Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
I still wonder how much she really wants to be President at this stage of her life? Yes, she certainly did in 2008, but 8 years is a long time when you get into to mid or late 60s and dreams start to fade. yes, we all know there is a huge group out there pushing and plotting to make sure she runs and wins, but she also has to decide, on her own, if it is time for her to just be a private citizen.
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.
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.
I am not sure he could win against a decent Republican candidate.....Although he did well in the last VP debates-he surprised me. He did FAR better then Obama did in the first set.
In some ways I think Biden/Warren would make for a incredible combination.
I think the vice presidential slot matters a lot, if you blow that you can blow your whole election. Romney grabbed a Far right guy and tried to put himself up as more moderate, which worked well for him I think. I suspect we will see more pairings like that from both sides, So I kind of expect the VP slot to be more extremist then the pres slot.
Howerd Dean(Progressive)
Mark Warner (Third Way/Centrist)
Andrew Cuomo and Martin O'Malley (Liberal)
Bernie Sanders ( socialist)
John Hickenlooper(Libertarian Left)
Brian Schweitzer ( Populist)
Oh, this Primary season could be fun to watch if Hillary Clinton doesnt run.
Howerd Dean(Progressive)
Mark Warner (Third Way/Centrist)
Andrew Cuomo and Martin O'Malley (Liberal)
Bernie Sanders ( socialist)
John Hickenlooper(Libertarian Left)
Brian Schweitzer ( Populist)
Oh, this Primary season could be fun to watch if Hillary Clinton doesnt run.
Only Bernie and Coumo have name brand recognition there. Bernie is REALLY good in front of people and a microphone, he will do well in those sorts of areas, but he isnt as popular within the democratic party-which to me is a plus!. But the far far left he represents will hurt him on the independant vote. So it would depend on the R candidate.
Cuomo could be interesting.
But you're right, if Clinton doesn't run, there isn't one single obvious forerunner, making for a divisive primary, just as divisive as the Republicans last one was.
And...I dont think we get our best candidates that way. I think we lose some good choices that have to go too far left or right for their base during the primary.
As usual, there will be no surprise. Hillary will run, and win both the nomination and be elected POTUS. The simple reason is the 18 states blue since 1988 which allow the Dems to coast to 270, with an overwhelming EC lead. Just those 18, and demographically blue Va and NM now start them around 260, before having a nominee.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
