Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Cuomo or Mark Warner.
I would like for Hillary to run, but I don’t think she will.
I also wonder what John Huntsman has planned. He basically has no future with the Republican party, but I don’t see him quitting politics…
OK, I didn’t mean that literally. I stated it poorly.
I should have said, ‘somebody not on the presidential radar, somebody not yet known at the national level.’
Hey, why does it always have to be about Bill Clinton? 
Nope. '88 was supposed to be Gary Hart’s turn (he was runner-up to Mondale in '84), but he blew it with the Monkey Business scandal in 1987.
If Hillary wants it and Obama’s second term goes relatively well, it’ll be her. Otherwise, a governor. Probably Mark Warner. No way will it be Biden.
On the GOP side: I suspect the reason Santorum stayed in as long as he did was to stake a claim on 2016. And if Romney loses, you just know the tea party wing of the GOP will say it was because he wasn’t conservative enough. On the other hand, it looks like the GOP kingmakers are grooming Bobby Jindal, even though it’s not quite “his turn”.
So 2016: Clinton or Warner vs. Santorum or Jindal.
Hillary looks tired. I believe her opportunity has passed.
May be too early for Castro and Cuomo has been in for line too long.
So, I’d say Bloomberg/Warren or Crist/Warren.
Christie and Santorum will probably fill the Clown Car. On the other hand, the Republicans may wise up, empty the Clown Car and run something closer to a Bush/Susan Martinez ticket.
Crane
That sounds more better.
I can’t see the democrats putting an ex-Republican at the top of the ticket.
I think these are actually job requirements.
True enough, but using the U.S. Senate as a stepping stone will be a lot harder in TX than in IL. I think he’ll need to be mayor of a bigger city, or hold a state or national position before he has a realistic chance.
I’ll have to second your guess for Mark Warner, though. He is positioned well.
Giraffe.
I don’t know if that’s a Doctor Who reference but I agree.
I think Clinton realized when Obama won that she had missed her chance. She couldn’t run against him in 2012 and she’d been too old to run in 2016. So I think she decided that Secretary of State would be the capstone of her career.
In my opinion, if she had meant to make for a 2016 presidential run, she would have stayed in the Senate. A Senate seat is a stronger position for a presidential run than a cabinet position.
Claire McCaskill (she’s perfect!)
A bigger city? San Antonio is like the what, does quick check SEVENTH largest city in the US. He’s as well positioned as he can be in his home state. He ain’t gonna become a Senator or Governor in Texas. Not with that big ‘D’ next to his name. So Castro can at least think hard about it. Maybe pull for a cabinet post or something to raise his profile.
But again, I’m warned by all the support Mark Warner is getting. He might be running second to Hilary in this thread.
I had no idea, and I doubt that most voters do.
Yeah, it catches you by surprise. But it’s true. It’s up there with Philly and Houston and San Diego and such.
Still, if he’s in the race everyone will find out about it PDQ.
Clinton/Castro could be killer.
Chelsea.
What, the socialist?! :eek:
Nah, Stephen Colbert, in character. People from both parties would vote for him.
Surprised no one mentioned Marc Rubio on the Republican side. Also Eric Cantor.
One strike against Santorum (other than his relatively unimpressive resume) is that the Republicans are more likely to move a bit left on social issues than on economic ones, and Santorum’s appeal is social.