Here’s something to pass the time overnight. Assuming that Barack Obama is reelected, who do you think will be the major contenders for the Democratic and Republican nominations for president in 2016?
The Democrats have two heavyweights in Vice-President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but both will be somewhat old to be first-term presidents. Biden would turn 74 shortly after election day and Sec. Clinton would turn 69 just before election day. By way of comparison, Ronald Reagan was 69 when he was elected president and he was suffering from mild dementia by the end of his second term.
Still, Biden and Clinton are both in good health and not currently showing any signs of slowing down. I’d be surprised if both of them declined to run. But who else do the Democrats have?
The top of the list must include the insanely popular governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo. I think Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia also must be considered as a strong possibility. Both Cuomo and Warner will be able to raise the kind of money they need to run a real campaign.
Feel free to offer some ideas on who else might run, but I’m really only interested in people who have the connections to actually compete.
On the Republican side, there are actually no obvious candidates. If Romney loses the election in November, his political career is done. And I can’t see any of the people who ran against him this year actually running again. Jeb Bush will be 63 years-old, so he could make a run at restoring the Bush name. Chris Christie will only be 54, so he could definitely be in the mix. It’s possible that Mitt Romney’s running mate might be elevated enough by the experience to have a shot at the nomination. I can’t see any Republicans who currently serve in Congress getting much traction, but perhaps one of their governors (other than Christie) might be compelling.
One thing that stands out is that the Democrats have a much deeper bench. Who do you think will be a candidate?
Martin O’Malley has been fairly impressive as a Governor and Obama surrogate.
I really like O’Malley. I heard him speak last month at our Democratic State Convention and he was great.
I’m aboard that train. He’s a pitbull, gives it back in spades to Chris Christie, called out W on the phony reasons for war and didn’t back down from the comment.
He’s a REAL, proud democrat. I would work for him in a heartbeat.
I like O’Malley too
I haven’t paid attention to his career in a while, but does Gavin Newsom have any ambitions to make the jump towards national politics?
Newsom does have the advantage of having his embarrassing sex scandal exposed already. Will Americans have a problem with a guy who stepped out on his wife with the wife of his campaign manager and close friend?
Newsom is enormously unimpressive. I don’t think he can even get elected gov of California (nor that he should). He got some nationwide visibility by being the first to get on the right side of equal marriage, but that’s the one and only thing he ever accomplished.
A Clinton/Cuomo ticket.
Biden?
Clown time.
Warner?
Please.
Dark horse for VP? (No irony intended.) Newark mayor Cory Booker.
Don’t tell me he isn’t thinking about it.
He is.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
I’m writing in Eugene V. Debs. No one else is progressive enough.
Biden isn’t a clown, but he definitely is too damn old for the position. I think he’ll go into emeritus mode pretty soon.
Cuomo is from NY. Sorry guys, but I doubt anyone from NY is ever going to be Pres again, but I don’t think the VP is out of the question. But here again, Cuomo would overshadow most other politicians (not a good thing in a VP) and would contribute exactly nothing in terms vote getting (same reason Haley Barbour is not in the running). Especially since Cuomo will work for almost any democrat now in existence.
Cory Booker has the same knocks: too charismatic, not necessary for NJ to go blue, and I think too ambitious. Cory is lock to go on to bigger things if he can avoid major scandal. A too soon run as VP is a death knell in this hyperpartisan atmosphere.
I think the next great blue savior will come from the west. He or she is not yet on the radar. Some kind of Blue Dog Populist … where the hell is William Jennings Bryan when you need him?
As far as the R’s go? Dead Meat. Flyblown, stinking, putrid and discolored. Teahadists will blow up the R brand if Mitt isn’t elected by claiming that only a REAL ‘MURICAN CONSERVATIVE can win in 2016.
The US is a quite conservative country. Americans, however, dislike bullies in public life and the TP is nothing if not a bully.
I like O’Malley too. I know Colorado Governor Hickenlooper has a super high popularity rating but who knows how this gun debate would play for him in a Dem primary.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/06/hickenlooper-remains-one-of-most-popular-governors.h
tml
Would brian schweitzer run?
Senator Amy Klobuchar is well liked too.
Nope. Biden’s a career loser outside Delaware. Never even vaguely competitive in 08. This mistake gets insistently remade every single time. Just because somebody is VP doesn’t mean they have any business running for President. Different jobs, different qualifications. If Al Gore was such a worldbeater candidate, he would have beaten Clinton in 92, not worked for the man. If Republican voters were ever really on board with George H.W. Bush, they would have elected him in 80. There’s a reason no party has strung together 16 years of White House continuity since FDR-Truman. Too much dynastic thinking. Too many guys falling into nominations because they were “next in line.” Too much money cutting corners with familiarity instead of excellence.
In other news, the President is making gun control noises:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/26/obama-gun-control-deal-aurora
I look forward to the denunciations from certain blogosphere quarters (cough) who sagely noted earlier that gun control is a surefire political loser and that politicians can’t be held accountable for not pursuing it in a tight election season without more reliable grassroots pressure. In the name of consistency and all.
Oh wait, that was a whole 48 hours ago. THE GROUND HAS CLEARLY SHIFTED.
Agreed re Biden. He’s never been a popular candidate for President on his own merits, and he’s maintained a low profile as VP, aside from making speeches in support of PBHO’s presidency. And at 73 (as a candidate)? He’d be a certain one-termer. There’s no advantage in it from a party perspective, and I doubt he’d be interested anyway.
The issue of gun control is hard to read, but if the President is pressing forward, albeit in non-specific language, then it would seem he’s calculated that he’s got no support to lose among gun activists, and a potential opportunity to solidify support among those who believe in some common-sense restrictions on purchasing access, including majorities within the NRA membership.
I’m not usually one who buys into the “weak Obama” bull puckey, but Obama’s statements about gun control are the weakest tea I have ever seen. Saying those things in a speech to the Urban League is what a politician does when he has a political loser, but he needs to make of it for the base.
Both Cuomo and Warner would be disasters. I do hope Brian Schweitzer runs. Or O’Malley.
Schweitzer is the second coming of Howard Dean, in all the good ways, and all the bad ways. And he’s running hard now.
Cuomo would be fucking awful. He’s so bad I’d rather see Clinton or Biden, and I don’t think either of them is any good either. Wall Street “Democrats” are not what we need.
I was thinking about this today wrt to the republicans. I used to think Huckabee may be a serious contender, but now I think with his huge homophobia by ’16 he will be un-electable. This countries attitude about homsexuality is changing so rapidly – 4 years from now the kind of homophobia that many right wingers exhibit now, will be radioactive.
-r
“If Romney loses the election in November, his political career is done.”
Nixon was the last one to lose the general and run again, right?
yup. And before that Stevenson ran twice. And Grover Cleveland won, lost, and won. There were probably others in-between.
But Romney – no way – he’s toast. I can’t believe after doing so badly in the 2008 primaries that they nominated him.
Hmmm yes your write. May that be so reason for that.
machine embroidery designs.
I’m expecting Brian Schweitzer to run and give the underdog, populist pitch vs. one of the bigger money folks. Given that the economy probably won’t be fixed by 2016 (for structural reasons), he’ll have something to run on, and he’s definitely one who’s not afraid to criticize his own party.
I like him more than the rest, but to be honest, none of these contenders are in the same league as President Obama.
Actually, Clinton is in a league of her own.
Not necessarily “better” or “more correct,” mind you.
Just bigger.
Way bigger.
And smarter, too.
Watch.
AG
Yeah, she was so much in a league of her own that she got her ass handed to her by some rookie Senator. She wasn’t smart enough to listen to Bob Graham back when W was pushing for the Iraq war.
It’s all about position, contacts in the PermaGov and popular perception, Calvin. She has cemented her “brand” with her performance as Secretary of State; she is the PermaGov and if she doesn’t mess up somehow she’s a shoo-in frontrunner for the Dem nomination in 2016.
Will she refuse to run?
Maybe.
But I doubt it.
Down deep inside, she was the one with ambition, not Bill, He had talent, but he would have been quite happy chasing women, getting high and and making money after his governorship ended. Hillary? Nope. She wanted up. Got it, too. In spades. Would she stop at a run for the brass ring if it looked like she could win? I think not. Watch.
AG
It’s all about position, contacts in the PermaGov and popular perception, Calvin. She has cemented her “brand” with her performance as Secretary of State; she is the PermaGov and if she doesn’t mess up somehow she’s a shoo-in frontrunner for the Dem nomination in 2016.
