Ah, the pressure is really on, now that friend-of-Plain-Blog Ezra Klein has joined into the weekend questions fun. Hmm....
I do know that Dennis Kucinich has been making noises about a primary challenge to Barack Obama next year, but I'm really not so interested in that today, although feel free to chime in on that, too, if you want. I'll tell you what...inspired, although hardly in the spirit of, Michael Kinsley's recent excellent column: who would you like to see the Democrats nominate in 2016?
I'm a liberal (broadly speaking anyway, certainly in US terms) but not American, so I don't know if this really counts. But if I were American, I would want the Democrats to nominate:ReplyDelete
If Obama loses a close 2012 election, Barack Obama;
Otherwise, I'd like to see Brian Schweitzer.
Former PA governor, Edward G. RendellReplyDelete
If a media short list exists I'd say this is what it is right now:ReplyDelete
2. Mark Warner
5. Wild Card: Claire McCaskill if she manages to win reelection.
Of those I'm in Schweitzer's camp right now. I alternate month to month on my Mark Warner fandom. Sometimes he seems to be pressing hard on things no one pays attention to which I like and other times he follows media conventional wisdom to its fullest.
From Congress the first names that leap to mind as appealing possibilities are Sheldon Whitehouse, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, and, a little farther down my list, maybe one of the Coloradans. Jack Markell is the only Democratic governor I like much at the moment, but I'm hoping Gov. Hickenlooper develops into something special.ReplyDelete
No way does Hillary run in 2016, she'll be 70 in her first year of office, not something that the electorate I think is willing to vote for. I don't really have an idea of who to run in 2016, I think that, barring a fully resurgent economy, it will be tough for Democrats to run a successful candidate. As for the current crop of governors that could position themselves for the 2016 election, none of them leap to mind. Someone's going to make a big splash in 2014 by winning a senate seat or governorship in convincing fashion that will lead to them garnering interest.ReplyDelete
Both too far out, and I have an awful track record at picking candidates to like. In early '07, I was high on Bill Richardson. I didn't think he was going to win, but I liked him. Then....yikes. Talk about an awful run.ReplyDelete
I'm awful at picking candidates before they've given speech 1.
There's a good chance we don't know the 2016 nominee yet. Who was clamoring for Barack Obama in February 2003?ReplyDelete
I don't know enough about Schweitzer yet, but from the little I do know I'd give him serious consideration. The national officeholder who most appeals to me is Al Franken. He was a joke three years ago, but by 2016 he'll have served 8 years in the Senate & won a re-election campaign. Republicans elected a B-movie actor president; why not Al?
Don't know if he's who I'd want--might not be, but also could be--but one who I'm convinced is very methodically plotting out a run for the presidency in 2016 is Martin O'Malley. Everyone should expect him to be a force in 2016.ReplyDelete
I will never be able to distinguish Martin O'Malley from Tommy Carcetti.ReplyDelete
Of current members of the US Senate, Klobuchar and M. Udall would be my top choices. I'd give Schewitzer a hard look. Possibly Andrew Cuomo if he can break the mold as NY governor.ReplyDelete
Regardless of age I wouldn't be shocked if HRC runs. And my sleeper pick is Biden, even though he's five years older than Clinton.
@ dirck: I agree.
There's a good chance we don't know the 2016 nominee yetReplyDelete
I think it's a virtual certainty the 2016 nominee is someone we're paying no attention to yet.
I'm surprised Giffords hasn't been mentioned. Assuming she recovers enough to be able to run for public office, she seems like the perfect 2016 candidate, especially if she runs for Senate now. Pro-choice, pro-gun (for now), and a leader on immigration policy in the state where it matters most. She seems pretty awesome politically speaking.ReplyDelete
My top pick would be Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. She's solidly progressive, and she'd be the first female and Hispanic president. If she ran, I think she'd be the favorite for the nomination. Because of her appeal to labor, Hispanics, and women, she'd be able to at least duplicate Clinton's success among those groups, which were almost enough for her to pull off a victory. Plus, she's progressive enough that she'd peel off people who were in Obama's "wine track" coalition, and regardless if a black candidate ran or not, she'd do better than Hillary among black women, just because enough of them would want to make history voting for a female candidate. The electorate would be more Hispanic in 2016 than it is now too, so she'd be stronger just from demographic changes.ReplyDelete
From here, the best bet looks like Hillary Clinton, though I think the likelihood on that will depend on what she does during a second Obama term. She's absolutely the presumed frontrunner, but Hillary Clinton has heard that before and if it looks like a race, I'm not sure she'll run.ReplyDelete
If the atmosphere still calls for a centrist, we could do worse than Mark Warner - young governor and senator from a purple state, with a sunny demeanor.
Obama took a shine to Tim Kaine, and he could potentially benefit a lot from four years in the senate, out of Obama's shadow. (And who becomes DNC chair if Kaine runs?) Similarly, Deval Patrick is a young, exciting governor with ties to the president, but he is, y'know, from Massachusetts.
Looking down the list of democratic governors and senators, it looks like a pretty shallow bench to me. One wild card I'll throw out there - Kristen Gillibrand. I think she surprised people during the lame duck, and after eight years in the senate, perhaps she'll be ready.
I don't have anything against HRC but I thought 2008 was pretty much do-or-die for her... but she isn't married to the come-back kid for nothing.ReplyDelete
I like the sound of Solis. But I bet is someone not on the radar yet.
I'm actually betting heavily against the "not on our screen" yet theory. Obama is very much the exception in this regard, not the rule.ReplyDelete
The likeliest reason to believe the nominee does not yet hold statewide office is the thinning of the Dem bench in 2010. Still, the Dems nominated for POTUS in the last several cycles had a lot of experience under their belts. Even Jimmy Carter had served a full term in statewide office, unlike the current President.
Thank you, TapirBoy. While it's more than likely that the 2016 Dem nominee is NOT one of the most prominent Dems right now, it's unlikely that he's someone the people on this blog- being voracious political animals- just has no idea about. McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, and Reagan were all known to most of the political world five years before their elections (indeed, most of them were predicted to be front runners), as were Kerry, Gore, and Clinton (and hell, even Obama had operatives like Axelrod seeing his potential).ReplyDelete
So yeah, probably not someone who's a huge name right now. But if you're on Plain Blog, it's not gonna be someone you've just never heard of.
I don't care. I'm more curious about what will the make-or-break litmus questions will be for the next nominee.ReplyDelete
Solis has potential, but if it were to be her she'd have to get some other job. No one's moved to the presidency from the cabinet since Hoover, and no one pays attention to the people in jobs below the top 4 positions. Maybe she'd be considered for Vice President?ReplyDelete
Kirsten Gillibrand, hands down. She's been able to win over Democrats and a good number of Republicans in NYS, she's an excellent politician and fundraiser, and she's doing great work in the Senate. She's running for a full term in 2012, so 2016 would be the perfect time for her to throw her hat into the ring.ReplyDelete
In my dream scenario, Biden will decline the VP nod in '12, and Gillibrand will be Obama's #2 on the ticket, setting her up for a run in 2016.
Solis is an interesting idea, but I doubt she'd go from SecLab to a viable contender for the nomination. I'm also not sure she plays against type enough, fairly or unfairly, for the media to treat her as anything other than a special interest candidate. She's never been elected outside a Hispanic-majority district, where Obama won a statewide election.ReplyDelete
@Kal - Biden has already made it clear that Obama has asked him to be on the ticket in 2012, and Biden has accepted. Unless illness intervenes, the Democratic ticket in 2012 will be Obama/Biden. That said, I can think of worse choices than Gilli brand. GOP will seek to portray her as a flip-flopper (Blue Dog in the House, standard-issue Dem in the Senate).
It's way too soon to even think of specific candidates for 2016. At a more abstract level, I'd say a midwestern, west coast, or purple Southern state (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, hopefully a few others will be purple in 7 years) governor would be ideal. It's pretty rare for a sitting Senator to win the Presidency and a northeastern Democrat hasn't won it since FDR.ReplyDelete