Sunday, November 10, 2013

Sunday Question for Liberals

Simple one: Who do you want to run for president? Not who are you supporting, but who do you hope runs?
Bookmark and Share
Posted by Jonathan Bernstein at 3:41 PM
Labels:

34 comments:

  1. DaveNovember 10, 2013 at 3:58 PM

    At least a few women, such as Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. I'm not wild about Clinton ideologically, but she seems like a good politician and someone who should be able to manage the White House well. Warren seems more liberal ideologically (at least on the few domestic issues she speaks on), but I'm not sure about her political and management skills.

    ReplyDelete
  2. TapirBoy1November 10, 2013 at 4:11 PM

    Hmmm. The bench doesn't seem especially inspiring based on a visit to the Democratic Governors' Association webpage or the US Senate web site. Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar?

    Dig deeper to the US House and there's a lot of people who would serve ably if they found themselves in the office somehow. Of course, House members aren't likely to run in 2016 or any other time, and typically fare poorly when they do run.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James EppersonNovember 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM

    I am not sold on HRC yet. I think Warren should wait. The bench does appear thin. Biden would be a bad idea. I frankly wish Jennifer Granholm's parents had moved south for her birth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. JeffNovember 10, 2013 at 4:19 PM

    Franklin D. Roosevelt. Failing that, Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown.

    ReplyDelete
  5. al1390November 10, 2013 at 4:52 PM

    Sherrod Brown probably tops my list. Schweitzer, too. I'm not totally sold on Warren as a national nominee, but I wouldn't mind seeing her run. The more outspoken, qualified progressives that make a serious run, the better IMO. I'd rather not have the Cuomos and Warners taking up all the oxygen, regardless of who finally wins it.

    Would rather see Biden stay out, honestly. Don't know how I feel about HRC but I think she's in regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  6. hbookNovember 10, 2013 at 5:25 PM

    I'd like to see Schweitzer run, but the prairie populism thing he has going on would only work in a democratic primary if guns and energy never come up.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TapirBoy1November 10, 2013 at 5:27 PM

    I soured on Schweitzer when he bowed out of the 2014 MT US Senate race. And he apparently did so because of skeletons in the closet, which wouldn't augur well for primary or general election campaigns for President.

    ReplyDelete
  8. SNFNovember 10, 2013 at 5:42 PM

    The field is pretty thin, probably because of how big Hillary is.

    I think it'd be nice to have a more liberal candidate. One who can put some pressure on Clinton. Ideally, such a candidate would force Clinton to move to the left a bit more.

    Warren is the biggest person to come to mind, although honestly she doesn't "feel" like a president, to me. Of course, that might not matter if her purpose would be to simply pull Hillary further left.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dem In San DiegoNovember 10, 2013 at 6:23 PM

    What about Kirsten Gillibrand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VinceNovember 11, 2013 at 7:14 AM

      Her House record was deeply conservative and she's sprinted left in the Senate. I think she's a great representative for her constituents but don't see her as a national leader.

      Delete
  10. Rain TrueaxNovember 10, 2013 at 7:16 PM

    Sherrod Brown

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousNovember 10, 2013 at 7:22 PM

    Thanks, Dem in San Diego. I am always shocked at how much more Sen. Warren gets mentioned than Sen. Gillibrand. My list of those who I want to run: Sens. Gillibrand, Warren, Brown, and Franken, and Gov. O'Malley. I think my dream team is Gillibrand/(Brown or O'Malley or Franken). Sadly, I don't see how my party doesn't have an all white ticket in 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  12. TapirBoy1November 10, 2013 at 7:23 PM

    I'm not as big a Warren-fan as most other liberals, but this is worth a read: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115509/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clintons-nightmare

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousNovember 10, 2013 at 7:45 PM

    Rand Paul or Chris Christie

    ReplyDelete
  14. KeithNovember 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM

    I'm only hoping that Clinton doesn't run unopposed. It will be good for her and for the party if a few people step off that thin bench to make their first run, to get both campaign experience and national exposure that will make them seem like less flimsy contenders in '20 or '24.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Grandma JoNovember 10, 2013 at 8:51 PM

    Like Warren but it is not yet her time. Opposed Clinton in 08, mostly because I thought she would raise the ire of the GOP too much, but obviously any Dem would be hated. I respect what she did since then, and I believe it is now her time. And I think she can handle the crap. Hope she runs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedro Soriano MendiaraNovember 11, 2013 at 2:59 AM

      I have to respectfully disagree regarding the timing issue. Warren is 64, will be 67 in 2016, 71 in 2020 and 75 in 2024. 2016 seems to me to be the only possible time for her to run with a plausible chance of success (I think 70 is the red line as age of candidates goes).

      Delete
    2. ModeratePoliNovember 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

      Then Warren shouldn't run. There's no replacement for experience in the political world, and Warren is still making too many mistakes.

