After her successful stint as Secretary of State, I don’t think anyone viable will run against Hillary Clinton if she chooses to run for Democratic nomination for president in 2016. If she doesn’t run, I think it will be a contest between Vice-President Joe Biden, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. If that’s the field, I’ll probably support Biden. What do you think? What other candidates can you see getting into the race? Who would you like to support?
And, on the Republican side, it’s pretty much Jeb Bush or bust. Unless you think Bobby Jindal or John Kasich are going to lead the GOP out of the wilderness. Who do you see emerging as the top candidates for the Republicans?
This is really putting the cart before the horse – we need to win this election first before we discuss things like this in earnest.
If Hillary Clinton runs, it’s pretty much her nomination for the taking. Otherwise, I really have no idea who will run. Biden will be too old, IMO (73). Mark Warner may very well be VA governor again (I would not be shocked if he’s already bored of the Senate and decides to return to Richmond – he’d stomp all over Ken Cuccinelli), so it’s hard to say he’ll be gearing up for a run. God help us all if Cuomo decides to run – I couldn’t think of a less inspiring candidate.
Personally, I would take Kirsten Gillibrand, but my only concern (at least from an optics standpoint) is her husband being a British national and venture capitalist.
Oh, and as for Republicans, assuming Romney loses – there’s not really anybody whose ‘turn’ it is on their side…none of the idiots who ran in 2012 did enough to deserve a second shot. As such, I feel relatively confident that the below 3 would run:
-John Thune (SD)
-Bobby Jindal (LA)
-Marco Rubio (FL)
Jon Huntsman might give it another shot, but he did nothing to distinguish himself in 2012 to really warrant it…unless the Republican Party takes the right lesson away from this election and moves away from the teabaggers.
There is absolutely no way Jeb Bush will run in 2016. His last name is still mud thanks to his younger brother, and that is not going to change anytime soon.
Disagree. Jeb Bush is their only viable candidate and he’s just about perfect for the moment. If the GOP is going to pivot to attract Latinos, Bush is the man to make the arguments. He’d have a hard time winning the nomination, but so did McCain and Romney.
I think after another 4 years of self-deportation rhetoric and all the other nonsense the GOP is throwing out there, Latinos aren’t going to come back and give Bush close to the 40% of the vote that GWB got in 2004. Heck, Obama is winning upwards of 70% of the vote in this election…they’re getting pretty close to being a dominant voting bloc for Democrats.
Also, does anyone think Jeb Bush is going to be any good as a campaigner in 2016? He’ll have been out of office for nearly 10 years…just look at Angus King struggling recently in what was supposed to be a slam-dunk race in Maine. People who have been out of politics for a long time can have trouble re-adapting, and I would say that’s more so for someone whose party has become increasingly radicalized since he last had to run for office (2002).
You’re going to have to explain why you think Jeb Bush is a viable candidate, because I just don’t see it. He’s got the Bush name, which is toxic even to Republicans, and he’ll have been out of office for 9 years in 2016.
He’s got Bush money, which is his only asset.
No Christie, or did you exclude him for health reasons?
Assuming Christie wins re-election in 2013, he simply does not seem like someone who has the physical endurance to run a full campaign schedule for more than 2 years. His ‘tough guy’ shtick might play well in Jersey, but it’s going to rub off poorly the more people get exposed to him.
Also, like Jindal, he flopped in his first real primetime exposure (the RNC keynote).
Those who love Christie’s “speak truth to the powerless” attitude will sour on him the moment his focus turns to them.
It’s only fun when he’s kicking someone else.
Christie’s near-perfect.
Not a God-botherer.
Nor a neo-Confederate. And those two things may be the corner the GOP has painted itself into.
Anti-union. Anti-public worker. Violently anti-media.
Perfect for the new crab-bucket America, where because I have no health care, you can’t have any, where because I have no pension, yours has to be sacrificed.
If he ran marathons, instead of bench-pressing buffet tables, he’d be a shoo-in.
And he’s a good hater. Nixon’s Law gives the GOP nomination in the event of a tie to the best hater.
As I note below, I have a very subjective feeling that W did not taint Jeb’s name, at least doesn’t at this point. W was the bad son, Jeb, the good. If I feel this subjectively I am sure a lot of other people do too.
I guess it’s that as someone who is not ideologically conservative (to include both the left and “moderates”) I would be much happier with an ideological opposition with whom I could carry on a debate. I see nobody at all on the right who will have a discussion who also has any stature (i.e., Huntsman is not doing what he’d need to to make a viable run). But the first Bush, he was someone you could work with, whatever else you say. GHWB passed the ADA, for example, a real achievement.
Jeb’s name is less poisonous to me in 2012 than 2008 because my memory of GHWB stands in increasingly greater, positive contrast with the entire GOP field in 2012.
And I couldn’t stand GHWB.
Keep in mind that the “base” still thinks Bush did a good job – their only retrospective complaint was the deficit, and that’s only because they had to find some excuse for losing so badly in 2008. Keep in mind that the “base” hates everything Obama does – even if it is exactly what they wanted him to do. This also works in reverse – they loved everything GWB did even if it was the opposite of what they are supposed to stand for.
Furthermore being a Bush means Jeb doesn’t have to “prove” his wingnut bonafides, unlike Romney. He can do what GWB did and signal to the base with code words while fooling the media that he’s a centrist. This is what has hurt all the other GOP contenders – either they are certifiably insane wingnut (i.e. Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich) or they are seen as sane by the middle so have to go out of their way to prove their insanity to the base (i.e. Romney) or don’t try to do that so get virtually no primary votes (i.e. Huntsman). Jeb Bush is the only current GOP option who can play sane for the media AND be seen as insane-like-us by the base at the same time. Christie? Doesn’t have the social issues bonafides (like Romney).
