2016 Presidential Nominations: The Democrats (ethical, dictators, terrorists, party)

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

Andrew Cuomo

The New York Governor's 2016 Democratic nomination chances are fading. His main problem has always been Hillary Clinton. Their bases in New York overlap, and if she runs (which has always been and remains very likely) he would lose the most of his home-turf support to her, gutting his campaign before he could even launch it. That is precisely the reason he has indicated that if she runs, he will not.

But that was not his only problem. He has become increasingly disliked by the left, for a variety of reasons - including siding with the state senate Democrats who have thrown control of that body to a Republican (despite the Democrats controlling the majority of the seats).

Tuesday night, in the state primary, Cuomo got all of 62% of the vote. That's right, running as an incumbent. He spent over $20,000,000 in his primary campaign. His opponent spent less than $300,000.

Cuomo's plan (echoing that of Chris CHristie next door in New Jersey, a year ago) has always apparently been to win a massive reelection that it vaults him into the status of a viable nomination contender. But he'll roll in the general election simply because it's New York - a very liberal state where the Republican Party is in completely disarray. The problem is that Cuomo has no substantive base of which to speak. On the off-chance the Hillary Clinton declines to run for President, Andrew Cuomo still might have a shot because in that case the Democratic field might be so wide open that almost anyone could win either Iowa or New Hampshire and grab the early momentum to ride to victory. But that would be a long-shot. In the case of Andrew Cuomo, politically there is no there there.

You wont find many people who believe Cuomo and Clinton will both run, so this honestly looks like a waste of a post to me.

Cuomo lost face with a couple of Democrats and won the middle, Not sure why you see that as a problem for Cuomo.

Also, Cuomo didnt spend all that money to win his own re election, he spent it to win his Lt.Governor's race. As well as to put his own campaign in place for governor. You dont start the general election race in September, you start it in April.

[Natural510]

I like Schweitzer the best, only because I don't think Warren will run, and O'Malley would make a good candidate also. Hillary is a war-hawk and while experienced, just screams "oily insider".

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You wont find many people who believe Cuomo and Clinton will both run, so this honestly looks like a waste of a post to me.

Cuomo lost face with a couple of Democrats and won the middle, Not sure why you see that as a problem for Cuomo.

Also, Cuomo didnt spend all that money to win his own re election, he spent it to win his Lt.Governor's race. As well as to put his own campaign in place for governor. You dont start the general election race in September, you start it in April.

Including me - which I indicated in the post you quoted. But that's not the problem for Cuomo I'm discussing, so I'm not sure why you think it's particularly relevant to this discussion. Here, I only mentioned it in passing.

Gunning for the middle while alienating the base is fine for a general election - it's extremely bad policy when one is pursuing a competitive Presidential nomination (which Cuomo clearly is, as much as anyone is this early), and such nominations are so extended that the next one will actively begin shortly after Cuomo begins his next term as Governor.

The problem therein is rather obvious.

[mufc1878]

Mark Warner is the most dangerous 2016 dark horse IMO assuming he wins re-election in a month.

I think when figuring out the field, you have to also look at people who are getting to an age where 10 potential years from now would make them too old to run for their term as potus.

Even if it means running against HRC, for some candidates this would be their last chance due to age issues IMO.

Warner fits this bill. Governor, Senator, Businessman, Purple state - he checks a lot of boxes.

[f5fstop]

Originally Posted by Fancy-Schmancy

People talk about Mrs. Clinton's age but she's no older than Reagan was when he took office. And women tend to live longer than men.

I agree, but they sure blasted McCain about his age!

[VM1138]

Anyone else think it's funny that Biden is seriously trying to run, and appears to think he has a good shot at winning? I don't know anyone, Republican or Democrat, who takes that cat seriously. This is Clinton's race to lose.

[Unsettomati]

Yesterday, I looked at how the mid-terms affected the 2016 Presidential aspirations of various Republican candidates, so far as gaining the GOP nomination. Now let's have a similar look at the Democrats.

Joe Biden, Brian Schweitzer, Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders
The mid-terms did nothing to affect the likelihood of any of these candidates of being the 2016 Democratic nominee for President.

Hillary Clinton
There's been some press about how Clintion was the 'real winner' of the mid-terms. While I generally agree that a Congress held by the other party is a useful foil, I find the degree of benefit is overblown. Anyway, that pertains to the general election, and this post is about nomination chances.

Martin O'Malley
The unexpected loss of the executive mansion in bright blue Maryland to the Republicans, by a solid margin of almost 5%, can't help but tarnish the legacy in Maryland that O'Malley hopes to present to the Democratic base in 2016. It isn't fatal, but it certainly won't help a candidacy that already appears to be a long shot.

Andrew Cuomo
At first glance, what's the problem? Cuomo won by 13%. Well, that's the problem. This is New York, a state that has virtually no GOP bench of which to speak. He significantly underperformed other incumbent Democrats running for statewide office in the state. Cuomo's bid to broaden his appeal, by such actions as trying to curry favor with Republicans by aligning himself with those Democrats in the state Senate who have thrown the control of that house to a member of the Republican minority, clearly did not result in actually winning votes from would-be Republicans.

