It's Clinton's if she wants it. I can't see anyone else beating her in the primaries. If Hillary chooses not to run (which would be an eminently respectable decision, given that she's been through a lot of shitty political stuff, as First Lady, in NY senate campaigns, in the primaries for 2008 and in the Obama administration), then I could see Elizabeth Warren winning. Professor Warren against some crazy Republican like Santorum in the debates, that's what I want to see.
I'd think Warren is a strong possibility if Clinton doesn't run. I could see a scenario where she suddenly rises in a similar manner as Obama did. On the other hand, I don't see Santorum having a legitimate chance. He campaigned very hard last time, and he put himself out there, so he has a bit of a built in advantage going in. But I think he's simply too extreme to win the nomination.
Trust me. I lurve me some Warren. But only 2 years in office... I don't know. I'd rather her have some more seasoning. I think she'd be a better candidate. I also think she serves the Dems better by being a rational voice on the left of the Dem "norm", pushing the dialogue towards the left. Right now, she's too far left for much of the country so winning would not be a possibility. However, a total of 7 or 11 years of bringing the national dialogue towards the left would allow the rest of the country to catch up with her.
Agreed. And I think you could argue similarly about Booker. Clinton is not only a lock for the Dem nominee if she wants it, she's also far more likely to win the presidential election than is any other Dem candidate. I understand the demographic arguments against any likely Republican winning the Presidency. But I think that relies at least partially on the Dems having a strong candidate themselves. And the Dems do have a LOT of up and coming talent. Seems to me, though, that most of them could use more experience, and you never know what sort of a candidate someone will be until they throw their hat in the ring (see, basically, the entire slate of Republican candidates in '12). I see there's already a right wing effort to scuttle Clinton's candidacy. They might despise the woman (and they surely do), but they also know she'd run a juggernaut of a campaign. I also think that, by 2016, the percentage of voters who have clear memories of Bill in the WH will be starting to fade noticeably. You know, if she does run, and does win, I think we may be looking at a clear break point in American political history. This current era of hyper-partisanship can be linked to a lot of events, but for me the most obvious one is the Clinton impeachment hearings in '99. That on-going drama; the horrors of the 2000 election; 9-11, Iraq/Afghanistan, torture, the 'Cheney Presidency', Swift Boating and the '04 election; Obama in '08, and his reelection in '12. If the Presidency were to swing - for whatever reason - back to the Reps in '16, demographics or not, I think they'd quite easily be able to retain long-term control over certain aspects of American political life. They've already managed to achieve for themselves a substantial over-representation in the House, a situation that's going to be with us for a while. As we get further into Obama's second term, it's becoming more obvious (to me, anyway) that he'll not have as many chances to replace SC Justices as many assumed would be the case. It's likely to be the next president who'll has multiple opportunities to name new Justices. If the Reps manage to win the WH in '16 they may well have opportunities to restock the Court with a new crop of conservatives. If that happens, it'll be many years before there will be a chance to affect a change in the ideological makeup of the Court. If Clinton wins, however... Not saying it'll have a great immediate effect on partisanship (hardly). But the symbolism of Bill being back in the WH as First Bubba or whateverthehell he'll be called will be nothing short of astonishing, being that the right wing tried so hard to kill him off in the late 90's. The court likely swinging from the right to center/left. And several more guaranteed years of accumulated demographic changes. A Clinton (or any Dem) victory in 2016 won't kill the Republican Party, in its current ideological configuration. But they'll not have much ammo left with which they can do much harm to the Democrats; it'll be those gerrymandered House districts and little else. We hear talk about the importance of elections ALL THE TIME. But 2016 will likely live up to the hype.
I agree that Clinton's got all the marbles, both for the nomination and the election run, but the simple fact is that we'll have just had 8 years of a Democratic presidency, and since Truman, an 8 year run in the Oval Office is about all either party has had. We, as a county, seem to like divided government, and since Obama has been a less-than-inspiring president, I don't see the trend bucking in 2016.
I don't buy it. As you said, Clinton has all the marbles. And while Obama might not be 'inspiring,' he and the Dems will have some real successes to point to over those eight years, especially as compared with what the Reps are proposing. I mean, according to the right, Obama's policies would lead to economic destruction, yet job growth continues. For '16, 'the economy, stupid' might well be all the Dems need to win. Not saying they deserve all the credit for a rebounding economy, but Obama came into office with the economy in close to a free-fall, and at least helped pull us out of that course to a point where the economy is growing again. I mean, there's a reason why McCain didn't have a chance in '08, and it wasn't because the Reps had used up their historically allotted eight years in office. It was the miserable nature of the Bush years, a crashing economy, two wars, etc. + a vibrant Democratic candidate. In 2016, I'll go on record as predicting that the economy will be in decent shape (obviously, just my opinion), and that the Dems will be able to run on that record. Clinton, if she runs, will be a very strong and well-funded candidate. And the Republicans will have what to bring to the table? What policies that'll appeal to women, gays and minorities? What policy stances that will be more popular to a broad set of Americans than what the Democrats propose? And, at least as important, who will be able to make it through the Republican nomination process and emerge with a track record that is remotely electable? Potential candidates who might actually be electable, have a tough getting any traction whatsoever in that process. The Rep message has grown so negative, so histrionic, so anti-fact (anti-science, especially), so based in anger and fear. Obama might not always be inspiring, but compared to the proposed slate of Republican candidates for the Presidency - or Clinton - there really isn't any contest.
Bush Sr. doesn't ring a bell? There are a lot of stats that need to be dismissed when it comes to POTUS elections ("the Dems/GOP have never won an election w/o X state" ), but the demographic numbers and long term trends are difficult to counter: the South used to be solid Dem, now it's neon red red red; the GOP is getting hammered in cities w/ a population over 200,000; Blacks are now almost 100% Dem, Latinos and Asians are solidly Dem, women are solidly Dem, and the GOP has done nothing but piss off these 4 demographic groups over the last few months and show no signs of giving a F***, and their entire platform is a big F U to anybody living near other human beings (i.e. medium sized cities and larger). The only areas that Romney won hands down were towns of 5,000 or less. Even btw 5,000-15,000, Obama was mildly competitive.
I think it's from this thread, but I dunno how: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...t-on-1906-ultras.1991745/page-7#post-28389747
Who-omo? I think you're overestimating Cuomo's appeal outside of the narrow (but heavily populated) part of the country you live in. Out here in CA nobody thinks of him as a realistic candidate -- he's much lower profile than Clinton, Biden or Warren, and I would argue less well known that Cory Booker or Rahm Emanuel, to pick a couple of other names off the list in the poll. A lot of the folks with wider national recognition would have to not run for Cuomo to win the nomination.
It's one thing for America to elect a man named Barack Hussein Obama. We're not going to elect a man named Hickenlooper. This isn't a Dr. Seuss book.
Joe Biden is the BAMFiest BAMF ever. I'll donate my kidneys for a Biden presidency. It won't happen, but I would.