I like Jay Nixon, but I’m not sure the Democratic Party would be willing to nominate someone who’s probably a bit to the right of the Clinton/Obama wing, and named “Nixon.” Nor do I particularly think they should (because of the moderate thing, not his name).
Attorney General, OK.
President? Kind of weird. But it might pull disillusioned social moderate-conservative voters. I guess you could do it, if the idea is to go so far into the centrist mold that the GOP barely have (credible) room to the right. (And the more committed pro-lifers would vote against him anyway–which might be a net positive at this point.)
Crap, it might work.
I don’t know a lot of other Democrat potentials out there. Jerry Brown may be too old. Elizabeth Warren might be OK, but I kind of want her as a Senate committee chair.
In 2016, the Democrats will have held the presidency for 8 years, and are unlikely to move right. Left is more likely.
The Republicans will have been out of power for a while and will be more desperate for a victory, and they are the ones more likely to move to the center.
I don’t see why a party that’s favored the likes of Tsongas, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Kerry, and Obama for twenty years would give up on moderates now. It seems to work for them a reasonable proportion of the time.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d like a progressive, but Dr Dean is probably about as far left as we’re likely to see.
It basically depends on the individuals involved; in recent history there aren’t a lot of precedents, but:
Eisenhower -> Nixon - further from center
LBJ -> Humphrey - more or less the same ??? (not sure here)
Reagan -> Bush - towards the center
Clinton -> Gore - the same/slightly further left? (post-election, Gore moved considerably farther to the left than his positions during and prior to the election).
Clinton would represent a similar level of centrism to Obama as far as I can tell. None of the others that have been bandied about (except for Warren) are much to Obama’s left.
He’s not saying they’ll give up on nominating moderates. Put it another way: the political status quo will move to the left a bit. Democrats will have held the presidency for eight years and Republicans will be looking for a way to move toward the middle (that is, leftward) to gain more votes. It makes sense to me, and you could argue the Democrats did the same thing.
I’ve heard some interesting gossip that Booker may not be running for Governor against Chris Christie, given Christie’s recent performance during Sandy. Instead, Booker may go for Frank Lautenberg’s senate seat in 2 years when Lautenberg will be 90 and looking to retire for the 2nd time.
I don’t think that a senator for 2 years will give him enough experience to really catapult to POTUS. Then again, it also wouldn’t surprise me if he ends up as a VP choice or on the short list.
46% of the USA population already lives in states where gay marriage (or separate-but-equal things like civil unions or domestic partnerships) is legal now. And that was before this election, where 3 more states added it. No doubt some more will legalize it next Legislative session. (Probably here in Minnesota is real likely.)
Nate Silver did an analysis of gay marriage trends back in 2009. His analysis showed that the majority of states would legalize it by 2016, and the last state (Mississippi) by 2024. Again, Nate Silver seems to be right on track.
That seems optimistic but the tide is definitely on the turn. California (either by an overturn of Prop 8 or other means) will not be long, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see more of the other blue states having similar initiatives on the ballot in the next two to four years, buoyed by the success of this election cycle.