      Delete
  16. Tom StrongNovember 10, 2013 at 9:11 PM

    Since I'd like to see the Democrats return to nominating governors now and then: John Kitzhaber or Steve Beshear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. VinceNovember 11, 2013 at 7:17 AM

      Ted Strickland, coming off a 2014 retake of the Ohio governorship, would make me happy on many levels.

      Delete
    2. TapirBoy1November 11, 2013 at 7:59 AM

      Just to clarify, Ted Strickland isn't running for OH governor in 2014. Strickland hass endorsed Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald, who is running unopposed for the Dem nomination.

      But if you meant a Dem takeover more generally, your point still stands.

      Delete
  17. AnonymousNovember 10, 2013 at 9:23 PM

    I'd like to see runs from O'Malley, Warren, and Biden (and not Clinton). There are some other people who are never talked about who I think could be interesting candidates (Mark Udall, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Markell), but from the people who are sometimes mentioned - Warren, O'Malley, and Biden.

    ReplyDelete
  18. UnknownNovember 10, 2013 at 11:17 PM

    Martin O'Malley. Elizabeth Warren. Joseph Biden. Amy Klobuchar. Andrew Cuomo. Deval Patrick.

    Few of these are close to my "ideal" candidate. But they're all worth reckoning with, and I think we have a tremendous party, and I would like it to be known. It would scare me to have the comparison be between a very diverse and differentiated Republican primary and a single consensus Democratic candidate. It would be the worst way to convey the big-tent nature of the current Democratic party.

    In short, I want everyone to run.

    ReplyDelete
  19. AnonymousNovember 10, 2013 at 11:25 PM

    He already said he wouldn't run, but I think Gov. Deval Patrick has done a good job here and would be very capable and present well to the public. I'm sad to hear about Schweitzer, I had been looking forward to him since he spoke at Obama's nomination at the DNC.

    ReplyDelete
  20. MichaelNovember 11, 2013 at 2:23 AM

    I hope Klobuchar isn't crowded out by what looks like a new acceptance of the inevitability of Warren's challenge to Hillary's inevitability, something I think had previously looked fairly unlikely from another woman. Hopefully Warren's entry will pave the way for other women; Klobuchar should be the first in after those two.

    ReplyDelete
  21. SteveNovember 11, 2013 at 6:52 AM

    Al Gore. I don't think anyone else would do anything about the climate crisis, and man, his lockbox sure would have been handier than Bush's wars.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jacob H.November 11, 2013 at 8:17 AM

    Patty Murray!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Philip AmlerNovember 11, 2013 at 9:01 AM

    I'm surprised John Hickenlooper hasn't been mentioned yet. It's about time we had another four syllable president!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lester FreamonNovember 11, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    Tammy Baldwin!

    ReplyDelete
  25. AnonymousNovember 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM

    I wish there were more non-east coast options... As much as I like Warren, another Massachusets liberal will get eaten up by the Republican's especially if it is Christie.

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousNovember 11, 2013 at 8:51 PM

    I like Elizabeth Warren....It rarely happens that I dismiss a politician for one statement or episode, but I lost all respect for HRC over the Bosnian sniper claim. I know that all politicians must dissemble somewhat, but that was just such a stupid lie--so easily disprovable. It seemed demented to me, or at the very least, politically inept. It augmented the narrative already established about the Clintons that they are pathological liars. I know that there's been a lot of water under the bridge, and it's unlikely to surface again as an issue, but someone who is capable of making that kind of mistake once could surely do so again. If the Republicans are smart enough to nominate Christie (especially if, God forbid, he selects Martinez has his running mate), I don't think HRC can beat him.

    ReplyDelete
  27. FrankNovember 24, 2013 at 11:54 PM

    I firmly disagree with the idea that the Democrats have a thin bench. With non-elected officials, you can easily compile a list of three Cabinets from top Democrats. If HRC and Biden pass on a run, it would be easy to see the same number of Dems run as the Republicans had last time - except qualified for high office!
    I like Warren and understand her appeal to progressives who want a champion, but don't think she's the right fit. If there are goals to running, besides winning the nomination/election, they would be elevating the debate (i.e. making it more progressive), laying groundwork for a future nationwide campaign, and being selected for VP.
    She obviously checks the first box, but does not much else besides. Warren didn't run an especially strong race in MA - running six points behind the President - which is her only campaign. Against HRC, there would be no chance of her being selected for VP, giving her gender, age, state, experience, and claim to fame.
    Sherrod Brown strikes me as the better progressive champion, because he does strike those boxes. He is as progressive as Warren, has more experience campaigning and in government, has a base in the Midwest, and has exactly the profile HRC would want in left choice for VP. Even in an open race, Brown is preferable to Warren in my mind, because I think those things make him more likely to win than she would be, but Klobuchar would probably be the best choice.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Who links to my website?