If Jeb Bush had run in 2012 he’d have won the GOP nomination, simple. The only question was if he could have sold himself to the center in the main election while the country was still suffering the economic consequences of George’s reign of economic terror. By 2016 the pain of the Bush years will have faded and the muddled middle will be open to giving Jeb a chance.
I agree that he would have had the nomination, but he would not have had the presidency. If it’s a Clinton/Bush contest (where have I heard this before…) it will be difficult for him. But I think he listens to his father and his father’s people, and can think for himself, too. He does not want to rely on the current base.
If Obama wins and the result is the establishment GOP decides to crush the Tea Party, Jeb could be the figure to emerge out of that, especially if it allowed him to develop and adopt a very progressive position on immigration. I don’t know that the establishment actually has the power, however, to crush the Tea Party because that depends more on what the billionaires think will play best than what is actually best for GOP electoral prospects.
Paul Ryan seems like an obvious favorite to a large faction of Republicans.
2012 was the year of the B-list Republican candidates. They’ll have more credible candidates next round.
Stole my thunder. Biden will be nearly 74. No way he’s gonna run for a first presidential term. I have doubts about Clinton running at 68, although at least that’s still halfway believable. She might very well do it.
I’ve long been a firm believer that Jeb will run in ‘016, but it depends on the state of the GOP by then. If they’re still in the grip of Tea Fever, then forget it. But he may give it a shot anyway; iirc he’ll be 64 or so, so he won’t be able to console himself with a potential future run should he choose to sit this one out.
We’ve got a deep bench for potential candidates, and 4 years is a long time for that talent to develop. On the GOP side, I don’t see much star power beyond the current VP prospects that either turned down the gig or got passed over. And that’s a pretty pathetic lineup.
Biden wants it. He’ll run if Hillary doesn’t.
Biden’s age wouldn’t be a real problem (it would be an issue) if he didn’t combine it with his persona, which is, witness the Onion, that of your lovable but off-kilter uncle who makes unwelcome but not entirely incorrect comments at family gatherings. I.e., not clear-headed. And make no mistake, Biden’s earned the perception. He really does flub things now and then. Combine that not-clear-headed perception with relatively advanced age and it becomes the primary narrative.
The age invites enough scrutiny all by itself, deserved or not. When was the last time a 74-year-old was elected to a Presidential term? Oh, that’s right, Ronald Reagan. And then America learned about Alzheimer’s, yada yada endless MSM concerned commentary.
I think Biden gets this. And in 4 years, who’s to say he’ll still want the job anyway?
Can I say that I disagree with you and that you’re not wrong at the same time? Sounds odd to me. More likely I think I’ll concede that you’re right, it is its own issue, and that it will matter by itself to some people–all of whom matter in an election–and that when you combine it with the fact that he has other negatives he’s done.
I hope so anyway, because using resources on a fight between Clinton and Biden would be a huge waste.
Understood. Honestly, I don’t agree 100% with myself here, either. Biden’s as sharp as he ever was and a hell of a lot wiser, and thanks to his stint as VP, he’s a much more trusted and known commodity than he was when running for Prez in the past. God knows he’s ambitious enough.
But in addition to the rigors of running a Presidential campaign, Biden has also had a front-row ticket to just how grueling the office itself can be, and the toll it takes on its occupant. I happen to believe that Biden is, as far as these things go in retail politics, a deep thinker and an honest man. That leads me to at least suspect that, 4 years hence, he may well come to the conclusion that he isn’t the best candidate for the job.
Either way, I don’t anticipate that both Clinton and Biden would run, and I’m pretty sure Clinton will. I don’t have any real basis for thinking so, just a sort of gut feeling.
I agree about Biden’s honesty and thinking. I get the impression that Obama picked Biden (and Biden in turn accepted) because both are people who made compromises by working within the system but seem to have retained a level of honesty in their careers that is not common.
Biden’s understanding of the world is much deeper than his public persona suggests. The problem for me is that he was one of those Democrats whom I could respect but with whom I totally disagreed on foreign policy. Four years under Obama has deepened him to be sure. So, yes, I do think he’s a thinker.
I read a comment on this post that Biden wants it. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t see it. Your point about him seeing the rigors of the office up close is on point here. Occasionally it’s mentioned that his ability to show emotion in public is very possibly the result of him having experienced deep loss in public. He’s a guy who is likely to understand that at the end of the day, it’s a person’s direct human relationships that matter, not one’s public stature. It’s entirely possible that he may be at a point where he makes the rational decision that he would rather have what may be his last 8 years on this earth in close, daily contact with loved ones rather than running this circus of a country we have.
I agree. The only way Biden runs in 2016 is if Obama dies in office and Biden’s the incumbent.
You’ve got to be kidding. Hillary Clinton was supposed to be the unassailable favorite for 2008 and yet we saw 7 other candidates join the race including 5 Senators and a Governor.
And Jeb Bush? Seriously? He may run, but he’s hardly a favorite to win it.
If Obama wins this election, 2016 will be completely open. Every Democrat and every Republican who thinks they have the slightest chance of taking the prize will toss their hat into the ring. Many of these will be people who aren’t even on your radar yet.
I don’t think Cuomo or Biden will challenge Hillary. And I am almost certain Warner won’t. So, she won’t face anyone with the money to compete. If she runs.
