So, Who's The Democratic Candidate in 2016?

Puppycow said:
Could it be Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
Click to expand...

I can't recall the last time a member of the House made the jump to nominee of their party. And to say she has a charisma deficit would be putting it charitably.
 
I thought about Debbie, but she doesn't seem likely to run. She's taking on the mantle of attack dog for the party and aiming to inherit Pelosi's position. Creates a long paper trail and lots of smoke and anger. Apparently in this day and age we prefer candidates without much of a record.

Can you imagine Pelosi running for Prez? Me neither.
 
I'm throwing in Elizabeth Warren.

The way I see it is that state governments are going to stay relatively Republican for years to come, and that is going to result in decline in public services on the local level. Infrastructure and social services will crumble and people will want someone in DC to reverse the course (whether or not that someone realistically could). Warren has shown a knack for populism and that will improve her odds at getting the message across during the primary season and get the independent vote during the general election, while keeping the base motivated.

She would also represent a first female president if elected, and that would surely be a more positive than negative vote getter.
 
It's a dodgy field. I still think that the thing for the Dems to do is to have Biden graciously fall on the sword a week after the Democratic Convention, and allow Obama to play king-maker by hand-picking a new veep candidate. Unfortunately, that candidate's likely to be someone like Warner who many progressives see as a DINO. Obama doesn't need a populist left running mate. He needs a moderate-centrist. Warner fits that bill. Cuomo does not. Rahm Emanuel does not.

Hillary's the wild card. I don't think she can resist the temptation to run. It's the farkin' presidency! I don't think she's electable and the dems do not like nominating "senior" candidates (Kerry being the OLDEST* nominees in party history is quite a shocker), but she's got the machine and the support and she has that political junkie of a husband.

I truly think Warner's the one to watch. He'd have serious difficulty getting through the primaries/nomination, and positioning himself left of center but he's got the bankroll and that's very important. Plus, he's up for re-election to the Senate in '14, and he'll have his team and fundraisers all in place. Party insider, governor, Senator, centrist, rich. And he can run on Obama's plan as a conciliator and negotiator. If he can just get through his own party's nominating process.

ETA* - oldest running for an initial term. Truman was older but he was President three years before he ran.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
It's a dodgy field. I still think that the thing for the Dems to do is to have Biden graciously fall on the sword a week after the Democratic Convention, and allow Obama to play king-maker by hand-picking a new veep candidate. ...
Click to expand...

So, you advise Dems to create a media firestorm around a Biden departure and VP selection/nomination 8 weeks before the election? I gotta say, your advise stinks. Obama's possible role as a kingmaker for 2016 pales in importance, to him, to being reelected in 2012, and that means no VP mishegas.
 
hgc said:
So, you advise Dems to create a media firestorm around a Biden departure and VP selection/nomination 8 weeks before the election? I gotta say, your advise stinks. Obama's possible role as a kingmaker for 2016 pales in importance, to him, to being reelected in 2012, and that means no VP mishegas.
Click to expand...
I think it would be dumb to change now.
 
daenku32 said:
I'm throwing in Elizabeth Warren.
Click to expand...

She'll probably get a prime speaking spot at the convention this summer, and that's how Obama launched himself in 2004. Still she's in a tough fight in Massachusetts, which does not bode well; Obama had the advantage of facing a carpetbagger, while Warren must battle an incumbent.
 
Foolmewunz said:
It's a dodgy field. I still think that the thing for the Dems to do is to have Biden graciously fall on the sword a week after the Democratic Convention, and allow Obama to play king-maker by hand-picking a new veep candidate.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be the game-changer. Biden is a non-starter, just as Cheney was in 2004 (as a potential next nominee).

Unfortunately, that candidate's likely to be someone like Warner who many progressives see as a DINO. Obama doesn't need a populist left running mate. He needs a moderate-centrist. Warner fits that bill. Cuomo does not. Rahm Emanuel does not.
Click to expand...

I don't think the VP pick of a sitting president matters at all, except at very slim margins. Maybe, picking a Missouri pol like Nixon might help slightly.

Hillary's the wild card. I don't think she can resist the temptation to run. It's the farkin' presidency! I don't think she's electable and the dems do not like nominating "senior" candidates (Kerry being the OLDEST* nominees in party history is quite a shocker), but she's got the machine and the support and she has that political junkie of a husband.
Click to expand...

I agree about the temptation, but, and this will sound sexist, but she seems to have let herself go. I keep seeing pictures of her where it does not look like she could have brushed her hair in the morning.

I truly think Warner's the one to watch. He'd have serious difficulty getting through the primaries/nomination, and positioning himself left of center but he's got the bankroll and that's very important. Plus, he's up for re-election to the Senate in '14, and he'll have his team and fundraisers all in place. Party insider, governor, Senator, centrist, rich. And he can run on Obama's plan as a conciliator and negotiator. If he can just get through his own party's nominating process.
Click to expand...