I spent the 2007-2008 election cycle arguing politics on a libertarian web site. There was one regular who thought it would be funny, for a solid year, to mock me for saying that Hillary Clinton was not inevitable, and Obama might beat her.
He liked to say, over and over, “Hillary Clinton owns your party,” just like you are saying now.
Finally, way too late in the game, after Obama had locked up the necessary delegates, he wrote: “I guess you were wrong. Hillary Clinton doesn’t own your party.”
To which I replied, “Oh, no, Hillary Clinton totally owns the Democratic Party. We’re just not real big on property rights.”
She didn’t “get her ass handed to her.” He just barely squeaked by her.
She lost by a hair to the most talented politician in generations, when she had a massive anchor (the Iraq vote) hanging around her neck.
So a football team that scored the first 56 points, then pulled their starters, and ended up winning 56-42 was a close game?
I don’t follow your reasoning at all. I think a badly-written analogy is getting in the way.
A 56-42 football is not close. A two-touchdown margin is a strong win.
Obama’s victory of Clinton, on the other hand, was actually close.
I can’t even tell whether Obama or Clinton is supposed to be the team that scored 56.
Assuming it is Obama, he never “pulled his starters,” not did he have an early lead. He campaigned strongly throughout – he had to – and he never at any point had a big lead, certainly not at the beginning.
Assuming it’s Hillary, she never “pulled her starters.” She, too, campaigned strongly throughout, and was actually campaigning better and harder towards the end than at the beginning.
Bottom line: the two candidates went at it hammer-and-tongs for months, and in the end, it was a very tight race.
Maybe Boo can clarify things but I don’t remember Clinton having much of a chance after after March(or April). I think even Nate Silver said it would have required a triple bank shot for Hillary to pull it off.
You remember correctly.
It was still a close race, though. Obama was on a glide-path to victory, but it was still a close race. If he had blown it, Hillary was right on his heels.
Unlike most primaries, once someone emerged as the likely nominee, the race wasn’t over. Obama never had the gigantic late victories that, for instance, McCain was racking up once the race was assumed to be over.
The race was not over until the superdelegates had a meeting. Apparently sometime during that meeting Obama and Clinton had negotiated a deal whereby she became Secretary of State. And the superdelegates broke toward Obama.
For Mitt, the primary is over. He has all the delegates he needs to get the nomination (outside of a suddenly brokered convention). Obama did not have the votes sewn up until after the superdelegates meeting.
She’s done. Way too old. She’s still married to Bill (“Nothing wrong with Bain Capital”) Clinton.
This. I’m not sure where Booman is getting “deeper bench” from, maybe it’s fractionally deeper.
What kind of party apparatus exists independent of Obama? DNC was in the Dean era but we know how that turned out.
Apples-oranges. The DNC is always an appendix when there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Name one DNC Chair from 92-00. No Googling.
One is low-hanging fruit. T-Mac.
Who the fuck is TMac????
Terry McAuliffe!!! You don’t remember that clown? Jeepers!! He was all over the TV in ’08 shilling for Hillary.
Never mind .. I just looked at the dates .. and he didn’t actually chair the DNC till after Clinton left office. I’d assumed he was DNC chair during the Clinton presidency because he was a flunkie of theirs.
McAuliffe was the first name that leapt to my mind in the challenge, too, but then I realized he was the one in charge prior to Dean, so the dates wouldn’t fit.
But he’s exactly the sort of name that is important to keep in mind in this consideration. He has been a key fundraiser for the Dems going back to before his tenure as DNC chair. He was the campaign chair for Hillary’s presidential run, and, btw, also a key figure in the ongoing Keystone XL pipeline business.
Love him, hate him, it’s this sort of person who has to be taken into account when predicting the next campaigns.
I lived in Maryland during O’Malley’s tenure as mayor and and governor, and I wasn’t particularly impressed. However, I have liked his recent leaning forward on gay rights. He’s clearly positioning himself for a presidential run. Just hoping he has some core convictions.
My money is on Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
Electrolytes!
No one has mentioned Elizabeth Warren (assuming she wins the Senate seat in MA). She articulates liberal positions well enough to have a shot at winning over independents and would tend to generate a lot of excitement among Dems. O’Malley would generate some strong interest too.