Barack Obama was not considered a credible threat against Hillary Clinton until about a month before the New Hampshire primary, and certainly not 4 years before.
Hillary Clinton is a current favorite and she has a decent chance, but she’s not going to be able to walk to the nomination without a fight. Nobody gets handed the presidency.
Agree … unless an incumbent president is running there are always challengers (and even sometimes with incumbents). Worst case is that the attempt provides the foundation for a future run (i.e. McCain losing to Bush in 2000, winning nomination in 2008; Romney in 2008 and 2012).
Best case is that a series of fortunate events gives you a clear path, as with Clinton in 1992. Remember that in 1991 GHWB was considered a shoo-in for a 2nd term as Reagan had been in 1984 so several of the top Democratic contenders opted out of a run – and Gore dropped out due to health issues with Tipper. Clinton then proved to be a stronger campaigner than expected, survived a Democratic battle and got further lucky that Perot sucked up all the media spotlight (and GOP attacks) for months so that Clinton suddenly seemed fresh and new come the fall.
The Clinton lesson is one all politicians know today – in short “you never know, so give it a try.” That even factored into Obama’s decision to run.
But even so Hillary will start out the clear favorite. And if she does so and loses again in a close battle to a male there may be some severe repercussions within the Democratic coalition.
Joe Lieberman was the “clear favorite” for 2004 and it was Bill Clinton that went around touting Hillary and Wesley Clark as the Democratic Party rising stars.
Gore declined to run in 1992 because his son was hit by a car and almost died.
Hmmm … I didn’t recall Lieberman being a clear favorite. Certainly he was the wingnut favorite and thus the favorite of much of the press, but he never was the poll leader. By contrast GWB was winning polls in 1999 as Hillary was in 2007.
But you are correct on Gore – sorry, misremembered regarding which family crisis occurred at that time.
Early in the 2004 cycle – as in, in 2003 – Lieberman was leading the polls.
All it takes in the post-Citizens United world is one sugar daddy to keep you financially viable. Look at the Republican primary this year.
Spot on:
“Many of these will be people who aren’t even on your radar yet.”
Perhaps my memory is faulty but I don’t remember Carter, Clinton or Obama being in any lists 4 years before they ran. Obama had a mention but as a long term prospect. Durbin convinced him otherwise. I suspect one has to do a survey of every sitting Dem governor and senator to really see the potential pool.
I also have a sense that much of America is wanting to close the books on the 20th century and that Obama represented a move forward to some new approaches in a number of policy spheres. The wisdom of age is a fine asset but in 2008 there were some key issues that got discussed in 1970 memes. A set of fresh eyes also has value.
I agree.
Oh Obama and Clinton were both seen as rising stars and were considered likely to run, but not likely to win. Carter came from nowhere and basically won because he consolidated the southern Democratic vote (which was still significant – the flight to the GOP was underway but wouldn’t become a stampede until 4 years later) while the other candidates split the rest of the Democratic vote.
It is certainly possible that a new candidate could emerge. Granholm, for example, could surprise us if she gets a good role in the 2nd Obama administration giving her some continuing publicity. Her credibility is growing as people see how badly the GOP has managed her state after she left – and like Obama in 2004 she had a great speech at the convention.
Thanks for joggling my memory. Yeah, in 88 Clinton was on some serious lists for runners for 92. Carter came from nowhere. IMHO Obama had buzz from his 2004 speech, but I don’t think he was seriously on many lists of runners for 2008 then.
Would have expected that you knew (or at least checked before posting) that Granholm is ineligible for POTUS. Both political parties tout, early and often, winning candidates with as much talent and skill as Granholm. Would probably had heard talk of Biden moving over to SOS and replaced as VP with Granholm had that been possible.
Born in Canada? Damn.
I was just trying to pick out an example of someone who might come from nowhere, not trying to tout her for the job. But thanks for the note.
You weren’t the only one on this thread that suggested her. It’s been addressed and dealt with as frequently and for as long as Schwarzennegger’s eligibility — maybe there are posters on right wing blogs that still recommend him for POTUS, but we’re supposed to be smarter and better informed than they are.
Agreed, Jinchi.
HIllary is still the top contender, but it will surely be a contest, with other heavyweights and rising starts making serious runs.
Cuomo’s anti-union and pro-fracking.
The internet part of the Democratic party will love him, they’ll see his gay-marriage stand and nothing else.
It’ll be just like having our own Ron Paul.
Surprised to hear you say that. Most internet Democratic people I see hate Cuomo, and saw his gay marriage ploy as a set-up for 2016. Or is that just me?
Check out DemocracticUnderground.com…
I don’t agree completely with anybody most of the time, but with this post I actually completely agree.
About Clinton, I had a huge amount of animosity toward her because of the racist subtext of her 2008 campaign. I had opposed her previously because I had already felt that B Clinton’s presidency resulted in disastrous policy (“triangulation”) and that H Clinton, in tapping M Penn, was preparing to be a continuation of that line. But the racist stuff put an anger in me against her that I did not have previously.
So, I will say that her service in the Obama administration has, on a purely affective level, changed my view of her very much. I’m not talking policy, but feeling. I respect her now. It’s largely amorphous, and that bodes well for her chances, because it’s the vague but palpable feelings a politician inspires that at some level matter most. To put it in words, though, I think that it takes real character to take a stinging defeat and then work effectively for the man who defeated you with no indication that you’re trying to undermine him. They may disagree on things in meetings, but she’s never undermined him. That speaks a lot about who she is, and makes me suspicious about the primacy of Bill’s role (I already know about Penn) about the racist nonsense in 2008.
