|
Adar posted:Whoever of the Clinton/Biden duo runs next term will shut out everybody else. There might be one viable candidacy slot available besides that one, but not two. Most of this list will never run because of that, especially somebody like Warren that would have to start campaigning way too soon (and is probably not good enough a politician to beat a Clinton). There are also significant members of that list who are members of Hillaryland - Gillibrand, Cuomo, and to a lesser extent Rahm - and simply won't run if Clinton runs because they're allies. The nomination is obviously Hillary's for the taking if she wants it, and I doubt we'll get much on that until mid-2014 at the earliest. I do think someone like Feingold, Warren, Shumlin, or Dean will try to challenge her from a populist liberal standpoint, but it will be more of a keep her honest challenge that the professional left fawns over than a real threat. I don't see Cory Booker as a viable 2016 candidate no matter what happens, and that's with the full expectation that he takes Lautenberg's Senate seat in 2014. I do think he will be the Democratic nominee some day, but not today. He just doesn't have the platform yet. Same for Julian Castro. These are absolutely top-tier names for the veepstakes, though. The Republican primary, well, that's going to be a bloodbath and a battle for the soul of the party. If you think 2012 was a clownshow, you ain't seen nothing yet. And unlike the Democratic primary, it won't be waiting for the other shoe to drop, so it starts today.
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:There might not be a serious moderate, Romney hanged around because he was the best that side of the party still had. I don't see anyone able to fill in his space, and Christie while political astute is no moderate. By the standards of the 2010s Republican Party, Christie is absolutely a moderate. Be careful about confusing moderate for squishy. As has been noted before, the tell on Christie is if he suddenly goes on a crash diet and drops 50 or 100 pounds.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I hope Warren doesn't run. She's worked closely with her daughter in the past, so the best thing she could do (in my opinion) is start another MA senate dynasty. Do a good job for a handful of terms, and then pass it off to Warren-The-Younger. As a senator, she can really wield some significant influence for good. Warren gets a free shot at 2016 if she so desires, she's not up for reelection until 2018. Massachusetts essentially elects senators for life anyways outside of super-weird situations (which was why defeating Brown was such a big priority), that seat is her's as long as she wants it no matter what else she chooses to do. And if Warren wants to be a presidential candidate, 2016 is probably going to be her only shot. I'm sure that discussion is being had already by Warren, her family, and her political team, because she'd need to get started real quick.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:I honestly hope that Biden has the sense not to run. I love Biden, I think he would be a great president, but running as a 74 year old is begging the right to pit him against a young guy and make the inevitable "heartbeat away" comparison that we did to Dole and McCain. Unless we are riding on a serious enthusiasm wave in 2016, I could see it costing us the election. Hilary won't exactly be a spring chicken at 69, but I think her age would instantly be less of a liability. She'd also be able to run with the momentum of being the first woman to take the office of president, which might get a lot of people out to the polls who were otherwise not enthusiastic about running. Biden has been running for president essentially nonstop since about 1982; he actually ran in 1988 and 2008, and laid considerable groundwork in 1984, 1992, and 2004 before assessing his chances at the nomination to be slim and none. Assuming he is healthy and the frontrunner in two years, which he probably is if Hillary decides not to make the race, I think there is little chance he passes on his best opportunity to do what he's built his left around doing for thirty years. This is also the essential core argument as to why Hillary will run, of course. axeil posted:What about Kirsten Gillibrand? Gillibrand is a frontrunner in a world where Biden and Clinton both decline to run.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Clinton/Gillibrand would be a ticket I'd love to see. And unless Hillary moves back to Arkansas, one you will never see.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
serewit posted:They can get KG an apartment in Jersey for a few months, it's very easy to circumvent the constitutional ineligibilty Not plausible for a sitting officeholder, and I have no idea why you'd want her to give up a seat she should be in for the next 30 years barring election to a higher office. If someone's carpetbagging, it's Hillary (again).