By contrast, the Republicans have a bunch of old guys, retreads and not-ready-for-prime-timers.
Oh man – she’d be too good to be true. Please please please.
Comes back to the original stipulation that the candidate have the connections necessary to compete. Certainly Obama has shown her favor, so if she wins her Senate seat and continues that connection, she could be a contender as far as that goes…
But. I don’t see the hunger. Clinton (both) and Obama are born candidates. Warren’s an ambitious advocate of her perceived constituency, but I don’t know that she’s the sort of political animal that could field a presidential campaign. No particular evidence of it yet, anyway.
She has no national security profile at all. A credible presidential candidate needs that.
Maybe she can develop one in four years, but I haven’t seen anything that would suggest she’s interested in doing so.
Obama’s 2008 foreign policy profile could fit on the back of a beer coaster…. what was it, besides opposition to the Iraq war, and the Surge?
In 2008, early opposition to the Iraq War, and to the surge, was a pretty big national security profile, enough to make one a national leader within the party, and to provide his margin of victory over a powerful and talented party insider.
But, nonetheless, Obama did go into the election with a steep hill to climb on national security. It’s a good thing he was very interested in the topic, and was able to effectively and credibly speak on it. He was in a hole on the issue.
A large prat of this “Preznit” thing is the beauty contest part. This has been a deal breaker ever since JFK won over Nixon because…among other things…he simply looked better on TV.
Warren always looks like she is getting ready to scold someone. Sorry, but there it is. Who and what she is or isn’t doesn’t matter much if she can’t put the jolly face on at will.
Sorry, but there that is as well.
No shot.
AG
Reagan was suffering from clear dementia when he was governor of California. It wasn’t so much age as that he really had Alzheimer’s early on. The guy was never all there. A puppet reading lines from the get-go. That he was elected and is now respected is a damning indictment of the poor judgement and non-existent intelligence of the bulk of the American electorate.
As for 2016 – I guess it’s Hillary’s if she wants it – not too happy about that. And the Republicans … Christie will probably be dead from morbid obesity by then and four years down the demographic road, will it even matter? Every few seconds another fat white guy is replaced by voting age hispanic. Once Texas flips …
(Piling on here in the interests of historical accuracy.)
I can’t speak to his years as governor of California, but Reagan was visibly displaying symptoms of Alzheimer’s in his first term as president. Remember his closing statement, meandering down the Pacific Coast Highway…., in one of the debates against Mondale? Everyone who knew someone with Alzheimer’s (which wasn’t as common, or as commonly recognized in 1984) knew what that look on his face meant.
that was pre-internets though. more difficult to hide facts even when the press won’t write about it now.
Tell it like it is!!!
AG
Sorry, AG, that was Errol
If you were Biden, wouldn’t you rather be Sec. of State?
Not going to happen. I think that Hillary is seriously retiring after this stint as Secretary of State. Facing 20 years of crap is more than enough for any one person.
Biden is likely to stay VP just for continuity. The real counterintuitive appointment for Secretary of State to succeed Hillary would be Richard Lugar. But more likely it’s going to be Susan Rice at State.
Clinton might run. Biden won’t. I believe the whole 2016 chatter coming from Camp Biden this year was both a diversion from the talk of replacing him on the ticket and an effort to keep him from becoming a lame duck even before the election.
Other than that, here are my guesses of the folks who are at least thinking about it (in some cases I hope they are):
Democrats:
Gov. John Hickenlooper (CO)
Gov. Dan Malloy (CT)
Gov. Jack Markell (DE)
Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD)
Gov. Brian Schweitzer (MT)
Gov. Andrew Cuomo (NY)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH)
Sen. Mark Warner (VA)
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton
Elizabeth Warren (MA)
Republicans:
Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)
Gov. Brian Sandoval (NV)
Gov. Chris Christie (NJ)
Gov. Mary Fallin (OK)
Gov. Scott Walker (WI)
Gov. Robert McDonnell (VA)
Sen. Marco Rubio (FL)
Sen. Rand Paul (KY)
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (NH)
Sen. John Thune (SD)
fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush (FL)
In any case, I believe that we will have at least one serious female contender for the Democrats, possibly the Republicans will have one as well.
Good list, but you left off the Gov of NM on the Repubs Susana Martinez – female, not a lunatic, hispanic, republican. She might be strong.