But, it should be noted that rather than hurting Cuomo's 2016 chances, this election only exposed the existing flaws which were apparent long ago to the serious observer.

Mark Warner
In a state that President Obama carried twice, and that is increasing blue - hell, a state where Terry McAuliffe of all people managed to win an off-year election in 2013 - Warner could only barely scrape out a less-than-1% margin over a charisma-challenged party apparatchik in the form of former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie. Like I said when I started this thread back in April, Warner is one of those looks-great-on-paper candidates who seems likely to turn out to have less than there appears at first glance.

This dubious performance can't help his 2016 chances.

John Hickenlooper
In an election that saw his purple state vote out an incumbent Democratic Senator, Hickenlooper managed to win by 3% despite some serious pre-election doubts about his prospects. Although he remains a long-shot, his re-election not only keeps his hopes alive, given the circumstances they probably enhance them somewhat.

[juneaubound]

Originally Posted by Trace21230

After looking at the list while attempting to be unbiased and keep my lunch down, I think the least terrible of the choices is Joe Biden of all people.

You know what's funny about this complete mess of a politician? He said something years ago that always hit home with me. I think the first time I heard it was during a Biden/Palin debate back in 2008 or so. 11 seconds that speaks volumes regardless of who the candidate is or who the incumbant is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuLwjFmESrg

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

Hillary Clinton
The Democratic nomination is fairly straightforward. Hillary Clinton will probably seek the nomination, and if she indeed runs she'll be the overwhelming favorite.

The first question, of course, is whether or not she will in fact run. The answer is: probably (if asked to put a number on it, I'd say it's 80% she runs-20% she doesn't). Let's look at what suggests this.

First, Hillary Clinton obviously wants to be President. That's why she ran in 2008. She also ran an extremely strong race, winning 21 states and actually getting slightly more total primary/caucus votes than then-Senator Obama. In fact, no candidate for a Presidential nomination has ever gotten as many votes as Clinton did in 2008. The only other candidates who have ever won at least 20 states in a losing nomination bid were Ronald Reagan (23 states won in 1976) and Gary Hart (25 states won in 1984). Reagan ran again four years later and won the nomination. Hart was gearing up to run again in 1988 until the Donna Rice scandal terminated his candidacy before it really got off the ground. To put it in perspective, only one second-place candidate who won at least 10 primaries/caucuses has ever declined to seek the Presidency again in the future - that was Ted Kennedy, who won 11 states in 1980 but never ran again, having a comfortable positon as an effective Senator for life. History strongly suggests Clinton will run again. As James Carville has said, "Running for President has a high recidivism rate".

Second, Clinton's public actions are consistent with a pending 2016 run for the nomination. Her speeches and statements are the measured, calculated expressions of an active politician. More notably, she has not waived off support. Contrast that with Elizabeth Warren; not only has Warren issued Shermanesque "I'm not running" statements, she has privately notified potential donors that she is not going to run. Compare that to Clinton. The largest liberal super PAC in the country, Priorities USA Action, is actively raising money expressly for the purpose of supporting a Clinton bid. Harold Ickes, President Clinton's Chief of Staff and political strategist for Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, is the President of Priorities USA Action. As dialed-in as Ickes is to the Clintons, this is a major indicator that Clinton will run again.

Third, her lead in the polls is unprecedented. Consider that a Washington Post-ABC News poll released in late January showed Clinton with support from 73% of Democrats; Vice President Biden was at 12% and Senator Warren at 8%. When was the last time a non-incumbent President has had a lead anywhere near this large almost three years out? Answer: never. This suggests a high chance of success in pursuing the nomination, which makes a bid all the more appealing to a candidate considering it.

Fourth, the above factors lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby most other major contenders decline to run, knowing they can't compete in the money race and even if they could, their odds would still be long. This only increases Clinton's chances and as with reason number three above, would make a run look all the more appealing to her.

Now, does this mean she'll run? No. An unforeseen scandal could erupt, domestic or international developments could diminish the chances of any Democratic nominee and thus discourage a Clinton run, or a health issue with herself or her husband could cause her to pass on another bid. Those are certainly possibilities. But they are also certainly smaller possibilities than a Clinton run. The totality of the evidence at hand strongly suggests that Hillary Clinton will seek the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Joe Biden
Biden has a chance, but if Clinton runs it is vanishingly small. For that reason, I doubt he runs if she runs. Even if Clinton passes, the chances of Biden running is still probably no better than even. If he runs, his calculus would likely be that without Clinton running, Cuomo and O'Malley and Schweitzer and Warner split the 'new blood' vote and he manages to cobble together a victory as an establishment candidate. But winning the nomination would require everything to break just right.

