I predict that HRC will run, btw, and she will facea few young Turks who will run as longshots hoping primarily for national recognition, setting the base for election cycles, including Cuomo and O’Malley. HRC will most likely prevail easily, and will choose her running mate to broaden her appeal, eliminating Cuomo, who will probably run against her the roughest for that reason and (also for that reason) give her the toughest time in a relatively easy race for HRC.
I disagree. The two front-runners will be Ryan (the VP candidate) and Santorum (the first runner-up). Ryan will be the favorite of the business Republicans and Santorum will be the favorite of the family values Republicans. But both will be trying to reach into the other’s base so Ryan will talk about family values and Santorum will talk about business.
I’m betting on Rubio for the Republicans, and anyone other than Hillary or Biden for the Democrats.
“other” is the second-most-likely choice, the way I see it. Below are the odds I’ve come up with:
HRC 5-to-4
Other 13-to-2
Biden 14-to-1
Cuomo 16-to-1
O’Malley 25-to-1
Schweitzer 25-to-1
Warner 25-to-1
Castro 50-to-1
Booker 50-to-1
Tester 50-to-1
Brown 50-to-1
Hickenlooper 50-to-1
Patrick 50-to-1
Emmanuel 100-to-1
Warren 100-to-1
Kaine 100-to-1
This should add up to about 100% if I’ve done the arithmetic correctly–if you’ve any other candidates whom you think likelier than 100-to-1, consider them bundled under “other.” Although I consider HRC the overwhelming favorite, the less-than-overwhelming odds concern the long time between now and the 2016 convention, during which anything could happen, politically or personally for her, including her simply deciding “Nah.”
That also accounts for the long odds on my last few named candidates, all of whom have a little national name recognition and a pretty clean record at this point, which is more than, say, you or I have. If Hilary drops out, or drops dead, then suddenly we’re looking at a wide-open field, which is what even these tiny odds are based on: anything could happen, and if does, these are the people it has a chance of happening to. I suppose Warren would stand an even better chance than I’ve given her under these circumstances, since a lot of disappointed Hilary supporters would be looking for a replacement woman to run in her stead, so she would probably be the beneficiary of a no-Hilary race. I just don’t think she’s got the chops to pull it off.
Shorten it? You mean, as in have the election this November?
Wow! We’ve gotten that far that we can’t even fathom the idea of not constantly being in election mode! :eek:
Because of demographic changes, barring another economic catastrophe the Republicans will have an extremely difficult time in 2016 (and possibly beyond). I don’t think HRC is unbeatable, but I believe she’s an intelligent person- so if she runs, she’ll correct a lot of her '08 mistakes (like ignoring the caucuses and trusting Mark Penn). Obama beat her in part because he ran a great campaign, but also because she made a lot of foolish moves in the primary- and still she was very, very close.
If she got nominated, and as long as the economy is not worse than it is today, IMO she would win with just a semi-competent campaign. The demographic changes are just that powerful.
Doesn’t Hillary’s experience as Arkansas First Lady qualify?
The way the map is and the way the GOP caters to the batshit crazy right wingers, it’s going to be nearly impossible for the Repubs to win any presidential election in the foreseeable future, barring hijinks like getting reliably blue states to split their electors.
A New Hampshire journalist friend of mine tells me that Maryland Gov. O’Malley is making the rounds up there. He’s definitely in the race for 2016.
This far out, I suppose Hillary is the front-runner, but it’s a meaningless label. She really might not want to run, and a whole lot can - and likely will - change between now and the 2016 Iowa caucuses. I also doubt that Biden will fare any better in the next cycle than the last two times he ran, even if Obama were to lend his wholehearted support to his VP.
I like what I’ve seen of Va. Sen. Mark Warner, Colo. Gov. John Hickenlooper and HHS Sec. (and former Kansas Gov.) Kathy Sebelius.
As much as I like Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who I’ve voted for several times over the years, I haven’t heard any talk here in the Buckeye State of him running for President, and suspect he would be much too liberal to win in a general election.
I agree that Ryan, Rubio and Santorum are, at this very premature remove, the GOP frontrunners for next time around.
I think you’re wrong. If Hillary was the candidate in 2012, name a state that Obama won that Hillary would have lost if she was the candidate. A lot will depend on the economy and stuff like that but Hillary has rehabilitated her image among Obama Democrats and among moderate Republicans.
Being the first female preseidnt? Not worth it? She practically thinks its her destiny.
Biden and Cuomo have doomed their candidacy with their anti second amendment stance.