And yes, Jeb. Again, vague feelings: I have the sense somehow that GWB’s disaster was because he departed from his father’s example, and that moreover that Jeb was always the good son. Going to Jeb would be the way the GOP (attempts) to roll back the clock and pretend that GWB and the Tea Party never happened, while at the same time not having to say “I’m sorry.” That’s what I call sex appeal.
The hyped-up charges of racism and pressure for Hilary Clinton to leave the race were maybe the lowest Democratic electoral behavior that I’ve seen in my lifetime. Obama was one of the least experienced candidates to be a serious contender for the nomination ever, and Clinton had every right to bring that up in her favor. (BTW, we’ve seen the results of that inexperience plenty of times). Surprise that she’s been a team player should make people question whether that supposed racist subtext ever existed to begin with.
Ferraro’s comments were absolutely racist and unfortunately for Hillary, she was seen as speaking for the campaign.
Ferraro’s comments were for me one of the most horrific moments of my lifetime. I had an enormously positive sense of her from the 1984 campaign, a feeling that having her on the ticket meant that Democrats stood for progress, and then boom. Vanished and replaced with an equal but opposite revulsion.
Whether the charges were hyped-up is certainly debatable. You raise the question of Obama’s experience. I wonder what examples you would raise about the results of this experience.
When you reference the question of inexperience, are you referring to Bill’s point to Ted Kennedy about carrying bags? Admittedly, that was a private comment, but I was hardly surprised when that became public. I was most concerned about the persistent suggestion from the Clinton camp, rarely from H herself, that Obama couldn’t connect with white working class voters. It seemed to me that that persistent commentary had the effect of producing the effect it purported to describe, through repetition in the media. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about when I say racist.
Actually, I would think, imagining that you were and continue to be a Hillary supporter, that the fact that I described a coming around to Hillary, despite a (justified or no) animosity toward her from 2008, would be gratifying to you.
Based on:
take it that you also respect Condi Rice. Although have to admit that Rice was slicker in delivering the belligerent US foreign policy messages.
It’s easy to overlook the fact that GWB’s foreign policy wrt to Iraq was the same as Clinton’s. The only difference was the military was too hostile towards Clinton to carry-out another military adventure in Iraq while he was CIC.
Condi is an Oreo. Big Time.
Wait wait wait – you’re actually saying that the President of the United States can’t get a war if he wants one?
Wow.
I agree that Biden is too old. Although Hillary is my age, but I have to say quite frankly that she may be too old as well (she will be 69). Just looking at how much Obama has aged in 4 years I wonder if the presidency is a job for older people any more. Not if they work at it anyway instead if leaving decisions to their wife’s astrologer.
O’Malley is clearly running, but not sure how much traction he’ll get. Deval Patrick? In my bestest fantasies he runs and wins and racists all over the country expire from terminal head explosion.
The problem with O’Malley is that he doesn’t come off as terribly inspiring. His 2012 DNC speech was a bit of a dud, although he came right after Patrick, who was electric.
Pretty sure Deval Patrick has made it clear he’s returning to the private sector once his second term is up in 2014…would be shocked if he decided to run. He seems like someone who would be a good AG in a future Democratic administration.
Hillary will not be too old in the least if she continues to present herself as clear-headed as she does now.
No way do I see Clinton running. She has secured her legacy with an outstanding stint as SoS. Together with Bill they could enjoy a highly successful and profitable life as the most high profile former First Couple ever.
Granted the only thing that would top it is if she too was a former president, but failing to win twice would tarnish what they have now. Just don’t see it.
Biden? No. He’s run several times for president and while an almost ideal VP candidate, I think he knows he can’t win.
Warner would be my pick today to actually be able to win the nomination and General.
On the GOP side, if they lose again this time, I think the Tea Party will truly be marginalized. They will never go away but Norquist and the Tea nuts will no longer be able to control the party.
The usual suspects had their shot and IMO will get little traction in 16. Christy will surely try to run, is great on camera and in an interview (so he is a darling of the media) and outside of NJ he is very popular. Anytime I travel to a red state I get eager questions about Christy when people learn I am from Jersey. Jeb would be a competitive candidate, but I suspect the nation has too much Bush fatigue to elect him, even if Jeb is probably the smartest and most reasonable family member.
Jingal, Rubio? Nope IMO just too weak and non-presidential. And Rubio has some disqualifying baggage.
A critical factor will be how much the ultra rich whacko contributors will compromise on hardcore right wing positions to actually win more of the Center to actually win the election. It is a Center-Right nation but they seem to forget the”Center” part.
Christie may play well in the angry red states but IMO he’s too abrasive for the Midwest. He’d get the former no matter who he his, but he needs to convince the latter.
Maybe, but most enthusiastic Christie supporter I’ve met was a Mormon mining executive in Utah.
Dems: Hillary gets it if she wants it. I love Joe Biden, as a man and as a VP, but even I don’t think he should be President. I would really prefer that all of the Baby Boomers retire. They can’t seem to stop arguing over the same issues that they’ve been debating for the last fifty years. Obama has moved the Presidency into the next generation, and I would just as soon keep it that way. We have a lot of young, talented people out there. Let’s see what they’ve got.
GOP: It depends on how they respond to losing this year. If they continue to push to the right, Christie will be perfect for them, if his health holds. But if the Establishment types reclaim the party, Jeb will be able to make the argument that he is like his father, not his brother, and will be a reasonable, centrist leader. That could work.
