But… Barbara Bush will be like 200 years old in 4 years.
I assumed after 2008 Clinton was finished, but various recent news articles where Clinton is coy about that question have convinced me she is going to run at 69. Which is fine, we’ve had two 69 year old Presidents (at first inauguration) and one or two other candidates that age or older, it’s not totally unprecedented.
I’m not sure why, but this totally cracked me up. Thanks for that.
I know you’re probably joking, but for the record: I meant young Barbara (Jenna’s sister), not her grandmother Barbara.
I want Howard Dean to make a comeback. Yeah. I’d quit my job for that guy.
Dean would make a good President. I think his failure in 2004 can be attributed to taking too partisan a tone. It wins you points with the angry part of the base, but those looking for electability are looking for a less angry tone. As a member of the right-wing conspiracy, he turned me off because he basically threw down the gauntlet to people like me.
I have utmost respect for Howard Dean’s record as governor though. And he’d make an excellent VP for either Cuomo or Clinton in 2016.
There is exactly a 0 percent chance Biden will be the nominee. Warren may run a primary but would be out shined and destroyed by Clinton.
It is clear Clinton will run as she turned down the Obama campaigns offer to replace Biden.
She declined because it is a no win situation. The odds of the country voting for the same party after it has been in power 8 years are about as likely as Biden being nominate.
The other reason is because Obama very well could lose and then she would have to wait 4 years anyways and would be stuck the Obama albatross wrapped around her neck.
If Hillary were nominated in 2016 she would select a pragmatic and practical democrat. Not a far left because she would have support of the far left more radical elements in her party either way. Since the economy is likely to still be in the tubes she will go with somebody that would have an economic boost for the ticket. Probably a governor from an economically viable and reliable blue state… although those are rare anomalies.
He didn’t lose because of electability. He lost because the country wasn’t ready for him yet, because he peaked too early, because he lost the media cycle, because his campaign was mismanaged after Trippi left.
And look what happened with Kerry - he got a lukewarm response and lost an election to George Bush. You had to be some kind of special to lose that election.
Howard Dean would be a phenomenal president. And look at the political climate today - we’re more liberal than 8 years ago. I think he’s just right.
[del]Pics[/del] Cite or it didn’t happen.
As a Republican I’d love a Howard Dean candidacy, wouldn’t even have to contribute to the campaign or care about what was going on, I’d be able to rest assured from the end of primary season my party was taking the White House in a land slide. Would be akin to the glory days of the Dems nominating people like Mondale, Dukakis or McGovern.
Also, I don’t believe the rumor at all that anyone in the upper levels of the Obama Administration were seriously considering dumping Biden. Someone lower level on the staff, just strategizing? Sure, they’d be dumb to not really consider everything, but at the higher levels of the administration there would be a recognition changing VP candidates is its own kind of risk and in a way hurts how the electorate would view the President. That’s why the rumors of Cheney being “dumped” in 2004 never came to fruition.
Agreed. At this point, it’s been so long since a President was elected with one running mate but chose another veep candidate for the next run, that it would kinda freak out a lot of voters if it happened for little if any apparent reason; it might cost the incumbent 2-3% of the vote, and they’d mostly be low-information swing voters. Which is why Obama wouldn’t dump Biden even if he really wanted a new veep, and why Bush wouldn’t have dumped Cheney in 2004, even if he’d wanted to.
Don’t you mean Cheney wouldn’t have dumped Bush?
Romney is 65, yet no one seems to have publicly balked at his age yet.
On the other hand, you’re here blasting Warren for her age. She’s 2 years older than Romney. People also called out Gingrich on his age (4 years older than Romney).
Is age more of a matter of perception?
Fact is, I once told someone that Romney was 65, and he didn’t believe me; he actually Google’d Romney’s age right in front of me, and was surprised that Romney was indeed 65. Gotta be that Botox and hair dye.
FDR changed running mates like he changed his underwear.
Right. And that was so long ago that it was a different universe.
BLASTING? Really? You got that out of what I wrote? I’d hate to see what you thought if I wrote about a candidate I DIDN’T like. Still, one will see what one wants in any given text.
67 isn’t an insurmountable obstacle, but I would prefer several years knocked off of that. It may be our recent run of relatively young Presidents causes my concern. Or maybe it’s because I’m decades younger than that, but feel like crap myself. Or maybe it’s the reports of Alzheimer’s presenting in Reagan’s first term. I did a quick Google because I was curious, and it shows that the average age of US Presidents at inauguration is 55.1 years.
For the record, I self-identify as liberal, and am intrigued by what I’ve heard about Warren, but it’s too early for me to get my hopes up for her candidacy in 2016. As I said, who knows what will develop or come to light between then and now? However, for now, I am at least hoping she wins the Senate seat.
Is there any speculation about Brian Schweitzer (Montana governor) running for President?
I’d say he’s a sure thing, but Democrats like big names. Schweitzer could be one of those guys who just gets forgotten if a star with less qualifications runs.
Look at the 2008 field: three one term Senators and a collection of extremely well qualified individuals. Guess who got all the attention from primary voters? The three one-term Senators.
First of all, I’m conditioning all of this on the assumption that Obama wins this year. He might not, but in that case, it’s a whole different ballgame.
If Biden were to choose to run, he would get the nomination. He’s still an extreme longshot, though, because there’s almost no chance he’ll choose to run.
Clinton probably also wouldn’t run. She had her big time in the sun in 2008, lost, and got a very nice consolation prize. She’s done now.
And the main reason there hasn’t been more talk about Schweitzer before now is that he’s been deliberately avoiding the national stage. But all of his avoidances have been couched in such a way that he could easily change his mind in 4 or 8 years. If he does run, I think his chances are excellent: He’s an expert at getting across his views concisely and in ways that make sense, and he’d probably peel off a good number of the single-issue pro-gun voters (everyone in Montana is pro-gun). I wouldn’t bet on him vs. the field, but he’s probably got a better chance than most individuals.
You must not be from Maryland