It is not a distinction without a difference. You think people decide whether or not to run in a vacuum? You don’t think party elders could or would say, "Hey Sarah, here’s what would probably happen if you decide to run this year. But if you decide to hold off until 2016 . . . "? What do you think the function of a political party is?
While I don’t think Palin will really be a viable candidate for Prez, I do think she’d probably make a hell of a Chairperson for the RNC. She does enthuse the base, she’d be a fundraising machine and she wouldn’t have to be a wonk on the issues.
What kind of stupid name is that? He won’t get elected with a name like that.
Jeb Bush will be your next president.
No, I don’t think that would happen. I can see people waiting out until 2016, but I don’t believe the “softball” part of the equation.
To advance an agenda and get candidates elected to office, which usually means getting as much accomplished in a short time as possible. Politicians have short shelf lives, which makes waiting four years a huge gamble.
Also, to strategize. They are not going to play two young rising stars if it makes more sense to hold them for another round.
My choice of Bobby Jindal was taken. Shit.
Are there examples of political parties making these decisions? I know a party can encourage someone to run. I’ve never heard of someone being prevented from running, or even discouraged.
No, that would be his veep. 
There is no “they” in the sense you’re using it. The GOP is a collection of politicians, not an organization that controls them. I am sure that members of the RNC and other senior groups give people advice, but the idea that they can (or would) choose to save politicians for next time, and the idea that they have that much control over that process, doesn’t match up with reality. Howard Dean and Co. didn’t tell Barack Obama to run this year - and it anything they probably would’ve told him not to. He chose to run on his own. He did get some advice from Chris Dodd and probably asked other senior figures for their opinions, but there is nobody who can hold a candidate out.
The kind of party honchos you’re talking about are mainly involved in fundraising, event planning, fundraising, public relations and fundraising. They can have preferences and their opinions can carry some weight in terms of what kind of candidates they can raise money for and sell, but they don’t choose the candidates. If the party establisments chose the candidates, this year’s election would have been Hillary VS. Romney.
What makes you think he wants the job?
Where am I saying something different from this?
Without strict decrees, I believe the Republicans especially strategize and take the advice of each other. I don’t think anyone was surprised that the Democrat primaries were drawn out and battled over for the first half of the year while the Republicans were done within a few weeks with very little in-fighting.
It sounded like you were saying Republican party leaders will keep Jindal and Palin from running in 2012 if Obama looks too tough. If you’re saying they might council against it- yes, maybe they would. That’d only be advice, and given the Clinton example I think it’d probably be ignored. Given the way Palin fared after her debut, I think she in particular is not going to gamble on having a very long shelf life.
It’s not a surprise that the Democratic primaries lasted much longer, but that’s more a function of how the delegates are allotted than anything else. The GOP’s winner-take-all system made for more decisive victories, and the contest was just not that tough.
I’m going to follow Chronos’s lead and go with Brian Schweitzer as well.
I think Bobby Jindal and Mark Warner are also strong choices, with Rahm Emanuel a frontrunner in the “person most likely to be the 46th President of the United States” sweepstakes.
I wish I could see more plausible female candidates at this point. Palin doesn’t count.
The other Joe Biden - “Beau” in 2016 after serving in his father’s Senate seat. And with Lisa Madigan as his veep after serving as governor of Illinois.
Delaware and Illinois - ruling the White House until 2024!
Then the candidate from the Liberty party (2016 version - built from the coalition of libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and social moderates - party chairman, Arnold Schwarzenegger - leaving behind the religious right which still holds onto the remains of the Republican party.)
Bingo.
And so, after about six years of people guessing when Cheney would resign as VP, which was never going to happen, the game begins anew with Biden. Sigh. Unless he dies or is seriously impaired by an aneurysm or health problem, Biden won’t quit. He won’t resign after working with Obama for years just to give Hillary or someone else a free shot. Nobody would work as long as he or Cheney have and then cut their reward short.
If Cheney weren’t a fucking dick it would have happened. I don’t expect Biden to follow Cheney’s lead in much.
It’s not because he’s a dick, it’s because he’s a human being (or a fair facsimile) who has pride. There’s nothing dick about serving out your term in an office you were elected to. He’s not somehow obliged to quit just to give someone else a purported leg up, and who knows if anyone actually wanted him to or if it would have worked?
Being VP will be the peak of Biden’s career. He’s not going to be in any kind of hurry to leave that job. Like Cheney, he’ll have things he wants to accomplish and he’ll wnat to stay to see them happen.
I assume you meant 2016 the second time you typed 2012?
She can’t conceivably beat Obama in the primary in 2012. And why would Obama replace Biden with her?
By 2016, she’ll be 69 years old, and would be asking to be the second oldest President ever elected to a first term. I frankly doubt she’ll be up to it or that anyone will be interested in her being President by then.