My hope, of course, is that Obama is so successful in the next four years, that most people are unwilling to stop the Democratic momentum.
Schweitzer or O’Malley (of people currently on the radar). I’ll oppose Warner or Cuomo to win the nomination…but I’ll reluctantly support either of them if they should be successful.
I like Schweitzer too! And agree with you about Warner and Cuomo.
I don’t think Clinton or Biden will run, both too old. I was thinking Granholm, Deval Patrick, or O’Malley.
I agree with what someone said above, it’s time to move past the Baby Boomers and all the old fights.
I agree. I doubt either will run next roun.
Granholm was born in Canada I thought I read somewhere?
Difficult to take seriously any political commentators/speculators that suggest politicians that would be ineligible to hold an office.
That’s a little harsh, pardon me for not knowing the exact birthplace of every Democrat.
Intended to be harsh — this site shouldn’t be treated as Politics 101 for Dummies. You suggested Granholm for POTUS based on what? Less information than is available on her Wikipedia page. Not that an informed citizen should limit himself/herself to Wikipedia when considering candidate for political office, but surely it is a minimum.
You don’t need to know where every Democratic politician is born — only the eligibility status for POTUS of those you suggest. McCain wasn’t born in the US but he was eligible.
This is a conversation not some sort of think tank. The fact that I didn’t know at the moment I commented that Granholm was a Canadian doesn’t have anything to do with your condescension you show all over this board.
People come here with varying levels of time, knowledge, involvement and activism. Maybe next time it would be more productive to inform instead of exclude.
Conversation yes — which is why I tipped your prior comment before responding which shows more respect than you’ve accorded me. Progress is really slow if we have to keep reinventing the wheel.
That’s an interesting standard, maybe you should consider it yourself.
for the record I checked all the comments in this thread of mine and you haven’t tipped any of them
mea culpa — and thanks for pointing out that the tip didn’t register. Will add a couple more to make up for that error.
It would be awfully lonely around here by that standard. Who would you have to talk to?
Other than the resident troll, I would hope that it wouldn’t exclude anyone here. Facts are now so quick and easy to verify before shooting one’s mouth off that it’s an insult to others not to do so. Are you suggesting that the standard here should be like what’s exhibited by Republicans, the MSM, and baggers and freepers? If so, we all might as well give up.
But there’s no reason to be such a dick about it…like lamh.
At least I refrained from personal attacks and name calling.
I don’t find it an insult, Marie. I do find your extreme nitpicking disappointing, though, and hope whatever is driving it is resolved. To me, at least, this is a place for the friendly exchange of thoughts and ideas. We’re not a top-level nominating committee. If someone posts in error, a correction is in order but not name-calling vitriol. You are a valuable correspondent here, so why are you doing this to yourself?
Besides, whether Granholm is eligible or not, what’s so terrible about saying she’d make a good candidate/president?
This began with a single critical comment from me — call it nitpicking if you must but it didn’t include any name calling — one that made a point that neither asked for nor required any response regardless if one agreed or disagreed with it.
Had the first response been — “oops, but someone like Granholm would be a good candidate” — I would have tipped it and it would have been over. If you check back you’ll see the IL JimP and I sort of worked it out between.
Not so friendly a place when so many of you pile on and also endorse attacking me personally.
Read it again. There’s a difference between “Jennifer Granholm is ineligible because she was born in Canada” and “Difficult to take seriously any political commentators/speculators that suggest politicians that would be ineligible to hold an office.”
I’m not going to waste my time explaining the difference. You either see it or you don’t.
Give up what? Opining on a blog about politics? Because that’s all “we” are doing.
I’ve been coming here for years and as far as I know, there are no prerequisite courses one must take to be an active member here. Just opinions. I don’t always fact-check my opinions before “shooting my mouth off” and I wouldn’t expect others to either. But I guess I just have lower standards for the people I talk shit with on blogs.
You’re right, she was born in Vancouver and moved to CA when she was 4.
So, I guess she’s out but I still think we have a lot of good candidates outside of Clinton & Biden.
There are more that a few candidates that probably run, more for the experience than in the anticipation of winning (of course, that’s what I said about obama in ’07, so what do I know?):
Both Udall boys. They are boomers (born 1950 and 1948)which makes them mid-60’s. Both appear from the pictures to be in good health. Both bring strong Mountain West cred. Both would probably be excellent VP candidates.
Jon Tester. This assumes he can win this time in Montana. Once again, strong mountain west cred.
Cuomo. I don’t know. I’ve got a bad feeling about him. Maybe because I thought so much of father. It feels like he’s fallen some fur piece from the tree, but …
And there are some others. But the most notable will be: CHUCK SHUMER.
Yup. The Senior Senator from NY will run desparetly for President. He will be a potent force within the establishment and will pick up two immediate endorsements that will guarrantee attention and $$$ … LOTS of $$$$.
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton will lead the parade for Chuck. Because …
2016 is when Chealsea Clinton (Born 1980) will be 36. SHE IS GONNA RUN FOR SENATOR for Charles Shumer’s seat.
Convienent? Hey, you gotta believe.
NY is a big state with only two Senate seats. A lot of bodies go into one end of that funnel and a lot of them never come out. Weird things happen. Holtzman loses because Javits is on the Liberal line. Dark-horse Gillebrand gets the appointment, out of a thundering herd, when Clinton steps up to State.
Nita Lowey would have been a great Senator — stood down for Hillary. Every cycle there are three or four more….
New York is weird.
Agree Hillary will get it if she wants to run. I’m so impressed with her as SOS, but hope she doesn’t run, especially if she’d be running against Jeb – another Bush/ Clinton round I don’t like the idea.