Looking at possible pairings in no particular order.
Hickenlooper-Gillibrand
Malloy-Klobuchar
Markell-Brown
O’Malley-Schweitzer or O’Malley-Klobuchar
Schweitzer-Warren
Cuomo-Warner
Klobuchar-Warner (Warner was a popular governor)
Gillibrand-Schweitzer
Brown-Hickenlooper
Warner-Malloy
Clinton-Hickenlooper
Warren-Cuomo
What is interesting is the absence of folks from the Left Coast on this list. That’s a bunch of electoral votes that under some circumstances could bolt. What about Cantwell or Wyden? Wyden certainly has the itch.
For the Repubs:
Jindal-Ayotte
Sandoval-Paul
Christie-Thune
Fallin-Ayotte
Walker-Paul
McDonnell-John Thune
Rubio-Martinez (if you’re gonna pander, why not go all the way)
Paul-Sandoval
Ayotte-Fallin
Thune-Christie
Bush-Martinez
Martinez-Ayotte
Noticeably absent is Texas.
I think both parties have problems with the incumbents from their strongest bases being too old to comtemplate a Presidential run.
Amy Klobuchar. She is wildly popular here in MN (she managed to win Bachmann’s district even when Bachmann won). Her current opponent appears almost hilariously pathetic in money and polls. She’ll have been a senator for most of two terms by 2016.
She’s a former prosecutor, and seems to be able to tow the fine line between happy soccer mom and person who utterly crushes her political opponents. But she also comes off as a “girl’s girl”, someone who is traditionally feminine, and unthreatening till she needs to be. That seems to get her big points with the timid, mushy middle.
Main drawbacks are lack of foreign policy experience and some odd positions on a few issues, but her sheer unstoppable popularity indicates to me that she has bigger things ahead of her. She has a magic formula of some kind. If she isn’t a presidential candidate, she might be on VP lists.
Amy Klobuchar. She is wildly popular here in MN (she managed to win Bachmann’s district even when Bachmann won). Her current opponent appears almost hilariously pathetic in money and polls. She’ll have been a senator for most of two terms by 2016.
She’s a former prosecutor, and seems to be able to tow the fine line between happy soccer mom and person who utterly crushes her political opponents. But she also comes off as a “girl’s girl”, someone who is traditionally feminine, and unthreatening till she needs to be. That seems to get her big points with the timid, mushy middle.
Main drawbacks are lack of foreign policy experience and some odd positions on a few issues, but her sheer unstoppable popularity indicates to me that she has bigger things ahead of her. She has a magic formula of some kind. If she isn’t a presidential candidate, she might be on VP lists.
ooops, sorry about the duplicate. Arrrgh.
What connections are you talking about? We are talking four years out and there are some, like O’Malley, already out there.
This is the part that gets me. Clearly Clinton will have those connections if she’s interested, but aside from her, I can’t predict at all what the party and fundraising apparatus is going to look like this far out.
Obviously performance in this year’s elections is going to be a factor. If PBHO sails to reelection then Plouffe and Axelrod are going to have more influence, and whatever organization remains of OFA. In the unlikely event of an Obama loss…but if that happened, this whole discussion is pointless.
Who are the big money connections going to be leading up to the ‘016 election cycle? It seems to depend on how successful President Obama is as a candidate and to a lesser extent as a party leader this year.
The fact that we ask this question shows how broken the system is. The money guys have a veto over candidates. The party leaders joined at the hip to lobbyists have veto over candidates.
Thus has it always been so.
Even for George McGovern. Even for Bobby Kennedy….
But there was a time that we had elites scared enough to be responsible and competent. The brokenness is as much with the elites in power as the political system. See Chris Hayes’s The Twilight of the Elite.
Since at this point in 2004, I doubt Obama would have registered on anybody’s radar, this really is a somewhat ridiculous exercise, but what the hell, I’ll go along wth it.
Most of the Dems I can think of have already been mentioned.
On the Republican side, Christie has already indicated a willingness to run (I guess he already concedes that Romney will lose.)
For some people, a lot will depend on how elections turn out between now and then, but I definitely expect to see Walker make a go of it. Look for him to announce sometime next year that he will not seek reelection for Governor because he has accomplished all his objectives, etc. I don’t think he would take a chance on losing the election for Governor if he intends to move higher up the food chain.
