brown won primaries in Nevada, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and Colorado. Otherwise, Clinton had a virtual sweep. Brown came in a distant second by delegate count at the Democratic convention that year: Clinton won with 3,372 and Brown with 596.

Those on the left who reject the idea of Brown as a viable presidential candidate typically mention his age. He is 76 now. But none of the leading candidates is particularly young. Hillary Clinton is 67, and Vice President Joe Biden, who has been making moves that suggest he may run for president, is 72.

Besides the rumblings about the potential runs of Brown, Clinton and Biden, there are a few other prominent Democrats suspected to be mulling presidential bids: Jim Webb, a former senator from Virginia; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont; and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

Democrats, at least in some recent elections, have a tendency to reject the heir-apparent candidate for their nominee. It happened for Obama in 2008, and Bill Clinton was the beneficiary of it 1992 when, as an underdog, he won his party’s nomination and the presidency.

Brown, in many ways, would be an underdog, surprise candidate at a time when the Democratic primary, at least at this juncture, is shaping up to be a race to show who will govern most like a liberal. And if that turns out to be the case, Brown’s narrative is the strongest.

Besides Al Gore, Brown is probably the most outspoken political figure on climate change and has successfully pushed tax increases on California’s wealthiest residents – the two most important issues to the progressive orthodoxy.

Also, Brown’s legacy project, high-speed rail, would have a far greater likelihood of coming to fruition if he were to win the presidency. Leaders in Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, have said they will not approve more money for the project and trying to cover a $68 billion price tag with state dollars is both a political and fiscal nightmare. If he were president, he would have the federal purse strings.

What sets Brown apart from his opponents is that, while many of the other potential presidential candidates talk a strong progressive game, Brown has methodically implemented their agenda in the nation’s most populous state.

Whether Brown will officially jump into the race is yet to be seen, but if he were to enter the presidential fray he would most certainly change the debate.