With you on the Mountain West candidates, (esp. Tester) and a Mountain West candidate will be “change” making more difficult for repubs to run on “change” (especially if Jeb is their candidate – and who else, besides Cantor and Ryan and the little teapots (Kelly Ayotte, Nikki Haley) do they have?
The slogan writes itself (courtesy Charles P. Pierce):
“Jeb! This time, let’s try the smart one.”
In case one forgets how the good son rolls, please see:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/jeb-bush-for-president-2012-6619508
NO-NO-NO!
Enough already with the Clintons and Bushes. Or we could save all ourselves the time, energy, money, and illusions of a democracy by simply anointing two dynasties that will alternate every eight years on occupying the WH and finding ever better ways to squeeze more wealth out of ordinary people for the benefit of the elites and their sycophant courtiers.
Clinton lost in 2008 because she’s a legacy politician and that only takes one so far when effective competition exists. and enough Democratic primary voters understood that the DLC neo-liberal policies championed by Bill (and assumed to be championed by Hillary because she never rejected them) contributed heavily to the financial meltdown. What couldn’t have been known at the time because his campaign was so clever was that other than speech-making ability, there was no difference between the two. Hell, Mitt v. 2008 was hardly any different.
The last thing this country will need in 2016 is a 68 year old, neo-liberal, Scoop Jackson type new POTUS.
This sort of thinking so far inside the box that all original thought and vision is extinguished is what led the Democratic Party to fold in upon itself and begin eating the best of its own in the late 1960s.
This was the most depressing thing I’ve seen posted here in a very long time. What do we have to do to kill these political dynasties?
Honest answer? Retroactively change the past several thousand years of human culture. It might also take some rewiring of the human firmware. I’m not all happy about that, but it’s pretty clearly deeply embedded in the way we process hierarchy at the cultural and/or biological level.
More honest answer? Where do you think people get their political smarts from? It ain’t from Sesame Street.
Chelsea was suckled on politics. She is a beautiful woman, she has heart and has shown a desire to matter to people.
THIS Southern Boy can still believe!
That whole set of candidates is uninspiring, to say the least. I mean, I like Biden as VP, but for president in 2016? I’m not sure about that. He’ll really be too old, and Clinton was never particularly inspiring (and will also be somewhat old). Plus I’m personally done with political dynasties, so Clinton and Cuomo are out (not to mention they’re too establishment-oriented for my taste).
Brian Schweitzer has always seemed like one of the few inspiring choices to follow Pres. Obama, and I hope he doesn’t disappoint.
Schweitzer has said repeatedly that he doesn’t want to be POTUS. And really we have to stop looking to provincial governors of small states or states with a weak governor structure for presidential candidates — their policy and political skill set is too small. Many of them are also jokes (not including Schweitzer in that category).
We’re also foolish not to reject candidates from states with high poverty and income/wealth inequality rates as they’ve given no evidence that they aren’t clueless on economic matters — and that’s with federal subsidies.
I haven’t ever posted here, just lurking, but, I feel I need to make a comment. As of this month I will be a 70 yr old woman and ardent supporter of President Obama and Joe Biden, my take on 2016.
I don’t think Joe will run, simply his health won’t allow it, but if his son makes a name for himself that is a possibility, the other person out of New York is the current AG Schniderman, he is a charismatic person and will be doing great things for the populace on the fraud issue.
Tester, will not he will go home, However his Govenor is a possibilty. No Cuomo, Warner or Hillary.
My take on Hillary, she will be 68 years old and women do not age well and I know how this sounds, but if you pay attention to what is going on with women’s issues, this is a biggie, we don’t even like to elect a male president that is not a good looking man, few exceptions.
The media loves them some Christie, but his weight is against him.
If we get a good Dem house & Senate and good legislation happens when PBO gets relected, the country will put someone in that is just as charismatic, low keyed, but gets things done in the background. For all the vacancies this President has had to put up with in his cabinet, he has had a lot of accomplishments and I think the Military really respects this Administration. My Take. thanks for the forum Booman.
welcome, good to read your thoughts on this.
Thatcher was not good-looking. Neither is Merkel. In America, we’ve never had a female head of state, so there is no direct evidence, but I don’t think looks are a killer, though obviously Sarah Palin would have an advantage in this area (but only this area).
Have you taken O’Bamber’s little tumble so to heart that you have to look away to 2016?
Lord!!!
I knew y’all were politics junkies, but…really!!!
This takes the cake.
The almost certain prospect of four more tumultuous end-of-the-empire years with O’Bomber or the RomBot as the gameshow host renders all prognostications about “who will run for Preznit in 2016” moot.
In point of fact, it renders the assumption that there will even be a 2016 fairly risky, and further…if there is indeed a 2016 I seriously doubt that the U.S. will remain in its present conditioin either economically, politically or in terms of worldwide military dominance.
The fucking walls are coming down and you’re worried about the next furniture purchase!!!???
Unbelievable.
AG
Arthur, in the long run you are probably right, but the timing of when things unfold is not so easy to project. For example, I could perceive that the US was in dangerous and unprecedented economic territory in 2002-2003 with huge federal deficits combined, flat or declining wages and with rampant housing inflation and a housing construction boom. It had to collapse at some point. Those that thought sooner rather than later didn’t know what the mortgage and investment industry were doing to pump up and sustain the bubble and therefore, the collapse was later. Of course deeper as well.