Ryan may also make a play for it.
Jeb may go after it, but it will depend on the state of the base. If it is as wingnuttery as it is now, he won’t do it. And my prediction is that a Romney defeat will be read to mean that he wasn’t conservative enough and they have to even be battier than they are now.
And if they are battier than they are now, look for someone from the Deep South.
Along the pre-2004 Obama lines there is Kamala Harris and a guy running for state legislature in Texas (and I can’t even remember his name!).
I’ll see if I can find the video of the no-name Texan–he is wonderful.
The Bush brand is so damaged that he’d first have to prove that he was adopted or something and then change his name.
Another Bush frontman?
That’d be like hiring a Reagan to sell cigarettes or memory aids.
Please.
AG
Assuming for the moment the rather optimistic Obama reelect scenario, I see the nom being Hillary’s if she wants it. But not Biden, even if he decides to run a third (?) time.
I’ve been a Gillibrand fan since she made it to the senate. If she could quietly manage to add 15% more gravitas to her persona, she’d be talked up even more as the obvious Hillary alternative.
Unless that alternative turns out to be Eliza Warren. Much too early to tell there. But she naturally projects seriousness and leadership; no training needed on that score.
Amy Klobuchar strikes me as potential VP material, good positions overall but almost too friendly a personality. Needs 30% more gravitas in her case. She and Gillibrand can train together at the Dem Gravitas Boot Camp hosted by DiFi.
Mark Warner: combines the excitement of a Dick Gepsofdt with the corporatist outlook of a Chris Dodd, and like them his presidential effort will go nowhere.
Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.
I don’t know if it’s possible for anyone to make the jump from the House to the White House, but if there is a candidate who can do so, it’s her.
Talk about fire in the belly – she travelled the country as one of Hillary’s main surrogates while being treated for cancer. She’s clearly got serious pull in the party machinery. She’d have Pelosi pulling for her to help out with the left. She’d have the AIPAC (or at least J-Street) crowd behind her.
DWS is AIPAC through and through. Why you think she’d be a good candidate is beyond me. What has she done at the DNC or when she headed the DCCC? Why you’d want a Democrat who made backroom deals to stab other Democrats in the back(why is a recent former GOPer taking on Allen West in a swing district, for starters?) is beyond me.
DWS is AIPAC through and through.
And that’s supposed to hurt her? Ah, yes, the ol’ “AIPAC is the kiss of death” rule of American politics.
Why you think she’d be a good candidate is beyond me.
In addition to the reasons I just provided in the comment you replied to: she’s also a good speaker on the stump, projects toughness, and doesn’t make high-profile mistakes.
Why you’d want a Democrat who made backroom deals to stab other Democrats in the back(why is a recent former GOPer taking on Allen West in a swing district, for starters?) is beyond me.
Did I say anything about “wanting?” I think this is where you go wrong: you don’t seem to understand the difference between subjective political preferences and objective political strength. You don’t like AIPAC? That’s nice. As it turns out, being tight with AIPAC is not, in fact, a political liability in American politics.
You obviously don’t get it. I was not pointing out whether she could win or not. I’m just pointing out that she’ll be like Rahm Emanuel, Ben Nelson or worse.
I was not pointing out whether she could win or not.
Since I was, and you replied with a comment about how much you dislike her, it is obviously you who doesn’t get it.
“Projects toughness”??? More like projects niceness. Her typical rejoinder to a prominent Republican who’s made some outrageous, wacko statement about Dems or liberals or Obama is to say such comments are “inappropriate.”
She’s from the Nice and Polite wing of our party. Get back to me when she gets elected senator or Gov from FL and after she’s attended a full session of our Let’s Get Tough Boot Camp. Then we can talk about maybe her prospects for VP.
I think you are confusing toughness with obnoxiousness.
(why is a recent former GOPer taking on Allen West in a swing district, for starters?)
Yes, why on earth would she want to run someone with potential crossover appeal against a polarizing, partisan candidate in a swing district?
Wow, that’s a tough one.
So you don’t care about building the Democratic party that actually believe in what the party stands for? That only rich people should be able to run for office? And don’t complain to me when he turns into another Ben Nelson-type.