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:If Romney won the election then I think it would be more likely to see the Democrats run a more aggressive partisan in 2016 like Cuomo, but at this point I'm gonna say that if Clinton decides to run, there's nobody who could oppose her. She's the only Democratic candidate in a post-Citizens United world that can raise Obama-level campaign money. Cuomo's entire gimmick is that he's a post-partisan compromiser who can get things done with Republicans. Many of these things, especially on the economic side, were bitterly opposed by his own base. The worst thing that happened for Cuomo 2016 is that the Republicans have lost the New York Senate, so he no longer has someone to compromise with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Mark Warner would have a very hard time winning the Democratic nomination, which is why he didn't run in 2008. He's a B-list choice for the replacement Clinton figure in the race if she does not run. Tim Kaine is a much better fit for a national ticket even though he's perpetually in Warner's shadow in Virginia.Bass Concert Hall posted:Also, it strikes me that 2016 is probably a losing year for the Democrats. Most of the smart folks seem to think that the economy is going to boom over the next four years just as a rebound. 2016 could very well be a Democratic romp in that case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:Are you insane? if theres one thing the Clintons are great at its maintaining the Clinton brand, also it'll only have been a few years. If she wants the nomination I can't imagine she won't get it. In a world where she doesn't run I think we're looking at Biden/O'Malley/Cuomo. Don't discount for a second how badly New York media/donors/power brokers long for a New York candidate. There's going to be a hell of a subprimary going on for at least the next two or three years between Cuomo and Gillibrand to become that candidate when the next non-Hillary election arises.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 00:15
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:What's the possibility of a Clinton/Warren ticket? Warren's chances of being on the ticket are entirely coextensive with her pulling off an insurgent primary from the left in a muddled field. So, not very good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:On the GOP side... really it all depends on if they double down on the crazy where you're looking at Bachmann, Palin, Paul, Perry, Ryan, or Santorum or if they actually pull their head out of their rear end (lol) you're looking at Jeb, Christie, Huntsman, McDonnell, Pawlenty, Rubio, or Walker. Out of all of them only Christie, Huntsman, and Rubio would be able to squeak out a win against Cuomo or Patrick since everyone on both sides would get slaughtered by Hillary. Huntsman is more likely to get another appointment from Obama than he is to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. There's a fairly long list of plausible nominees at this point, he isn't one of them. Volkerball posted:Why is it that everyone instantly assumes Clinton has the lock on every other candidate? If Obama taught us anything, it's that prior experience in this party means nothing. Personally, I think her foreign policy in Syria and Egypt has been awful, and Deval Patrick gave a better speech at the DNC than she's ever given. It's a little premature to think she's got this all wrapped up so early. Universal name recognition and incredible popularity. She came very close in 2008 against one of the best candidates in recent memory, and that was with so-so popularity. She'll nearly clear the field just by announcing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:Is there any precedent for losing as badly as he did this time around and getting the nomination next time? I'm not sure he isn't worse off now than he was before. Also he kind of needs a job a this point, and as you point out, if that job comes in the form of an Obama nomination he can immediately be crossed off. Dole got waxed really badly in 1980, probably a little worse than Huntsman all things considered, then won Iowa in 1988, and ultimately the presidential nomination on his third trip in 1996. I think he's the only one since the advent of the primary season. And it's not just that Huntsman lost in rather embarrassing fashion, it's that he spent the rest of the election season bashing the party after a tepid endorsement and went off and joined Brookings. That's not something you do in preparation for another run, at least not another run as a Republican.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Huntsman had three big problems this time: Right, but now there's: 4.) He's a badly beaten loser from the previous cycle. 5.) He immediately went back to collaborating with the enemy after he got shellacked in New Hampshire. 6.) It's difficult to imagine the field being weak enough for random gadflies to become frontrunners based on a strong showing in the most recent seven dwarfs debate again. The reasons he was an implausible nominee in 2012 aren't exactly the same as the reasons he's an implausible nominee in 2016, but if anything the 2016 reasons are stronger.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
George P. Bush hasn't done anything of note really ever and is currently debating a run for Texas Attorney General. He's several cycles away from even being a national figure, let alone on a ticket.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
R.A. Dickey posted:I don't think he's the head of anything actually, seems like he just does speeches. Even if he was though, being the head of Brookings specifically wouldn't do him any favors at all in a Republican primary. He's the chair of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, the project his father started to give away of all his money while curing cancer. He's also a distinguished fellow at Brookings, which will be an anchor around his neck in any future Republican endeavors.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:Second, and thoughts on Mitch Daniels considering a run? He's the president here at Purdue starting January 1, but as a midwestern governor I could see him at least sending out feelers, depending on where the GOP is come 2014. Mitch Daniels's wife has a very, very messy personal history that he doesn't want aired. It's why he didn't run this cycle and it's why he wasn't in VP consideration. I would expect he'll be on the short list for executive appointments if the Republicans ever win anything again, and perhaps he'll run against Joe Donnelly in six years, but he's never running for president.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