A new normal seems to have taken hold at this point. More of the young will begin to get jobs or better jobs in the next four years as more Boomers retire. The banksters are too busy trying to squeeze a pound of flesh out several EU countries and salivating about the fortunes to be made off the PIIGS to bother with the debt exhausted Americans right now. If Obama is lucky, Democrats will cruise through the 2014 midterms and things won’t seem all that much worse in 2016, the better to raise and spend ten billion dollars on the election. That is all contingent on Mother Nature not giving us a really big swift kick in the ass.
Hi Boo and All,
I don’t understand this post.
Hasn’t Clinton said on multiple occasions that she’s not going to run for office again? I don’t think she’ll run.
Biden may still want to be president, but he’s aged a lot in the last few years. I don’t think he’ll run again either.
I think Warner would be a terrible candidate. (I’m in VA.) He’s accomplished almost nothing in the Senate, and I personally find his “OMG the deficit will kill us all; I’m a rich important Centrist(TM) guy so pay attention to Me” act to be more than a little grating. If he weren’t as rich as Rmoney almost nobody would care. He was a decent governor in VA, especially compared to the recent GOP seatwarmers, but I don’t think he would be a good president. JMHO, of course. (Some say he’ll run for governor again next year.)
I like O’Malley – he has eviscerated McDonnell on at least one occasion where they’ve appeared on TV together, but I have no idea how he plays outside the DC area.
If things go as they should, by 2015 we should be out of Afghanistan, the economy should be growing at a decent pace with the middle class recovery well underway, and either we’ll have peace and prosperity or external events (e.g. a huge recession in China and consequent unrest; peak oil; more weather and climate issues) will make people nervous about the future. In either case, most people aren’t going to want to relive the Clinton and Bush soap operas – no matter how much Fox and Tweety and the rest would wish for it.
It’s early yet, but I don’t think Clinton and Biden (or Bush) are going to be in the race for ’16.
Just my $0.02. (Love the site you’ve got here.)
Cheers,
Scott.
I like him too. And he plays just fine nationwide.
I heard him speak at our Maine Democratic Convention and he was great. I was surprised that he did not come across as well at the DNC convention in Charlotte.
Good. Except you might have this backwards:
Broke western consumers would cause a recession in China or a depression if the government flubs it.
Sudden and massive worldwide crop failures due to climate change would be the black swan.
China’s has had a huge property and construction bubble of its own doing. History tells us that those often don’t end well.
Watch the last quarter of the video that Fallows links to here – http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/todays-china-news-in-words-and-pictures/257
728/ – if you haven’t seen it already.
China has a lot of money for pumping up the economy for a while, but they’ve spent a lot on infrastructure that seems like it was wasted. It’s not unlikely that they’ll have a hard landing independent of what happens to the western economies.
Cheers,
Scott.
You’re correct — China’s economic managers have been making some very large and high risk bets. Recapitulating 150 years of US capitalism in 30 years in a resource poor for the given population that continues to grow and age wasn’t visionary, but it’s an easy sell. Remains to be seen if the late comers to the party will push the early arrivals to the side and swill the remaining good stuff or we’ll all fight over the remains.
Hasn’t Clinton said on multiple occasions that she’s not going to run for office again?
Brett Favre said on multiple occasions he wasn’t playing again, too. I think he actually meant it every time he said it, but then, after a few months away, after he got some rest and was walking around the house picking things up and putting them down somewhere else, and the hype started for the next season, he jumped back in.
I think it’s the same thing with Hillary. These are driven people who spent their adult lives committing full time plus to competing and performing at the very highest levels of their fields. They are people who have something in them that doesn’t go away.
Usually when a politician wants to preserve future options they are circumspect in their comments.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/17/news/la-pn-hillary-clinton-future-20111017
SOS is a very demanding job and she’s been traveling all over for years. She’s tired. It shows in her face whenever I see her on TV. Everything about her body language says, to me, that she wants to retire.
FWIW. YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott.
I think she’s being honest, and that’s exactly how she feels at this point.
How she’ll feel in January 2015 is another question.
Yeah, it’s way too early for this question. But I believe we can expect one thing:
During the next four years, an acute natural disaster will be directly tied to climate change, much more undeniably than Katrina was. Climate change is also going to put an unrelenting strain on the economy. The acute crisis will put unexpected people into the spotlight and put a premium on being seen as someone who responds well to it. Politicians will also begin to be judged on where they’ve stood on this issue. When climate becomes an important story (i.e. becomes a staple of stump speeches and SOTU addresses), I believe it’ll make the conservative party and the media even more desperate for a law and order type of candidate.
This is very likely, and underappreciated by people who don’t understand our energy and climate crises well enough, and their relationship to the Limits to Growth. We’re facing an energy and climate bottleneck that’s going to be impossible to ignore. My hope is that we won’t ignore it so long that it’s too late to avoid catastrophic effects.
(The Post Carbon Institute has been making lots of informative videos to educate folks, but not many folks are aware of them.)
Thanks. I was just thinking my comment seemed like it had come out of left field in the context of the discussion. I honestly don’t know how climate change isn’t an implicit factor in every economic forecast.
I think that climate catastrophes avoided will be like the depression avoided: conditions on the ground will be pretty bad, and few will get credit for what doesn’t happen. Moreover, the effects will be global, so it’s not like any politician will be able to point towards a successful environmental strategy. Maybe some will get credit for strategic planning. If just some Democratic candidates who’re expected to lose make climate change a central issue in their campaign, they could position themselves and the party well for future races.
That’s a great idea (having Dems push the issue out there, especially in races they’re going to lose anyway)—we need to get in front on this.