Martin O'Malley
O'Malley has all but announced that he will seek the nomination, and his decision does not appear to hinge on whether or not Clinton runs. If he does, he'll stake out a position on the liberal side of the Democratic political spectrum. His approval rating as Maryland Governor has dipped lately, but he'll be out of office when he launches his campaign. If Clinton can be beat, O'Malley is not the one to do it; if she runs his bid will be about positioning himself for a future campaign or a place in a Democratic Administration.

Andrew Cuomo
It has been widely reported that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo will not run if Hillary Clinton seeks the nomination. This makes sense in the case of Cuomo; his political base is New York, and this is also Clinton's base. If she runs, the basic financial and logistical support necessary for his campaign will be already committed to the Clinton campaign. But if she decides against a run, Cuomo must be considered a strong contender. He will have a strong base in a large state and a name that comes with a certain level of recognition beyond his own stature, due to his father. But he is not loved by the progressive left of the Democratic Party, which will be looking for a champion to oppose Cuomo.

Brian Schweitzer
And they may find that champion in the populist former Governor of Montana. That may seem a bit paradoxical, as Schweitzer - predictably, for a Democratic Governor of a solidly red state - does not come from the left wing of the party. That said, he isn't as far towards the center as one might guess for a Democrat in Montana. But whether or not Schweitzer will run is an open question. He flirted with running for the Montana Senate seat being left open this year by Max Baucus to the point where it was widely assumed that he would in fact run. He unexpectedly declined, with the typical excuse of not wanting to leave his home state for DC. But there were reports that his decision had to do with problematic connections he had with a dark money organization. If true, that could also be a problem for a Presidential bid. On the other hand, if he does want to run for President in 2016 then a 2014 Senate bid would have had little upside and considerable downside, so he may have chosen not to run for the Senate seat for that reason alone. If Clinton does not run and Schweitzer does run, he will probably be the favorite, albeit not an overwhelming one.

Howard Dean
A sudden and curious darling of the left in 2003, Dean collapsed in the 2004 Democratic primaries, winning only his home state of Vermont and the District of Columbia. Getting utterly dominated by the fairly uninspired Kerry campaign doesn't say much about Dean's national prospects. Had he not gone on to a highly-successful stint as DNC chair, he'd probably be forgotten today, but he has gotten some buzz lately. Still, 2016 will be a distant dozen years removed from 2004. It's really hard to see a Dean bid for the nomination going anywhere.

Mark Warner
Seemingly, Warner has it all - he's a former highly-popular Governor of the critical swing state of Virginia who is well-spoken and telegenic, if not the most exciting candidate in the world. Of course, we've all seen a great many apparently prototypically ideal candidates go absolutely nowhere over the years. Perhaps Warner's best shot would be a scenario in which Clinton and Schweitzer both pass, wherein Warner could muscle out O'Malley as the anti-Cuomo. Still, he seems a much more likely nominee for Vice President than at the head of the ticket. Finally, this caveat; Warner reminds me a bit of Rick Perry and Bill Richardson, candidates who looked great on paper but when they ran for President demonstrated that they had no idea what they were doing.

John Hickenlooper
Colorado's Governor runs to the left of his rapidly-bluing state. Along with that state being a swing state, and the fact that like his fellow Mountain West (ex-)Governor Schweitzer (though in different ways) he is politican with an a-typical image and manner, he may have the political and personal mojo to cobble together a substantive campaign for the nomination. However, as with others, this is probably heavily dependent on certain candidates not running and things breaking just right, not to mention that he first has to win reelection in November. Hickenlooper is another candidate more likely to be in a Democratic Administration than the nominee.

Elizabeth Warren
As noted above, Senator Warren has not only disavowed interest in a 2016 bid for President, she has quietly worked behind the scenes to snuff out any support for such a run. Given that, she seems sincere in her lack of interest. However, should Clinton decline to run the left may well mount a serious effort to convince Warren to run, and it is not out of question that she would then reconsider. That's would be a far fry from actually winning the nomination, however.

Bernie Sanders
I include Sanders only because he is a sitting Senator who has expressed interest in a 2016 run as a Democrat. There is no way that the Democratic Party is going to nominate someone who is 73 years old and while caucusing with the Democrats, has refused to actually join the Democratic Party since became a Congressman in 1991. He has absolutely no chance at the nomination.

To sum it up:
Clinton probably runs and if she does, she's probably the nominee. If she doesn't run, the nomination is wide open with a few obvious top-tier contenders (Biden, Schweitzer, Warner) and a whole lot of question marks.

That's a weak group. GOP will win, hopefully Huckabee.

[spencer114]

Turnout was terrible for Warner (the only reason why he underperformed) but in exit polling he still had a 56% approval rating. It stands to reason that he could easily carry VA in a presidential election (from VA, I'd watch Senator Kaine though!).

The Republican turned out to be more charismatic than I expected. Neither tried very hard and neither had much support (Warner was a shoe-in and Gillespie didn't have a chance so neither party paid much attention to them) and both are really sorry that they didn't.