I’d vote for that pair in a heartbeat, but, c’mon, an all-estrogen ticket? I don’t think America is quite ready . . .
Gramma Power!
Who exactly does Warren appeal to that wouldn’t vote for Clinton anyway?
Besides, Clinton needs to choose a Quayle: assassination insurance.
Except Hillary’s veep needs to know how to spell “potato.”
Jeb Bush will be the next president.
Just in time to congratulate the Patriots on their third Superbowl win in a row. 
I could easily see Hilary Clinton win in 2016, but lose re-election in 2020. 12 years of Democrats or Republicans is pretty long.
It’s certainly possible. But it’s only happened twice to a sitting president in the last century. It took the Great Depression to make Hoover lose and a smaller but still potent recession to knock off Bush 1.
Some people are forecasting that the world economy is going through a long period of recession, but as the saying goes, those folk predicted 13 of the last nine recessions. I’m not about to predict the economy of 2020. The current one is both very bad and very good and I can’t quite figure out how to adjust for that!
If you mean one-termers that failed to get re-elected, it’s more than that, depending on your exact criteria, but in recent times there was at least Jimmy Carter, too.
As for the OP question, I just think it’s too early to tell. We’re already seeing significant shifts, and it’s not completely out of the question that the next president may be someone who’s not even currently running.
That said, I’ll put my money on Clinton, and if she tanks for some reason within the next few months, on Biden stepping in.
Probably Jeb! for the Republican side, but they have no strong contenders and they have Trump shitting all over everything, which prevents any realistic candidate from becoming entrenched as the recognized standard-bearer. So the Republican side is going to appear leaderless and directionless for some time yet.
This is true. Not to mention, another thing boding against Hillary’s re-election in 2020 is that if she were re-elected, we’ll have had four consecutive 8 year presidencies of one person each. That is unprecedented in history. Another thing is that electoral eras tend to last 20 years or so. The New Deal landslides from 1932-1952, a short interregnum until 1968, 1968-1988 as GOP dominance, 1992-2012(maybe 2016) as Democratic predominance, and so on…
This is exactly like technical analysis of stock charts, except with even less validity because stock chart predictions are self-fulfilling (in the short term) if enough participants are all looking for the same indicators. In both cases it completely overlooks the underlying fundamentals. Everything is “unprecedented” until it happens.
No, I meant exactly what the context was: a party holding office for three terms and then losing.
I like your logic about Warner’s strengths as a candidate, but I hadn’t heard that he was seriously interested.
One big difference between Clinton and Warren is that the latter isn’t tied to what should be a criminally indictable offense. I’ve thought for the last few years that Warren was going to be the Dem candidate; I guess being a VP under Warner or Biden is close enough. If Americans want a guy (Sanders) who’s publicly stated he’ll ask for Govt spending to go up by fifty percent, and taxes by another twenty, then their worldview is so alien compared to mine that I give up on predicting what the American people want or will do.
My GOP crystal ball is hazy. Trump is lasting a lot longer than I would’ve guessed. if the GOP wants to lose like Goldwater, they’ll pick Jeb. People who I would class as “base” GOP voters can’t stand him, and I think they’ll stay home rather than vote for him.
I guessed Cruz a year ago, and maybe I’ll have to amend that to him being the VP to Trump. Let’s see what Iowa and New Hampshire think before we get too excited about anyone.
Cruz in any position on the ticket is a guaranteed loser.
Cruz is toxic, no one in Congress likes him; they fear him as they know Cruz is for Cruz first, his ideology second, his party third, his colleagues forth, and the country last. Cruz would happily wreck the government if he perceived a personal benefit to doing so.
^ And he is going to wreck the government, or at least stall it, in a few days due to the PP stupidity.
I predict Clinton/Sanders and Bush/Fiorina.
-Dem Side: Clinton wins Iowa in a squeaker, Sanders wins NH, Clinton wins by double digits in South Carolina and Nevada, and Clinton takes a heavy majority on Super Tuesday. Locks it up by March. But- because Sanders inspires a lot of people that may stay at home on Election Day otherwise, Clinton and team will make the wise move to pick him for VP.