Unlike you, sir, I am able to care about more than one thing at a time.
It’s a difficult activity, one that can frustrating, as it frequently involves balancing competing interests and settling for less than a maximalist outcome on one or both.
Nonetheless, it is generally considered a worthwhile skill to master, if one wishes to understand and discuss the performance of a figure who, unlike the commenters on a blog, has a responsibility to care about more than one thing at a time.
DWS. Interesting proposition. The jump from House to White House is made particularly difficult because of the lack of name recognition. It takes FOREVER to get to the point of a representative to have national name recognition even within their own party (I’m ignoring the “acting more crazy than your Uncle Joe” types like Bachmann). By the time you’ve got the recognition you need, you’ve got so many enemies it would be difficult to be elected dog-catcher outside your district (John Boehner, Nanci Pelosi, Tip O’Niell, Eric Cantor, and so forth).
I can’t see EWarren making the run. Her focus is to narrow and she’s seems to be more of a day-to-day fighter. That’s no knock, BTW, that’s just my take on the issue. Teddy Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Feinstein, and a host of other Democratic icons are the same way.
I agree about the name recognition. The question is, does being head of the DNC give her that boost into the major leagues, that a governor, VP, or Senator can take for granted?
I can’t see EWarren making the run.
Not next time, certainly. She’s still a rookie, though. We’ll see what kind of political figure she turns into.
All in all, you got it mostly right. Just the wrong time frame. DWS will be given a NATIONAL boost by being director of the DNC about the same time that the Tooth Fairy will be promoted Santa’s Workshop. The head of DNC is worth less than a bucket of warm spit. It is a partisan job given to street fighters to temper them while they become consiglere for the Lone Rangers of the future.
What it could do tho, is give you a significant leg up on the local opposition when you make the next step in Florida politics. Remember the 6 degrees of separation shit? DWS will have some major markers she can call in. When you are instrumental in getting a longshot win/close loss in Oregon, you can call on that person to ask their good friend to support your run for Gov/Sen/whatever … which coincidentally just happens to take out your most significant opposition in a potential primary ballot fight.
Politics is SUCH an incestuous little world.
DWS has been using her position in the DNC to make a lot of national appearances. I think Howard Dean changed the possibilities of what being the Chair of the DNC can mean for one’s national profile.
well, maybe.
Stranger things have certainly happened.
DWS will have some major markers she can call in. When you are instrumental in getting a longshot win/close loss in Oregon, you can call on that person to ask their good friend to support your run for Gov/Sen/whatever
And who was that? What success has she had as the DNC chair? And her own state’s Democratic Party is still a complete mess.
Feinstein is a Democratic icon? In what world?
California.
DWS is an interesting idea. But don’t you think it’s more likely that she’s setting herself up to be Speaker of the House one day?
Please, no more Baby Boomers! Don’t get me wrong, there are many wonderful people in that generation. But they all seem determined to keep fighting the battles of the sixties, and the rest of us would just like to move on. No more culture wars. The Dems need to run somebody who actively supports gay rights, abortion rights, marijuana legalization, and so on. Obama was a step in the right direction. Let’s not go back.
Which battles of the sixties would you like to move of from? Gay rights appeared out of nowhere in 1969; definitely sixties extension of other liberation movements. Marijuana legalization is a quintessential issue of the 1960s; NORML was founded in 1970 after drug laws got draconian. So what should we move on from?
But the early Boomers (1946-1955) are beginning to age out as viable candidates. Obama’s candidacy was like JFK’s and Clinton’s in that it jumped to a different “generation”.
One of the problems is that incumbency is so strong in the Democratic Party that there are not yet a bench of young governors and Senators to pick from.
The coming wave in politics is of Millenials, who are now approaching their early thirties. What shaped their political coming-of-age are the Clinton and George W. Bush years. The earliest of these could be getting elected to the House by 2016.
The majority of Americans now accept gay marriage and younger Americans have no problem with pot, or equality for women, minorities, etc. Society has moved past these questions, and it’s time for our leaders to reflect that. Obama is the very youngest of the X-ers, and you can see a difference in how he governs compared to how the Boomers did. I want to see this continue. Historians who have studied generational theory explain that the Boomers believe so strongly in their opinions that they have a hard time compromising. X’ers just want to fix things and move on. It’s time to stop arguing and get things done.