Brian Schweitzer, Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, or Elizabeth Warren (in that order) would be good choices if Democrats want to shake things up a bit in 2016, assuming by then Obama's approval ratings are in the 20's and his entire agenda is widely perceived to have been a failure. That's very plausible, considering that Obama's ratings are closely mirroring Bush's so far in the second term.
More conventional possibilities include Cuomo, O'Malley, Biden, and Hickenlooper, if Democrats want more of a continuation of the Obama years, assuming that Obama recovers his ratings and his Presidency or at least holds his own by 2016. It is possible for Obama to do so, but it would be a first; every second-term President who had ratings as low as Obama's are at this point did not recover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Skeffington
Agree with this. Dems will want another shot at a "history making" vote. DH says she's "easier on the eye" than Hillary (not sure if he's kidding).
|
If you compare pictures, Warren looks quite a bit younger than Hillary, despite an age difference of only 2 years. My guess is that the stress of being First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State over 20 years ages a person faster than being an academic and a Senator. I would also guess that Warren ages a bit slower than Hillary all other things being equal.
Quote:
|
I'm also thinking Gov. Jerry Brown of California may be a possibility.
|
Jerry Brown would be 78 upon inauguration, so he would be a very old President, but he's very spry, energetic, and healthy, so I think he'd make it just fine through four years and his age probably wouldn't be an issue. People don't raise the age issue with spry candidates, with Ron Paul in 2012 being a prime example. A prime example of the opposite was McCain in 2008, who appeared geriatric and tired, and the age question was raised often, despite McCain in 2008 being
5 years younger than Paul in 2012.
All that said, however, I'd be surprised if he did run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim
I don't see Cuomo putting in his bid this time around, he seems to be more of a 2024 possibility.
|
In 2024 he'll be 67 years old and will have either served for 13 years as Governor or have been out of office for 5 years (if he chooses to stand down after 8 years). I don't really see what advantage Cuomo would have in 2024 that he wouldn't have in 2016. If you ask me, he'll be running in either 2016 or 2020. If Hillary doesn't run, I think he'd be in a great position to run for the nomination; whether he'd get it or not in the 2016 political climate is a very good question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feltdesigner
doesn't matter because the GOP doesn't have anyone who can win.
|
That's rather presumptuous; it may humble you to take a look at what Republicans were saying about the Democratic hopes to win the White House back in 2006.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul
Possible push for a way to keep Presidente Hussein in office for a 3rd term.....maybe even a lifetime appointment???
|
Obama wouldn't win even if he could run for a third term.
A poll late last year found that if the election were held in November 2013 rather than November 2012 Obama would have actually lost to Romney, and this is despite Romney being a very weak candidate with a very weak message that did not jive with the mood of the people at all, and being one of the few candidates people hated more than Obama in 2012.
Keep in mind that despite what you hear from his supporters, Obama barely won in 2012 with only a 3 point margin under false pretenses (c.f. Obamacare). If the same election were held in 2013 he would have lost by 4 points, which is perhaps the best argument ever made for annual elections.
At any rate, applying what is called a uniform national swing of 7 points, that extra margin for Romney in 2013 would have been enough to flip Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to the Republican column. The actual results would vary a bit from this due to elasticity and local issues, but there is a comfortable 331 electoral votes there for Romney in 2013, which is almost exactly the number Obama got in 2012 (332)
. The point is, though, that it's more than enough to win the Presidency, which stands in stark contrast to the situation in 2012.
Considering all this, and also considering that every second-term President with ratings as low as Obama has now had much lower ratings by the time the next election rolled around, I would say that barring some miraculous recovery Obama would lose pretty badly in 2016 if he could run and was willing to run.
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.