Go to 2012 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
Scroll down to the part of where they list the state by state results. On the top line, click on the second to last column (which will give you the percentage margin by which each state was won)
Of the states that were close, there are several states that Obama won that would flip against someone who was hostile to the second amendment. Of the states there are NO states that Romney won that would flip FOR soemone who was hostile to the second amendment.
If Obama had been this anti-second amendment before the election, he would probably have lost Florida, Ohio and Virginia. That would have made the electoral count 272 to 266 for Obama.
Many of the other close states would have been a lot closer and might have even flipped and they would only have needed one more state to flip. I think there are at least half a dozen states taht could have flipped on teh gun control issue, the election was reasoanbly close at the state level. Until Romney became Mr. 47%, I don’t think anyone was really sure that Obama was going to win.
There’s a reason both Romeny and Obama avoided the gun control issue.
Hillary has some second amendment cred based on her 2008 run for the democratic nomination (she ran fairly pro-gun, I think mostly because she understand the politics of the situation), I’m sure she’s not Wayne LaPierre’s favorite person (she gets an F rating from the NRa despite running on a pro-gun rights platform in 2008 because the NRA “just knows” that deep in her heart, she is a gun grabber :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:) but pro-gun Democrats could vote for her, they could never vote for Cuomo.
Neither Biden nor Cuomo have taken an “anti-second amendment stance”.
You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that Obama’s position on guns is far closer to that of the majority of the electorate than the NRA’s position is. News flash: people who vote for guns as their pet issue already break for Republicans about 10-1. If you believe taking a popular position is electoral poison, I urge you to apply for a position with the RNC.
This is the key as to whether HRC will run. I truly believe she sees it this way.
Having said that I don’t think it is a given that she will be the nominee. Far too many things could happen between now and then but barring serious illness or major scandal I think it is hers for the asking.
But he was making the point if Obama had staked a strong anti-gun position, which would not be a fair descriptor of his position prior to the 2012 election, it would have hurt him with pro-gun Democrats. I think that’s absolutely true.
Gun control is a very dangerous issue to stick your neck out on at the national level. Cuomo and Biden have come out and been heavily associated with the strongest gun control measures, which enjoyed wide popular support immediately after Newtown. However, national polling already shows support for many of those proposed measures is now below 50%. About the one major gun control proposal right now that enjoys massive support still is universal background checks (which I don’t see how any reasonable person opposes.) [This is from a CBS poll, in late march only 47% of Americans supported stricter gun control measures, down from 57% in December just after Newtown.]
What’s most troubling for any candidate when it comes to the second amendment is where it is important. In the West and Northeast, more people believe controlling guns is more important than gun rights, in the Midwest and South more people believe protecting gun rights is more important than controlling guns (cite).
What’s most concerning for a Democrat politician is the actual politics in the South and Midwest. Of the Southern states you can expect to be in play for Democrats (Florida, North Carolina, Texas) and the Midwest states which are mostly always in play for both parties to some degree there are many gun loving Democrats. In elections often decided by 2-3% at the state level it can be very disastrous for a Democratic politician to alienate a portion of his party that will actually vote against them in an election over a specific issue. A registered Democrat who otherwise would vote for a Democrat voting for a Republican represents a very bad ‘swing’ for anyone wanting to win the Presidency as a Democrat. It also does not have to be that many Democrats to be important, because in a Presidential a state “blow out” is usually 10%, and lots of states are won by 2-3%. Those 2-3% margin states flip pretty easy if 10% of Democrats are die hard gun voters but otherwise would vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate.
Most importantly for a Democratic politician wanting to be President, they have to get through those same states where there are gun loving Democrats in the primary season. That’s just simply not all that likely, so the scenario of them even making it to the general to lose on the second amendment issue is small.
I’ll disagree with some of Damurji Ajashi’s specific analysis, though. Andrew Cuomo as a state executive has pushed legislation that he can never escape, and that makes his slog very difficult. It will play early in primaries in New Hampshire (Northeast but also semi-rural enough for gun issues to matter), Iowa, South Carolina etc. Biden on the other hand has only chaired a committee and can, probably, manage that in different ways if he really runs in 2016. HRC has largely avoided taking any meaningful stance on the issue. Which is really the best stance for a Democrat on guns.
That’s exactly why Democrats have historically stayed away from the gun issue come national election time. It’s not that they get a lot of votes from that stance, but rather that there are Democrats in midwest and southern states that will not vote for an anti-gun politician. Even if it’s only 10% of the state party’s registered Dems, that’s a lethal amount in most states. Being strongly anti-gun basically only “costs” votes, whereas there is basically no one who matters that would vote for someone because they are strongly anti-gun.
