They do exist, but they either aren’t young or aren’t desired by the Democratic base to run for President.
That’s what running for president is for – making the base “desire” you. They don’t have a national profile because they haven’t tried to get one yet.
Well, I guess I don’t quite get what “young” means for this discussion then. In presidential politics, mid-50s is pretty damn young. Even 60, for that matter.
The Democratic base wants Hillary to run for President. You (and some others on this board) really don’t believe this, but it’s true. The folks that are pulling for someone else are either the far-left (Sanders or Warren fans) or ex-Republicans that would like someone more moderate. But run-of-the-mill base Democrats are very fond of Hillary Clinton.
Once Hillary is out of the picture, either by winning or losing in 2016, you will see the next generation step forward and build national profiles. Heck, by then you will probably have a few new Governors and Senators to consider as up-and-comers.
Good luck with that. Any gains the Democrats make in 2016 downballot will be erased and then some in 2018.
Please explain how a young Democrat that gets elected as a Senator or Governor in 2016 could get “erased” in 2018…
Lots and lots of recall elections of course.
Newsom is a clown. He only got elected because of his families political connections.
:: shrugs ::
I support O’Malley, don’t much care for Hillary, and fit into neither of your two categories.
Nixon’s cooked after Ferguson.
How many votes does his family have?
Fair enough, there is that 1% or so that support O’Malley. Who, I would add, is pretty young (52).
He took the opposite approach of the other “youngsters” mentioned above - going for it this year almost certainly knowing he will lose. It’s a high-risk high-reward play - if Hillary completely blows up he is most likely to benefit from it. But I do wonder how much (if any) his inability to draw any support so far will hurt him in both the VP considerations and any future national run.
Probably true.
Think he’ll run for Boxer’s Senate seat in 2016? Or is he holding out for Governor of California in 2018?
He’s already stated that he’s running for Governor, not Senator.
(Which, by the way, leaves the senate seat wide open for Kamala Harris, another young Democrat who has been mentioned in this thread.)
I’m from Missouri, and I can confirm that my opinion of Jay Nixon dropped dramatically in the fallout from the Ferguson incident and associated St. Louis crap.
He’s already said he’s running for Governor.
Kamala Harris is the favorite right now for the Senate.
I’d just note that in the last 50 years, Democrats have nominated 5 candidates from blue states, 4 from red states. Of the 5 nominated from blue states, only one was victorious(Obama), Of the 4 from red states, 2 were victorious(although one was defeated for reelection). But actually, it’s not even that close. Of those 4 from red states, one was George McGovern, who while technically from a red state hardly counts as a “red state Democrat”. The other one who lost was Al Gore, and he didn’t really lose.
The blue state losers: Humphery, Mondale, Kerry, Dukakis.
Democrats continue to put their hopes in candidates that can only win in very friendly territory. Those are not Presidential candidates. Kamala Harris will probably have a very long and successful Senate career, but she will never be President.
Once upon a time I thought Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of IL, had the ambition to become a national player and the right stuff to pull it off. But she begged off running for Obama’s seat after the whole Blago-Jesse Jackson Jr fiasco and would likely have begged off a governor’s run even without the complication of her father being the powerful Speaker of the Illinois House … she appreciates that no governor will look good presiding over Illinois for the next decade (although few could be as bad at it as Rauner is) and that it fails as a national launchpad.
I do see Julian Castro getting the Democratic Convention keynote. A long shot for VP as he is way short on the experience needed to step into the job if needed. But otherwise I don’t see how he gets the experience he needs … not likely to get elected to a state-wide office in Texas.
But note that with the current demographics Kerry would have won handily and so would have Dukakis. Again, thanks for that app. Dukakis got the same 40% of the White vote Obama did, did a bit less well with Blacks (GOP was at 11), and about the same with Hispanics. Plug it in and dial down Black turn out to 6 points under White and you get an electoral win of 303 to 235. (Though VA and OH are close. But even them going the other way Dukakis would have won.)
I don’t believe demographics are destiny in elections, but if they are, then Democrats don’t even need to worry about prospects. Just pick the Democrat they like best and put him or her in the WH. Since there will always be at least one Democrat with a national profile(the VP), the Democrats always have a successor. And if they’ll win more often than not anyway, they can just grab some state AG they are excited about and make that work too.
But I happen to think that American politics always finds an equilibrium. Whenever a party threatens to create a dominant long term majority, a combination of two things always happens: the majority coalition gets unwieldy and part of that coalition breaks off to join the other side where they can get a better deal, and the minority party does what it has to do to appeal to the most disgruntled factions of the majority party.
As for the equilibrium, if the Republican party doesn’t change in a big way and get out of this nihilistic phase, then the equilibrium could well be one in which their party fades from relevance (and other parties rise up, or the Democratic party splits, to fill the void).