Adar posted:I would have (and came close to) betting a lot of money that this cycle's pick would be a minority. Instead, the choices wound up Christie and Ryan. Never underestimate the ability of the GOP to shoot themselves in the head on this point. I have a feeling that Ted Cruz is actually the name to watch in this space and not Martinez or Rubio.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
raito posted:He was born in Canada Nobody seriously suggests that being born outside of the United States to United States citizen parents violates the Natural Born Citizen Clause. That would have disqualified, among others, former presidential candidate George Romney. Well, except for birthers, I guess, but I don't consider them serious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
raito posted:Do you know if Ted Cruz's parents are American citizens for sure? I guess they were just working in Canada then His mother was born in Delaware, his father naturalized. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen by any reasonable reading of the law.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Y-Hat, while I generally agree with your general thrust that Cuomo is center-right on fiscal issues, I'm greatly amused that you've tried to throw New York Senate Dems and "progressive legislation" in the same sentence. As you well know, the chamber is effectively (and perhaps technically too) now going to be run by the Independent Democratic Conference (which will probably get conservative "Democrat" Simcha Felder added to it) which is substantially more conservative than the actual Republican caucus. I suspect the state was actually better off in terms of progressiveness having Skelos running the Senate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
Adar posted:facepalm.gif In addition to the four person IDC that organized with the Republicans last session, you've got nominal "Democrats" like Felder (who ran way to the right of Republican incumbent David Storobin, including getting the Conservative line) and noted archconservative Ruben Diaz who implored people to vote Conservative Party instead of Democratic just a few weeks ago. Fusion voting always makes party label fluid. Cuomo now has a Senate "majority" that largely hates him and won't be able to agree on a lunch menu, let alone a legislative agenda. Suffice it to say I expect his star to fall in the next two years quite a bit and Gillibrand to overtake him as the non-Hillary NY candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
cheese posted:He seem to be bandied about because there really isn't anyone else who fits the 'young, charismatic and not a white guy' bill in the Republican party at this point. This is true to a much more staggering degree than you'd think at first glance. Here's the complete list of Republican senators and governors who aren't white dudes: Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) Sen. Kelly Ayotte (NH) Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK)* Sen. Susan Collins (ME) Sen.-elect Ted Cruz (TX) Sen.-elect Deb Fischer (NE) Gov. Susana Martinez (NM) Gov. Nikki Haley (SC) Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) Gov. Jan Brewer (AZ) Gov. Brian Sandoval (NV) Gov. Mary Fallin (NE) * Won her last reelection as an independent. Over half of those names look like non-starters as national candidates, so you're basically looking at picking your ticket from Rubio, Ayotte, Jindal, Sandoval, Cruz if he pans out, Martinez if her family situation changes, and perhaps Haley if she can ever get it together. That's just not a strong list of candidates, and unlike the Democrats who fortify a much longer list with people like Clinton and Sebelius in the Cabinet and up and comers like Booker and Joaquin Castro for the next generation, the only real Republican prospect outside the current senator/governor box is Condi. Quasimango posted:I can't think of any politician who comes across as more of a triangulating creep than Andrew Cuomo, and I say that as someone who doesn't really want a firebreather either. The contrast between Andrew Cuomo and Mario Cuomo in that regard is amazing. Mario was pretty drat liberal and came across as one of the most sincere politicians I've ever seen. It's a shame Mario turned into Hamlet on the Hudson and never ran, he'd have been a hell of a president. Here's Mario's keynote address in 1984, which was basically the Obama 2004 speech of it's generation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOdIqKsv624 oldfan fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 09:12
|
|
|
The Prisoner posted:Quick note on the Warren business, as this is something I've both read in the press and heard from campaign volunteers who spent months with her: She knows where her bread is buttered and it took a lot of coercing to get the woman to run for the Senate in the first place. I can't imagine she has even the slightest desire to become the first woman President of the United States of America. Maybe that's how she feels now, but what about two years from now when the base of the party is trying to draft her? Even if she legitimately doesn't want to be president (and I have my doubts about that), for someone who cares deeply about certain issues, the pulpit is often too much to pass. There's an old political joke that a hundred people wake up in the morning and see a future president in the mirror, and they're all named "Senator." That's not precisely true, but it probably is for almost all of them under 70. french lies posted:He's a good public speaker and has an appealing earnestness about him. He's also able to frame party talking points in narratives that are convincing to a general audience. In that sense he reminds me of Obama even though their styles are very different. He's an extremely strong candidate, and with a better GOTV apparatus and a moderate platform he'll more or less dominate in 2016. I thought given how much Rubio underwhelmed at the Republican convention and faded from the spotlight in general that this stuff was going away at least for a little while, but I guess not. eta: Rubio's a good looking Hispanic guy who is a decent speaker and co-opted some of the tea party anger despite being a decidedly establishment politician by running against Charlie Crist's collaboration on the stimulus. The adjectives that get thrown on him past that are more wishcasting what could be than what actually is, which is silly because the first ten words of that sentence are enough to make him a serious national player given how few good looking Republicans who aren't white dudes there currently are in positions of power. oldfan fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Nov 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 09:57
|
|
|
Adar posted:The bottom line is that she'll be a two year politician who isn't very good at it, who would have to either beat a Clinton, a sitting VP or a laundry list of big names to get there, and who would have to start in Iowa because NH isn't as useful to her (if she polled too well everyone else would just skip it). Oh, I don't think Warren has a very plausible chance to be the nominee, don't get me wrong. But I do think there's a good chance she'll run to keep the field honest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
menino posted:Longshot for the GOP, but what about George P. Bush? He is running for statewide office in Texas, but they're unsure for exactly what office. He's planning on running for state attorney general if Abbott runs for governor. It's been known for some time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
Buffer posted:So what democrats really want in their heart of hearts is a socially liberal vintage 1990s republican? Someone who is anti-gun control but otherwise one of the more liberal members of the Senate is pretty much exactly what the Democrats want, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
A lot of Hillary's old enemies aren't enemies anymore. She's turned into the beloved by all elder stateswoman of the party thanks to this term as SoS, which is one of the strangest turnarounds of any politician's image I can recall.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
By most all reports Michelle Obama actively hates politics and has no higher aspirations than sitting on corporate boards.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I don't see Christie standing a chance if the party doubles down on the crazy, as it seems its prepared to do. Even if his positions qualify him for the position, he is not exactly going to toe the line and follow the script, when it veers off into batshit crazy, as Romney was ready to do so during the primaries. I'm not so sure about this. Almost every cycle the Republicans are "expected" to nominate the conservative insurgent candidate at some point or another. They certainly did in 1964 when Goldwater knocked off Rockefeller, and I suppose arguably did in 1980 although Reagan was pretty establishment by that time, but that's really it. At the end of the day, the crazy guy just doesn't win their primaries. There's a reason the Republicans are called the party of primogeniture; they always nominate one of the next in line establishment people. And I don't know whether that should be expected to change now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Admittedly, there is a case to be made that W got bumped up into line over McCain. Granted in 2016, who is going to be the next successor who has been around a while, Jeb? Maybe Newt? McCain wasn't really the next dude in line in 2000, he was distinctly running as the outsider candidate although not from the right. True conservative insurgencies don't work in the Republican party to any greater extent than true progressive ones work in the Democratic Party. Sometimes who the successor is doesn't even work itself out until the primaries. It was obviously Romney this cycle all along, hence the entire Romney vs. Not Romney framework of the primary. It was less obviously McCain in 2008 with Rudy hanging around. Given that Rick Santorum is never going to be an establishment figure, the most likely person to establish himself in that role during the pre-primary and early primary cycle is probably Paul Ryan, but Christie, Rubio, Jeb, and even Condi are all plausible. Adar posted:Whether it was a random pattern or a rule, the next in line is Santorum so I doubt it. Right, I mean, Pat Buchanan wasn't the nominee in 1996 or 2000 despite being the runner up twice, these things do have their limits. It's more that the establishment candidate almost always wins in the end than anything, and there always is an establishment figure even though we might not know whom yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
I suspect that one way or another Booker is not going to be the mayor of Newark in summer 2016. He'll either get Lautenberg's Senate seat in 2014 or get parachuted out into a Cabinet vacancy. VP nominees have occasionally come from the ranks of non-statewide elected officials. Paul Ryan is one of them, of course, so was George H.W. Bush. I don't think it would necessarily be disqualifying, but I also don't know what would make him more attractive than others at that point. oldfan fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Nov 11, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
Waterbed posted:Yeah, I have no reason to believe that Booker is staying in place. I think a lot of people can agree that dude is presidential as HELL, and the only thing stopping him is experience. The flip side is that he's 43 so it's not like there's a big rush. A word of caution on Booker: although he's a reformer to rather violent, caustic degrees within the Newark city infrastructure, it's still the Newark city infrastructure, and the last three mayors of Newark were all convincted of public corruption or fraud in their official capacities. So, there could definitely be skeletons there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
One of the more interesting rumors I've heard, and I don't expect it has any validity but I'm throwing it out there just for fun, is that Obama could appoint Chris Christie as attorney general, for many reasons, including to reestablish the independence of DOJ, to kick Christie upstairs and set Booker up to be governor, and to get Christie out of the 2016 race. Booker would probably wipe the floor with Kim Guadagno in 2013 in that case, and that would make him a plausible 2016 presidential nominee non-Hillary division or a leading contender to be running mate for anyone. I do suspect Christie would take that job if it was offered, for whatever that's worth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
I'd be pretty shocked if Cory Booker was gay, and I think he plays the "none of your business" card more because of a legitimate belief that it shouldn't matter than that he's hiding something.Petey posted:Wow, I hadn't heard that at all. I doubt it would happen but it would certainly be fun for a lot of reasons. Christie has at times denied having any interest in being AG, to throw water on my own way out there rumor. I don't think that's a job you'd actually put an opposing partisan in basically ever because there's too much domestic policy influence on the hot buttons; the usual spots for cross party appointments are the foreign policy positions or the lower profile domestic positions where the hot buttons never come up, which is why we're discussing people like Lugar, Hagel, and Huntsman in the other thread. But if you ever were going to do it, hypothetically, it would probably be with a notably independent ally with a strong history of either running a USA or state AG office in a non-partisan fashion. And that does fit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:I don't see Christie going for AG when he clearly has a good shot at the GOP nomination in 2016. Being Obama's AG would kill his chances at being the GOP nominee forever. At the end of the day, Chris Christie is going to have to sit down with his family sometime soon - a lot sooner than other potential candidates, because he's not going to see another savior draft attempt this cycle - and decide if he wants to be president or not. If the answer is yes, he has to lose a ton of weight and start building a national operation within his 2013 reelection campaign. If the answer is no, he's liable to do anything, including not even running for reelection. We'll find out pretty soon which way that wind is blowing, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
ManifunkDestiny posted:How well do Christie and Bloomberg get along? Not very. Christie's top non-Republican allies that anyone's heard of (i.e. not state powerbrokers) are Cuomo and Booker.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
The ARC Tunnel was one of Bloomberg's legacy projects and Christie killed that, and Christie hasn't been playing along with a 7 extension into New Jersey either. Bloomberg's big three things for a politician are gun control, climate change, and public transportation. Christie's an enemy on two and neutral on the third. Michael Corleone posted:Could Christie carry New Jersey for the R's in 2016? That along with Rubio or Jeb on the ticket assuring Florida would be the start of a nice map. Impossible to say at this point. In theory if I asked you in 2004 if Romney would put MA in play, you would say "maybe," and look how that turned out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Hillary's campaign was structurally a mess until Maggie Williams came in for the late stages, but that's probably more on Penn and Solis Doyle than Clinton herself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
InTrade just closed to American customers after the CFTC finally filed against them, so that's something we'll be hearing a lot less about next cycle.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Jon Huntsman has been named co-chair of No Labels with nominally Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, in the next step of his 2016 Americans Elect campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 17:18
|
|