Also, despite the claims by many on the right prior to the 2008 and 2012 elections that Obama was a “gun grabber” the truth is he’s never staked a powerful anti-gun position prior to an election. He had the “guns and religion” comment, but in terms of substance and issues he was heavily associated with Obama has only taken a significant stance on guns in his second term when he’ll never again stand for elected office.
A guy like Obama will never get the gun nut vote, but he probably wants blue collar Democrats in the midwest that are “mostly” loyal Democrats, but some of whom can flip the other way over certain issues. In a State like Ohio the focus is on the fact something like 15% of the vote is black, and Obama got like 98% of that vote versus a historical 90% as reasons for winning. But the entire electorate is important based on how “in play” they are. Obama still got tons of white male vote in Ohio, many of them blue collar laborers. If he gets 10% fewer votes from them it’s a different election in Ohio.
Obama is probably one of the best campaigners we’ve seen and it should tell you something the issues his campaigns have focused on and the issues they’ve intentionally not focused on.
I don’t disagree that Biden can recover from the anti-gun stuff better than Cuomo. I do think that HRC will do much better than either of them on guns. I also think that noone really expects a Democratic presidential candidate to get a really good NRA rating and you can probably go as far as pushing for licensing and registration without derailing your campaign but you’re right, its probably best to be non-commital on the issue until an “opportunity” like Newtown presents itself.
To be fair, I doubt he would have done anything on guns control if Newtown didn’t change the conversation. Then Feinstein got a hold of the issue and we ended up pretty much where we started out before Newtown, its too bad, we could have gotten something done that would have kept guns out of the hands of criminals without causing too much inconvenience for law abiding citizens.
The thing with Clinton is, she’s an ex. If she were to run, she’d be running as “Ex-Secretary of State Clinton”. Or maybe “Ex-Senator” or “Ex-First Lady”, but in any event, ex-something. If she were going to run again, she’d be keeping her hand in the pot. Exes don’t win elections, and Clinton is smart enough to know that.
When she stepped down as SoS, it was because she wanted to retire, plain and simple.
That’s one way to look at it. At the same time, the single biggest reason Romney won the GOP nomination without anyone really loving the guy isn’t because it was him and a bunch of crazies on stage. It was primarily because he basically started the work of his 2012 primary shortly after McCain lost to Obama.
Now, as an article linked in this thread shows, the early presumptive nominee tends to fare very well for the Republicans and very poorly for the Democrats. Part of that could be the differing structures between those parties and etc, but even for the Democrats I think the earlier you start laying the groundwork, the better. Barack Obama wasn’t a super well known guy in say, 2006, but he was known. That was in part because he was busy flying around the country making speeches here and there, having meetings with people and basically keeping himself at a very low level in the news now and again and also meeting important people.
That’s the “pre-primary” campaign, before you’ve announced everything where you are in fact laying the groundwork for the primary. It’s a very important part of primaries now, because while you aren’t really getting a ton of exposure with the electorate you’re building connections and support in backrooms and such with people that will help you with the fifty state parties, traditional big time fundraisers and etc should your candidacy germinate into something real later on. Romney was doing this stuff really early on too, and had the advantage of connections he had already made in his failed 2008 run.
Secretary of State is a “real job” as opposed to being a Senator, what I mean is we all know Senators spend a lot of time doing a lot of nothing and it isn’t a rigorous job day to day. Yeah, in contested districts they have to run for election hard and they’ll be influence peddling and such, but Obama was a Senator about like Jack Kennedy was. Obama was able to keep his job and do his pre-primary stuff. Clinton would not be able to, the Secretary of State isn’t VP or Senator, it’s a job that you need to actually basically do full time every day you have that job. The country can’t have a Secretary of State laying the groundworks for a primary and still be doing due diligence, and it certainly can’t have one that’s gone full time campaigning when the primaries officially begin.
So I don’t know that her resigning is an indicator for sure that she’s retiring. Her job wasn’t one you can keep while running for office.
Also this “Can’t be an ex-” stuff isn’t really true. Nixon was about as ex- as you get–he was totally washed up, a two-time loser (lost the presidency in '60, lost the governorship of CA in '62. went back to private practice for six years, then won in '68 and 72), and Carter was the ex-Governor of GA when he won in '76. I think Poppy Bush was an ex-Cia chief when he ran in 80, then ran off being VP. His son might have run as ex-Gov. of TX in 2000, I’m not sure.
Holding office is more of a nuisance than not–you get accused of neglecting your “real” job, and you get distracted from the campaign. Being ex-SoS is a win-win for HRC. Anything she wants credit for under Obama’s first administration, she gets to claim, and any distance she wants to put between herself and him for his 2nd administration, she gets to do that.
Brown. Schwarzenegger cannot become president.
I was kidding about Brown.