This wasn’t just a second place candidate but a case where Hillary Clinton won more popular votes than Obama in the primaries. Plus the main group of voters who are defecting from the Democrats right now (even as other groups are trending Democratic) are white working-class voters in places like West Virginia or Arkansas, whom Hillary Clinton would do very well with.
Aw, come on. Obama won primaries in IL, WI, MN, IA, CT, ME, WA, OR, HI, MD, DE, and VT. Had Hillary won the nomination, she would have carried all of these states easily. I still say that pitted agaisnt a Republican, Hillary would have carried roughly the same states that Obama did, give or take a couple outliers.
Yes, like **Smapti **said - an HRC candidacy.
If Bill Clinton said Michelle Bachmann is too tough an opponent for Democrats to beat, I would think the same thing.
I agree that HRC is unlikely to be the nominee and is a lot more beatable than most people think.
The woman I think would be an interesting choice would be Kathleen Sebelius, as a former governor and current cabinet secretary. A lot of that depends on how Obamacare is viewed by the nation in 2016 though.
O’Malley would be a good choice for the Dems.
Schweitzer would be interesting, picking up the plains states much like Clinton picked up the South. Dunno if he’ll run or actually do well outside of Montana.
I do think Biden will be too old and doesn’t have the campaigning chops as the big dog.
Booker and Castro, neither have enough ‘big gun’ experience. Remember how badly Giuliani flamed out? They would need to be a senator or governor first. Good luck with Castro getting that in Texas (claims it is going blue seem overeager to me)
Franken barely won, I can’t see him getting the national nom. Too many still think of him as a comedian.
She makes Al Gore look scintillating.
I’m going to move this to Elections.
As a one-time Montanan, I find it interesting that two figures from that state made it to the list. But this is the first I’ve heard any rumblings at all that Tester might be running. I think it unlikely that he’d win: While he’s done a fine job as senator, pretty much everyone who likes him likes Schweitzer even better, and governors traditionally have a better track record at getting elected President than senators do (although that may be changing).
The only way Schweitzer gets on a national ticket is as VP. Sure, maybe as top dog he can take some of the plains states. MT, ND, SD is what? 9 electoral votes? He ain’t moving the needle in Idaho, Utah or Wyoming. Even if he did, that’s still not a lot.
A southern candidate who might move VA, NC or GA (SC ain’t moving until the stars grow cold) moves a LOT more electoral votes.
Look, the Democratic candidate can pretty much lock in:
HI 4
WA 12
OR 7
CA 55
IL 20
MI 16
PA 20
DE 3
MD 10
NJ 14
DC 3
NY 29
CT 7
MA 11
That’s 211 Electoral votes that are absolutely in the bag. Hell, I’m not even counting Minnesota or Wisconsin. Pulling another 9 from the northern plains and potential damaging a chance to pull in VA, NC, GA with their combined 44 electoral votes doesn’t work. So Schweitzer would make an excellent VP pick for a southern candidate like Warner, but wouldn’t add a lot to someone without a southern base to draw from.
I think that he could flip a lot more states than that, based on policy rather than geography. How many voters are there who are single-issue Republicans based on guns? I’d expect that Schweitzer (or any Montanan, really, though as I said Schweitzer is the best bet) could flip a decent chunk of that demographic.
I understand what you’re saying, Chronos. But the gun voters tend not to be single-issue. They tend to be wrapped up in other things, too.
And it doesn’t matter what happens, nothing on God’s green earth is going to move ID, UT and WY. Likely the same for NE and KS. That leaves CO in play and maybe IA. That’s not enough. There needs to be a southerner. Schweitzer needs something BIG to happen to give him some real prominence or he’s just not viable as the head of a ticket.
… Brown? Or the Governator?
Clinton isn’t an ideological extremnist like Congresswoman Bachmann. Also polling seems to indicate (obviously its a bit early but that’s about the only evidence we have) that Hillary Clinton polls better against GOP candidates than either Biden or Cuomo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016
For those worrying about HRC’s campaign last time, assuming she is the nominee this time, where do you think her team would come from? The Obama folks would happily line up to get her in office*. Give her Obama’s infrastructure and she wins - probably easily. After all, the demographics are still anti-GOP and, so far they’ve shown little willingness to deal with the core reasons why that’s true. “We don’t like brown people” isn’t going to go real far with brown people no matter how nicely you say it.
- Probably not their primary** reason, but just think how cool that would be? To get to say, “I was a key player in getting the first black AND first woman presidents elected.”
** Heh. Pun unintended but funny on proofread.
The thing about this kind of polling is that 4 years is so long it’s pointless. Even the primary polling from last year was a roller coaster 8 months out.
Not to mention these polls include HRC (too old and tired) Biden (foot-in-mouth-itis), Rubio (who pulled a Jindal in the SOTU response), and Ryan (because a failed VP bid is a direct path to the nomination… not).
The only people I could see as actual candidates here are Cuomo and Christie, and I think Christie is winning only because people have heard his name more often. I bet Schwarzenegger would clean up on both of them based on name recognition alone.
I think this is the most likely match-up, if Cuomo gets married before 2015 and Christie loses a significant amount of weight. I assume they will both be re-elected, Christie this year and Cuome the next.
A tougher road for Christie, though. Not sure how he gets through the primaries.
New Hampshire will be his starting point and Florida looks good if Rubio and Bush don’t run.
Please do you read Greg Palast’s Billionaires & Ballot Bandits – cover to cover – before you again express the slightest enthusiasm for H.R.C.
Only for the Dems. Its a pretty strong predictor of the eventual GOP nominee.
Sadly, yes- the GOP has a strong tedency to nominate runners-up from previous election years (Romney in 2012, McCain in 2012, Dole in 1996, George HW Bush in 1988, Reagan in 1980, even (arguably) Nixon in 1968.
WIll the same thing happen in 2016? Probably not- none of the runners up from 2012 made a particularly strong showing, and none will have the backing of the GOP establishment (the corporate and country club set). There’s NO obvious front-runner.
I think if HRC wants it, she’ll get the nomination. If she doesn’t want it and Biden does, I think he’d get the nomination. But they both have really legitimate reasons not to run. Age is a big part of it, but both have gone down this route and failed before.
While neither went all the way through a full Presidential, they say the process is vicious even in the primaries and soul killing in some way. I’m not convinced one way or the other that either would pursue the nomination. Both have done stuff to suggest they may not, while also laying some of the groundwork so they have the option. That indicates to me both are sort of indecisive. I only think Biden will go for it if HRC clearly bows out, because I think he doubts he could beat her and it’d be really embarrassing for a sitting Vice President to lose a Presidential primary.
Since I can’t predict how HRC/Biden will decide, I’ll say if neither of them wishes to run I think a candidate like O’Malley or Mark Warner is a strong option. Elizabeth Warren is way too Northeast liberal and would probably fare worse than Kerry did (who failed to win despite running against a unpopular President.) The country isn’t going to elect a far left Senator from New England and thus it’s unlikely the Democrats nominate one.