However, he comes across as likable and an absolute paragon of honesty compared to Clinton.
By that, I mean that while I certainly don't agree with his positions, he's very upfront about them.
While I don't think he'll beat her, I think the relative early strength he's shown will encourage other Democrats to enter.
It’s the honesty that’s so endearing.
He bluntly states the Left’s stances which other candidates are hesitant to unapologetically back: redistribution of wealth, living minimum wage, universal health care, universal college education, gun prohibition, marriage redefinition, etc. He has no qualms about supporting them 100%, and has no concerns about the costs & consequences of them - holding them as natural axiomatic truths, for which negative results thereof are fixable problems, not symptoms of grave fundamental error. He earnestly wants to make the world a better place - the way he sees “better” - and is willing to head there at all personal costs.
Hillary, on the other hand, holds no apparent positions beyond what her immediate audience wants to hear. She’s at least pragmatic enough to know there are costs to whatever positions she officially holds, costs that will ultimately affect her personally, and is unwilling to pay the price herself beyond what is required to achieve power. We really don’t know _what_ she wants that power for, save vanity.
Other Dems may enter the race, but few will have the staggering appeal of pure unadulterated Leftism.