You’re completely right, but I think I’ve finally understood why climate change, oil depletion, etc. are ignored. Most people, both in the political blogosphere (including Booman, dKos, and others) and in the economic mainstream are good at extrapolating trends. Ask someone here about when Texas might go blue, and they can extrapolate and tell you. Same goes for the bad impacts of a Romney tax cut or another war.
But exactly the place where trend extrapolation fails is at major turning points, and the world is nearing a massive ecological turning point. I wrote a bit about this a few months back, but it seems to me that by the middle of this decade the climate and energy mess we’re in will be impossible to ignore, and by the end of the decade the consequent economic impacts will be upon us as well in a way that will have to be grappled with.
We’re in ounce of prevention-pound of cure territory now, but won’t be for much longer. This should be the issue everyone’s talking about, as it will affect everything: jobs, transportation, agriculture, geopolitics, health, etc.
So…please do keep talking about it!
I probably can’t say anything original about the 2016 race at this point, so how’s this: I think there’s a chance Obama doesn’t make John Kerry Secretary of State, and instead, moved Panetta over to State and makes Kerry Secretary of Defense.
What can happen in 2016 will depend on the state of the country then. If we have a Reagan-type rebound, the Repubs cannot win. In that case, we need not settle for a centrist like Clinton. I would like Pelosi. She is truly progressive, and she has shown true leadership. Repub demonization will do no good if they have no credibility. The Repubs backed Reagan in a primary challenge against their party’s centrist incumbent, dooming him to narrow loss, and handing the Presidency to the Democrats. It looked foolish, but it is what enabled the conservative movement to start to take power in the party.
Speaking of which, standard Repub procedure says 2016 is Santorum’s turn. After 2 losses reluctantly backing establishment moderates (or in Romney’s case, complete emptyists), the base may not go for it again. They may demand their Santorum.
Pelosi’s older than Clinton and as old as Biden (72 now, 76 therefore in 2016), and their ages are already a factor with a lot of people just on this thread.
Pelosi is a fantastic Speaker. I am convinced she would be a terrible presidential candidate. She lacks all kinds of skills–oratory, visible empathy (I get the impression she is perfectly empathetic in reality, but it doesn’t show), e.g.
If she weren’t in a safe Democratic seat she’d never have won an election. To win in SF, you need the Democratic nomination, and that’s it. She has incredible skills working one on one with people to get things done. Just the skill set to get the SF Dem nomination, and not very meaningful in a contested election.
Don’t misunderstand me–she is one of the very greatest assets Democrats have.
And I don’t think it will be HRC. The Ds will go back to a white male governor. In my mind that leaves Schweitzer, O’Malley, Warner, or Cuomo with Schweitzer having the lead. The VP will either be a Hispanic or a woman. I could see it being Gillibrand. I wonder where Julian Castro fits in all of this though. If he runs and wins the Texas governorship in 2014 the presidency is his for the taking at some point. 2016 may be a bit early though.
Do you think it would be a little early for him to be able to with the governorship in 2014, he may have to win a Congressional seat first then the governorship.
I think it will take longer than 2014 before a Democrat can win statewide in TX, unless someone devotes considerable resources at building the party in the state.
I think ’14 is the most unpredictable stretch of years politically in my lifetime. It’s unlikely the conventional metrics/standards for picking candidates will apply when the cold civil war may have become hot, when the environmental boot may stomp us beyond anything we’ve ever seen, when computer/communication tech will have pushed the culture into unknown configurations.
I doubt Clinton or Biden will run, and hope Warner doesn’t force me to reconsider voting Dem. Of the “realistic” Dem possibles, Schweitzer is the only one who might not destroy whatever progress the country has made by then. There are more and better “fantasy” prospects like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jan Schakowski, Sherrod Brown.
Another Bush? That would be an interesting experiment to see whether Americans want to go all the way into a neo-feudal banana republic. Enough with the dynasties on both sides. The times really do call for a new generation, preferably from the far margins of the current hierarchy.
I don’t see Russ Feingold mentioned. Is he verbotten at this site?
Russ is a bit of a mystery to me. He has this persona of being rather liberal on social issues, but worked with McCain a lot and tried to run as a deficit hawk in his last senate election and lost badly to a millionaire teabagger. Lots of liberals seemed to love him (especially for voting against the Patriot Act).
Good politicians always need to triangulate at least some to win elections. But does he go overboard (e.g. on gun rights)? Do you really know where he stands on things other than civil liberties? (Honest questions – I’m not an expert on him.)
What, if anything, do you like about him as a presidential candidate?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
He’s the one politician that I agree with on almost every vote he’s taken. He served on the Judiciary, Foreign Relations, Budget, and Intelligence Committees which would be great background for a President. I follow his lead on most issues and really appreciate his efforts to control the money in politics.
His newest endeavor, since losing his last election, is to start a PAC to combat the Citizen’s United decision. You can find it (Progressives United) here:
http://pac.progressivesunited.org/about/russ-feingold
I didn’t realize it until I just re-read this, that he is from Janesville, WI just like Ryan. He probably has the inside goods on any Ryan peccadillos.
Also, iirc, ppl wanted him to run for gov and senator from WI but he declined. My impression is he’s dedicated to his current endeavors – his longstanding commitment to campaign finance reform.
….his longstanding commitment to
campaign finance reformthe legend of Russ Feingold…Hamlet/Quixote 2016!
well, that too
I’m on his mailing list. Appears he is involved with a DFA type organizing effort in WI
calvin is inclined to believe that The Walking Heart Attack will have much GOP support.