-GOP Side: Trump and Carson get knocked out by March when the big money starts to rally behind one candidate in the establishment ala Romney vs Santorum 2012. My prediction is that although Kasich, Rubio, and Fiorina will make a valiant effort it will be Bush that claims the title of Establishment Champion and with the hundreds of millions that accompanies it he will knock out any of the crazies that hold on.
The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong …
… but that’s the way to bet.
Don’t worry – he’ll be out when that narrative hits the mainstream, because we all know that “raising taxes on the wealthy” ends up affecting most everyone who isn’t “poor”.
All of Obama’s wondrous accomplishments probably don’t really mean much to the average American, so I wouldn’t count on them to help usher in another Dem, but
Hillary is their best shot.
Why do people constantly predict a VP who is currently running for President? The Republicans haven’t done that, well, ever as far back as I remember(oh wait, Bush 41, so there’s one), and the Democrats have done it rarely. And only one of those times was it the 2nd place finisher. Obama reached further back into the field for Biden rather than taking Clinton, as many foolishly predicted.
The only time that a Presidential candidate picked his closest rival in that race was in 2004, and John Kerry regretted that pick:
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498-2,00.html
And this is before Edwards’ scandal.
Picking the #2 might be a base pleaser, but the best President/VP teams have been people who were comfortable with each other. Kerry and Edwards most definitely were not. Clinton and Sanders would not be either.
I can’t predict who Clinton would pick, but I do know it will be someone who is a longtime Clinton loyalist, like Tom Vilsack. You can be damn sure it won’t be someone who endorsed Obama over her in 2008. Wesley Clark strikes me as very possible as well if Clinton is the nominee.
Republicans don’t even look at the Presidential field at all to pick their VPs. This time might be different, since Rubio seems to be on everyone’s short list, but I’d still lean against betting that the GOP VP nominee will be anyone who is currently running. As a matter of fact, I’d be looking at Mitch Daniels,
I should clarify that my comment on John D’Adamo’s post was for the Clinton/Bush prediction. I don’t think either VP choice will happen.
Yeah, Reagan/Bush was kind of a big one.
I’m happy to explain my reasoning: the name of the game is capture as much support and increase GOTV. Bush is going to run a woman because IMO unless they’re dolts they’re not going to run two white dudes against a minority again, and Fiorina is an obvious choice.
Sanders has support from a unique group of people that might stay home with Clinton but if he’s selected as VP they may still turn out…
But who knows? Exciting times ahead.
It won’t be Fiorina. Kelly Ayotte, Nikki Haley, and Susana Martinez are all better choices both politically and substantively.
Your reasoning is strong. I didn’t mean to pick on you so much as point out that the choice of VP is usually not based on those reasons. No one wants a rival on the ticket with them. It is better for your base voters, sure, but it can hurt the ticket with independents because of the inevitable rivalry and disarray that gets in the way of campaigning. There are better candidates than Sanders to capture the progressive wing. Howard Dean is still around and is ready to be President on day 1.
Sanders is not getting on that ticket. A lot of Democrats who aren’t into the Occupy bit do not like the guy. He also brings no swing regions/states. Democratic donors (which include some of the same corporations as Republican donors) are not going for a sociaist. She’ll probably put the governor of Kentucky (to pick up Appalachian votes Bill won that Gore did OK with but Obama got smoked with), or Julian Castro to spook the GOP in Texas, get some more Hispanic vote, etc.
The GOP will pick Rubio as VP unless he’s the top nominee. For Rubio, at his age, if he’s veep, winning or losing won’t matter to him. People forget, but in 1920, the Democrats lost in the biggest popular margin (a 26% difference between Harding and Cox) of defeat in history to Warren G. Harding. James Cox was the nominee on the D ticket, and who was the VP Democratic nominee? One Franklin Roosevelt. Being on a landslided ticket didn’t hurt his career. Even if Trump is the nominee, Rubio’s gonna be on there. Then Trump “can’t hate Hispanic.”