Good pick. As you say, his toughest challenge might be running the intra-party gantlet.
 
Tim Kaine, Kathleen Sebelius, Brian Schweitzer would be viable candidates.
 
hgc said:
So, you advise Dems to create a media firestorm around a Biden departure and VP selection/nomination 8 weeks before the election? I gotta say, your advise stinks. Obama's possible role as a kingmaker for 2016 pales in importance, to him, to being reelected in 2012, and that means no VP mishegas.
Click to expand...

You don't have to have a putsch or make a three ring circus out of it. Properly played, it could actually work. At 70, he can easily claim a health issue or any number of other excuses. I don't think it'll happen - just to be clear - but I think it's the only way to make someone other than Hillary into a front-runner.

Personally? I have no choice at the moment. I'd probably lean towards Rahm Emanuel just because it would bring out the worst in the neanderthal wing of the GOP.

I have a hunch it'll be a shift to the right, though - with someone like Warner or with a rising star coming out of the convention, election, and 2014 elections. You normally look to the big media states, but there are no real wild cards there. Cuomo and Emanuel are already in play so neither's a surprising "rising star", and the governorship of California is a non-factor. Newsom might be a rising star, but Brown would have to decide to not run for a second (fourth) term and Newsom would have to make a major splash to go from Lt. Gov. of CA to Gov. to Presidential Hopeful in two years. I don't see it happening.
 
No prediction here, but I would strongly desire it be Elizabeth Warren. She is the only other interesting or inspiring person the democrats have (currently).
 
Brainster said:
Win or lose in November, it won't be Obama. And it looks like he's going to repeat Bush's mistake of 2004 and run again with a VP who cannot take up the mantle himself; Biden (despite his obvious desire for the presidency) will be 74 in 2016.

Looking at the bench, it's pretty weak. Hillary has apparently ruled out another run, and she'd be 69 anyway. John Edwards may be the "hair" apparent, but his approval rating was 3% the last I heard.

Governors of major states? Jerry Brown is running California, but he's four years older than Biden. Andrew Cuomo? I'm sure he'll be running, but I don't see him firing up the electorate. Jay Nixon? He does run a battleground state, but, well, there is the matter of that last name.

Senators? The Senate Leader is Harry Reid, who is also older than Biden. The #2 is Daniel Inouye, who's old enough to be Biden's dad and who I believe is now the only living member of Congress who served in WWII.

So who's the frontrunner today for 2016? I'm not posting this to mock the Democrats, and in a way, they are fortunate in that their candidate does not have to be a name today. After all, who had heard of Barack Obama at this point in 2004?
Click to expand...

Brainster in 2016!
 
Foolmewunz said:
You don't have to have a putsch or make a three ring circus out of it. Properly played, it could actually work. At 70, he can easily claim a health issue or any number of other excuses. I don't think it'll happen - just to be clear - but I think it's the only way to make someone other than Hillary into a front-runner.
Click to expand...

Not to belabor the point, but this doesn't add up. You're advocating that Biden drop out just after the convention where he was just nominated for reelection. If it's a medical excuse, there would have to be some public explanation of it, or the media explosion will be huge. And the "number of other excuses" equals zero. The whole thing would scream disorganization, unpredictability, disinformation and obfuscation -- politically deadly for a presidential candidate.

It's almost like saying, "shoot yourself in the foot, literally. It's the smart play."
 
Another thing to consider is that Hillary probably doesn't want to be VP. Who gets to do more, right now? Her or Biden?

I'd also argue that a successful turn at State is more valuable on the resume for President than merely surviving four years of VP, but that's just me...
 
It doesn't matter. In Obama's second term he will take away all our guns, make abortions mandatory, outlaw Christianity and institute Sharia law. After that no democrat has a chance of winning the White House ever again. Then the republicans will take over and restore America to the capitalist utopia our founding fathers dreamed of.

/too much?
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
It doesn't matter. In Obama's second term he will take away all our guns, make abortions mandatory, outlaw Christianity and institute Sharia law. After that no democrat has a chance of winning the White House ever again. Then the republicans will take over and restore America to the capitalist utopia our founding fathers dreamed of.

/too much?
Click to expand...

Nonsense, the very few Republicans who survive the Great Leap Forward will be too busy farming Montana by hand and fighting off ravenous wolves with sticks to run anybody for President.
 
R.Mackey said:
Another thing to consider is that Hillary probably doesn't want to be VP. Who gets to do more, right now? Her or Biden?

I'd also argue that a successful turn at State is more valuable on the resume for President than merely surviving four years of VP, but that's just me...
Click to expand...

Name the last Secretary of State who was subsequently POTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom