Skip to main content

Ok.  We know that regardless of the outcome of this election, Barack Obama won't be able to run in 2016.  Therefore, I think it's absolutely important that we focus on what lies ahead for us in 2016 as the progressive efforts in progressing the U.S. to a better state do NOT end with Barack Obama being president.

One of the potential worries I see about the 2016 Presidential race is that the Democratic Party won't nominate a candidate who is able to get people fired up like Barack Obama has.  I don't believe Democrats, for what they've been through since 2000, will want to nominate someone who is a drone, who is overcalculating his/her next move without realizing the need to be authentic and really inspire people.

That being said, I see the following names of people floating around who could be potential candidates for the 2016 presidential race:

Vice President Joe Biden
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (she may be dropping her political ambitions though after being Secretary of State)
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo
Senator Mark Warner

What do you think of any of the above?  Who do you suggest?

Be serious here.  2016 will be just as important (if not more important) for Democrats to win as 2012 is.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I have been thinking about this too. (5+ / 0-)

    Today I would say Hillary, if she decides to take it on, and add Sherrod Brown from Ohio.  I like Elizabeth Warren but she needs some seasoning and political experience.  A women would be nice,

    •  Warren will be 68 when she's done (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      with being a senator so I dunno if she'll be up for it.  

      Romney/Caligula 2012!

      by sujigu on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:12:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I forgot about Brown (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      timethief, greenbell, joedemocrat

      I think Sherrod Brown could actually be a good candidate. He seems like he could win the blue collar vote much easier than anyone else on that list (except maybe Hillary, but that too is questionable).

      "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

      by xsonogall on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:20:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Brown could be a good VP candidate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joedemocrat, xsonogall

        He'd be able to reach out to blue collar voters in even West Virginia.

        However, right now we need Sherrod Brown representing Ohio because the state is becoming more Democratic and it's likely Obama will win the state by a larger margin than he did in 2008.  We can't let Ohio go into GOP territory, especially not with what's happened with regards to voter suppression and GOP overall governance in the state.

    •  Neither Hillary nor Biden will be running (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Let's face it. Not happening. I think both have risen to their limits. Biden will be too old; Hillary will be verging on it. I am far from ready to annoint ELizabeth Warren, whose victory isn't even clear and whose ability to navigate government and politics is a complete question mark. Don't like Cuomo or Warner; we don't need to drag ourselves backward that DLC/third way crap. Some of the others are interesting ideas but very outside. Personally, I'd like to see Kristen Gillibrand run.

      Don't know about Sherrod. I know him, and he isn't telegraphing that he's thinking about running but then he's running right now to keep his seat against the biggest money deluge in the country, upporting a candidate who, if he wins, will form his presidential exploratory committee the next day. He is a puppet of big corporate special interests and he must be stopped.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07.

      by anastasia p on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 04:46:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gillibrand 2016. Bet on it. (5+ / 0-)

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:36:34 AM PDT

    •  right stuff, maybe too early (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO, xsonogall

      I'm not sure if 2016 is the year for Gillibrand, but she is the right kind of candidate. Who knows?

    •  A New York State of Mind for 2016 - (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO, Dewstino

      President Hillary Clinton
      Vice President Kirsten Gillibrand

      My dream ticket

      David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

      by Dave in AZ on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:55:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  NY Ticket (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Actually, I don't think you can have Prez and VP from the same state on the same ticket.  If I remember correctly, Bush & Cheney had this issue with Texas so Cheney re-established his residency in Wyoming for that very reason.

        But then I don't understand the whole birtherism conspiracy.  Even if Obama had been born in Kenya, as long as his mother was a US citizen, wouldn't he still qualify as a US citizen for purposes of running for president?  Wasn't that the same thing for George Romney, born in Mexico of US citizen parents, and therefore eligible to run for president?

        So any way, I thin that Clinton or Gillibrand would have to establish residency in another state, which seems bizarre for either one of them to do given the Senate seat.

        •  Hmm, you're right. The 12th Amendment (0+ / 0-)

          from Wikipedia:

          The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.
          I'm reading that as only the electoral college electors in any one state can't vote for both a President & VP from their same state. But, even we wouldn't want the NY electors not be able to vote for Hillary & Kirsten.

          Well, if Hillary wanted Kirsten, like Bush/Cheney she could reestablish residency in Arkansas, or IL first.

          Birtherism is mostly racism, at a minimum prejudice against a "foreign sounding name". But, if both parents are US citizens then their child is a US citizen even if born outside. But if only 1 parent is a US citizen, the child must be born in the US to be a natural born citizen.

          David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

          by Dave in AZ on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:55:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, fatherof2 is correct (0+ / 0-)

            Cheney was a legal resident of Texas and had to reestablish residency in Wyoming after he picked himself to be Bush's running mate.

            Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07.

            by anastasia p on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 04:53:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Gillibrand (0+ / 0-)

      has already endorsed Hillary for 2016. So has Nancy pelosi

  •  If Barack Obama doesn't win in November, it will (4+ / 0-)

    be because the election was stolen.

    AND He will be on the Table in 2016.

    ...regardless of the outcome of this election, Barack Obama won't be able to run in 2016.
    Not so fast, Nellie!

    Notice: This Comment © 2012 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:39:42 AM PDT

    •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ROGNM, Maverick80229

      I can totally see him pulling a Grover Cleveland if the GOP manages to steal this election and bring the country back into a recession with their More tax cuts for the rich! mantra.

      "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

      by xsonogall on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:47:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Remember that in 2004 (3+ / 0-)

    no one outside of Illinois had heard of Barack Obama.  Four years out, there are doubtless rising stars most of us would not think of.  

    None of the people on your list make me jump up and down right now -- but let's see what happens after we retake the House this year!

    "Where has Big Government ever gotten us?" " Mars."

    by On Puget Sound on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:41:49 AM PDT

    •  Obama is a once-in-a-generation type of... (0+ / 0-)

      ...politician. I wouldn't count on one of him appearing from out of nowhere again to save 2016 for us... Also note that if there was a hidden gem ready to shine for 2016, he or she would be appearing on the stage now (like Obama did in 2004).

       People mention Julian Castro, and while he is good, I don't think he can pull off a meteoric rise like that in 4 years given his head winds are stronger (coming from a red state) and IMO he does not strike me as strong an orator as Obama did when he first appeared in the national spotlight.

      If I were to pick a dark horse, my favorite would be Kristen Gillibrand as someone mentioned above... Though I think in 2016, the Dems will not be featuring a dark horse candidate in the general.

      "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

      by xsonogall on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:53:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Always the way (0+ / 0-)

      People emerge you would never think of. That list leaves me cold. I don't necessarily see any rising stars there. Didn't Mark Warner give it a shot in 2008? Cuomo ugh.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07.

      by anastasia p on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 04:54:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  important question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Some strategists in the GOP think a win this year would result in a weak one term presidency for Mitt, and a trouncing in 2016. Whereas their chances in 2016, after 8 years of Obama, will be much better.

    So we really do need to figure out who can follow Obama. I would add Julian Castro to your list, although it is probably too early for him.

    •  It depends on how Obama does in his second term (5+ / 0-)

      I believe Barack Obama will be a much greater president in his second term than in his first simply because he recognizes there's a lot of unfinished business he has to take care of.

      What strategists in the GOP fail to recognize is how much damage President Bush has done for America, as well as its relations in the Middle East.  Obama is still cleaning up Bush's mess.

      Assuming Obama accomplishes a lot in his second term and fulfills promises that he didn't finish (including closing Gitmo), it's going to be hard for the GOP to convince voters that voting Republican will be the way to go.  No one, with the exception of former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, will be able to excite voters without being divisive unless the GOP really digs deep and starts to think hard.

      Also, whoever is running in 2016 should really meet with and take advantage of Obama's campaign team.  They've become very organized, powerful, on point and very quick to respond back to attacks.  In fact, I would argue Obama's campaign team has been more organized and effective than the operation James Carville ran in 1992 for Bill Clinton.

    •  Not necessarily (0+ / 0-)

      That assumes Obama's accomplishments in his second term are weak, and that the Republican party successfully steps back from the ledge, routs the teabaggers, and returns to sanity. If not, no years in the foreseeable future will look good for them, with increasing Hispanic population, younger people more tolerant of LGBT rights, women and older people angry at them for their positions on women's rights and Social Security/Medicare etc etc.

      If the GOP's response to losing is to get crazier, i think they have in shot in 2016. We'll see what they do.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07.

      by anastasia p on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 04:58:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  what about the GOP nominee? (0+ / 0-)

    Clinton - Santorum?

    Tee-hee, ha, ha, HA. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

  •  I was thinking of doing one of these in November (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xsonogall, wuod kwatch, Maverick80229

    Post-election of course.

    OK:   Hillary Clinton would be a really strong candidate.  She is a centrist, and rather hawkish on Israel.   Clinton's likeability and that she's known to a lot of voters are both big pluses.   I don't see Hillary getting pushed around by Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee.   She'd wpie the floor with Palin, Bachmann or Susanna Martinez.

    Clinton's health would be an unknown factor.   Could she handle the rigors of being President? (Clinton is retiring from SecState because of exhaustion)

    Joe Biden has a lot of the same strengths as Hillary, and some of the same downfalls.   He was also a bit hawkish when he was a Senator.  But Biden is very knowledgable in foreign policy matters.   The GOP would try to use any malaprops or clumsy wordings against him, but Biden has a connection to working class people that many other Democrats don't have.  Biden is also a great stump speaker.

    His age will be brought up by some.   Like Clinton, I am not holding his age against him.   He seems to be in well known health to handle the Presidency though.

    O'Malley doesn't look like a good candidate.  His DNC sppech was bad.  He bungled a somewhat easy answer on MTP.  Next!

    Deval Patrick is very much like Obama.   Harvard-educated, was brought into office by a progressive wave.   Patrick was not part of the Boston Machine when he ran for governor.    Patrick has made a few mistakes which the GOP will try to magnify into things they aren't.   He is a decent, caring human being(I met him on a few occasions so this is my general impression) and he is not afraid of making the tough calls.   He is ready to try a run for national office, but he may not want to.   Massachusetts residents have not had a good record in recent Presidental races(Dukakis, Kerry, Romney).   Although I am loathe to call Romney a Massachusetts resident since he doesn't represent our state at all.

    Schweitzer is interesting.   He seems progressive but he also speaks to independents too.   His DNC speech had a line attacking Romney for increasing gun license fees.   Schweitzer could be a good pick for the progressive wing if other candidates get tainted by a "grand bargain" or something else in the interval between 2013-2016.

    I don't know enough about Cuomo.    The only thigns I really know about Warner is that he is also centrist, and would not have the name recognition that Clinton or Biden would have.

    I know others are trying to float Warren or Castro for 2016 but I don't see either of them being ready yet.

    I would be intrigued if Al Franken decided to run for 2016 though.   He'd probably be a better Senator though.

    •  Al Franken would never run for president (5+ / 0-)

      The main reason why Al Franken ran for the U.S. Senate in 2008 against then incumbent Norm Coleman is because of the Paul Wellstone factor.  Coleman had once proclaimed he would be a better Senator than Wellstone, which really pissed off a number of Wellstone's supporters.

    •  "Clinton is retiring from SecState because of (5+ / 0-)


      - She doesn't look exhausted to me. She is stepping down next year, but Secretary of State is probably the 2nd most demanding job in the world, after POTUS. And she had a intense 1 1/2 years of running for President before that.

      After a couple years off, I think the thought of being the first female President will be too temping for her to pass on it. She will be 65 in 2012, and she may think 1 term is enough to claim her place in history. Then VP Kirsten Gillibrand in  2020!

      David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

      by Dave in AZ on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:09:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bill (4+ / 0-)

        I think will be putting A LOT of pressure on her to run. Unlike last time, where her team (mainly Penn) pretty much single-handedly blew what should've been a commanding advantage for her, as it stands now she's largely invincible for the nomination.

        •  Yep. I've read some pros speculate that Bill's (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pistolSO, Maverick80229

          embrace of Obama for reelection was Bill's calculation that an open race in 2016 would be better for Hillary rather than her running against an incumbent President Romney. (it even hurts to type those 2 words)

          David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

          by Dave in AZ on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:31:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Even Andrew Sullivan (5+ / 0-)

            who hated the Clintons probably as much as most folks here loathed Dubya posted recently, "I'm amazing myself in saying this, but given the outstanding job she's done as Sec of State, I'd like to see her as the next president."

            How ON EARTH could a Republican debate foreign policy with her????? Paul Ryan or Chris Christie doing so with Hillary? That would be downright suicidal!

            •  If the GOP is still going down the Ryan road (0+ / 0-)

              in 2016, they will lose and lose and lose. Destroying the social safety net won't get any more popular. Unless the GOP can start embracing candidates like Huntsman instead of rejecting them out of hand, they will keep losing.

              Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07.

              by anastasia p on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 05:02:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, Huntsman is the GOP's last hope (0+ / 0-)

                That is sad in my opinion.  Huntsman is articulate and intelligent when it comes to answering questions and is not exactly the kind of Republican whom I consider to be divisive.  The GOP will just have to get over him serving as U.S. Ambassador to China during Obama's presidency.

          •  Clinton might be an asset even in 2016 (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pistolSO, Maverick80229

            Democrats should realize that Bill Clinton has really been the best spokesman for the party and that if he's utilized in 2016 the same way as in 2012, the case would be made that change doesn't end with Obama being president.

      •  Totally agreed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pistolSO, Maverick80229

        "Bill, how about this. Keep the option open until we see how things stand after the '14 midterms, until then I'm 'Hillary Clinton, private citizen' - period."

      •  Her mother lived to a ripe old age (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pistolSO, Maverick80229

        Hillary seems to have taken very good care of herself. I don't see her twiddling her thumbs for the next 25-30 years.

        Stop it. This is hard.

        by chicago minx on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 02:39:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can see Hillary having an active retirement (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          even if she declines to run for President in 2016.  I would welcome a Presidental run by Hillary of course.   She is a very strong candidate(although her hawkishness and centrism does give me slight pause).   I think we shouldn't be making ageist assumptions against her run.  (I imagine if she decides to run, she knows that she is healthy enough for the rigors of the job).

          So whatever Hillary decides, she's earned it.

      •  If she runs, clear the field. (0+ / 0-)

        I was firmly in the Obama camp during the 2008 primaries. I didn't think Hillary would be a bad president; I just thought Obama would be a better one. However, if she runs in 2016, I will be enthusiastically in her camp. She has been historically fantastic as Secretary of State during one of America's most trying foreign relations periods in history.

  •  Not necessarily someone who I think would be a... (0+ / 0-)

    ...favorite here, but I do think it would be fun to see right winger heads exploding - would be if David Petraeus decided to run as a Democrat (citing too much wingnuttery in the GOP) and actually got the nomination.

    "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

    by xsonogall on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:55:43 AM PDT

  •  I know this isn't going to be (0+ / 0-)

    popular around here, but Rahm is the only one who has served in two Democratic White Houses, Congress, and as an executive. And he knows how to raise money. He'd be a competitor.

    •  I think Rahm would make a great VP for... (0+ / 0-)

      ...someone like a Castro or Gillibrand.

      "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

      by xsonogall on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:15:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is no such thing as a "great VP". (0+ / 0-)

        People vote for the top of the ticket. The VP becomes a factor on the day a sitting president dies. There is way too much hype about VPs.

        •  You're right that people vote for the top... (0+ / 0-)

          ...of the ticket, which is why I'd stick Rahm in at the 2nd slot. And yes, the VP is not really that important a position, but I disagree that one can't be a "great" VP.

          A VP's most important job during campaign season is to balance the ticket out (appeal to the voters who might not like the presidential candidate or provide strength in an area the candidate might appear to be weak in - a la Biden) OR be an attack dog on the campaign trail. Reason I think Rahm would be a great VP for Gillibrand or Castro is because he would add the "toughness" to the ticket, and he would definitely be an effective attack dog.

          "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

          by xsonogall on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:28:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But being an attack dog has its problems (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The advantage Joe Biden has as being the Vice President is that not only is he an effective attack dog, he's also able to connect with people on a personal level that's direct, no nonsense and to the point.  Rahm Emmanuel doesn't seem to have that gift.  He's just an attack dog.

    •  Rahu Emmanuel wouldn't run (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pistolSO, Maverick80229, condorcet

      Even if he did, he'd be too divisive.  Sure, Emmanuel would be able to easily tap into Obama's campaign team as he's been apart of Obama's inner circle and also happens to be the Mayor of Chicago.  However, some things would come to haunt him:

      1)  His actions as Mayor of Chicago in handling the recent teachers strike in the city.

      2)  His apparent willingness to chastise and demean those Democrats who don't vote the right way on legislation.  For instance, when Eric Massa was a Congressman, he pointed out that Emmanuel would actually go into the shower room and poke him when he was naked and got him angry from not voting for President Obama's budget.  Massa didn't vote no on it for the exact same reasons like the GOP.

      3)  Emmanuel is definitely a Washington insider with an insider's perspective.  When Howard Dean ran things as DNC Chairman from 2005-2009, he implemented a 50-state strategy which Emmanuel was against.  The two of them have had a rift about this.  In the end, Dean's strategy proved to be effective and it helped Obama's election in 2008 as well.

    •  will Rahm really have a strong electoral (0+ / 0-)

      college outlook though?  I think we'd be looking at a razor thin margin like '04 or '00 while with Clinton we have the chance of picking up all of the Obama states plus a few more

      I like Michelle more than Barack.

      by duha on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:30:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well that would cause me to leave the party (0+ / 0-)

      Fortunately he could never win.  Filthy mouth.  Way too abrasive.  He's Christie without charm and just as anti-union.

      •  I say Emmanuel should be challenged (0+ / 0-)

        A progressive Democrat in Chicago should challenge Rahm Emmanuel for re-election.  Emmanuel gives Democrats a bad name, even though he's one of their top go-to guys for fundraising.

    •  I wouldn't vote for Rahm (0+ / 0-)

      if Ronald Reagan rose from the dead and ran for a third term.

      You hear about crazy, but it's rarer than you think. -Jon Stewart 1/10/2011

      Help Me Find Mister Boots

      by lcork on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 05:07:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He wouldn't run again if he lost but he'd be able (0+ / 0-)

    to, i see the deck being cleared for Hillary if she wants it, otherwise it will be a heavily contested primary.

  •  I disagree with the premise. (4+ / 0-)

    There isn't a doubt in my mind that President Obama will win in November and as an extra incentive I tell all my Republicans friends who believe otherwise two words: Grover Cleveland.  President Clinton isn't a threat because he can never be president again, but if President Obama isn't re-elected he could be another Grover Cleveland either in 2016 or sometime down the road because he is a young man.  Obama doesn't have a Iran hostage crisis looming over him and he hasn't broken any promises like HW Bush.  Just read his lips.  In 10 years most of the anti-Obama demographic will be dead or in nursing homes with bigger problems to address.  So, I tell my Republican friends, we might as well get this second term out the way now.  Oh the expression on their faces is priceless :)  I think most of them who are die-hard anti-Obama just stopped paying attention to the race.  They know it's true.  That kind of hate is exhausting and they can't do it forever let alone every 4 years for the next 20 plus years.

    As for the 2016 election, I fully expect Secretary Hillary Clinton to run and I'm a lifelong Republican.  I don't see the Republican Party offering up anyone stronger and it would be interesting given her considerable experience to see how she runs the executive branch.  The President is right.  This is a relay but it's only as good as the Congress we elect.

    •  The R side next time (0+ / 0-)

      As it stands now, I'd bet my $10K on Santorum as heir-apparent. He's probably moving behind-the-scenes even now to nail down the Iowa fundies, and I can easily see him getting Newt's SC votes. New Hampshire won't matter as much in the long run, but if Christie runs, he'll take it. In that case, the race'll be decided in Florida.

      •  Christie may not even be reelcted NJ Gov in 2012 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wuod kwatch, chicago minx

        2010 was a strong Republican year, and Corzine was unpopular. Cory Booker is going to be a strong candidate. A one term, defeated for reelection Christie wouldn't be a top contender in 2016.

        David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

        by Dave in AZ on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:39:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If Santorum runs (0+ / 0-)

        he'll be even deader than he was this year. He's not going to get any less extreme. Women will vote against him by a 70-30 margin. The only way the GOP gets back in the White House is to reject candidates like Santorum. Christie needs to lose 100 pounds. Then we'll talk.

        Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07.

        by anastasia p on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 05:05:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The GOP has a lot of soul searching to do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Honestly, after the many years of the GOP pandering to the socially conservative sect and candidates continuing to claim they are Reagan Republicans without offering any original ideas of their own, I think the Republican Party will need to think hard whom it will nominate in 2016.  It cannot be a divisive Republican although knowing how President Bush turned out, you never know with the way the party operates.  They get away with things such as voter suppression and it comes back to bite them in the ass.  

      I mean, I think deep down Rick Santorum does not like Mitt Romney and may want to run in 2016.  If this is the case and he does become the GOP presidential nominee, oh boy, that'll be an even greater gift to the Democrats in 2016 than Mitt Romney.  In fact, it will be PURE GOLD.

  •  Hillary - being 69 years old is the ONLY (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wuod kwatch, Maverick80229

    thing and I mean the only thing whatsoever to give anyone pause.  But I think the opportunity to be the first female President in history will motivate her to get back in the ring.

    And they might as well not even have a dem primary if she wants it.

    I'm a believer in a deal having been made between the Clintons, Biden, and Obama.  Bill will do everything it takes to help Obama win '12 (and he has so far).  And Obama has agreed to back Hillary in '12.  I don't know what the Clintons have offered Biden, maybe he gets to run the Clinton Global Initiative?  But Biden won't make a stink (he'd be the only one who Obama may have had to back over Hillary) and the primary is over.

    I like Michelle more than Barack.

    by duha on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:38:32 PM PDT

  •  it's too early to tell...but, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    barring a lot of potential unforeseen circumstances, my guess is that the general presidential election in 2016 will be Hillary vs. Jeb Bush.

    •  In all honesty, I don't think Jeb will run (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      However, it would be an interesting situation.  Jeb Bush, while being ideologically the same as George W. Bush, is much smarter than his brother.  He's also been a more successful businessman than Dubya and has a lot of popularity in the Cuban community.  There's also the fact that Jeb Bush is married to a Mexican woman.

      •  Some top Republicans were trying to talk Jeb (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wdrath, Maverick80229

        into running this year once they saw what a disaster Romney-Gingrich/Santorum/999 was becoming. I think Jeb could easily win the 2016 GOP nomination. But I think a 3rd President Bush is not something the general electorate is going to go for.

        David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

        by Dave in AZ on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 01:07:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  My guess is that will never happen (0+ / 0-)

      It's going to happen like 2008 was a slam dunk to be Hillary vs. Rudy. You must not be looking at the polling on Jeb Bush because he was more unpopular than anyone actually running this year. He was definitely NOT the guy in the wings who could rush in to save them.  Several things guarantee it won't be Jeb. The name Bush will be poison for the rest of his lifetime. The idea of THREE Bushes, with the unpopularity of the last one is particular, is going to be a turnoff to the electorate. And Jeb will have been out of politics for a virtual lifetime by 2016.

      It won't be Jeb. And Hillary means it when she says she wants to write and teach. She won't be an elderly candidate.

      Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07.

      by anastasia p on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 05:11:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  New blood (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I love Joe and admire Hillary, but hope they both step aside, assume emeritus status, and open the way for some new blood.

    Tweety and the Big Dog are dying for Hillary to run, but she is exhausted and c'mon, she cannot win, because of all the old ingrained baggage. She would not have won in 2008. And I for one could not take fighting the same old battles that we are being put through right now. We need fresh generals to get onto better battlegrounds.

    In 2016 we need a governor and cannot rob the senate. Schweitzer or Cuomo. A Western guy would be great, to blow up the Faux Newz/Coulter liberal stereotype. Or at least somebody with muscle, like Cuomo, to re-establish the blue collar Catholic  Democratic base.

    I liked Warner, but he has evaporated. Remember anything from his keynote speech in 2008? Me either. Nobody talked about it even on the night he gave it.

    (Warner gave a great smack down of Mitt's 'plan' as a business model last week-- should get more attention from Dems)

    Oh, and we need an LBJ- type veep to kick ass and take names and cauterize the necrotic tissue in congress and bring them to heel.

    And Harry Reid needs to go. How about Sherrod Brown there?

    "What everyone wants is a job and some hope."--RFK

    by For Dean in Dixie on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 01:10:16 PM PDT

    •  Harry Reid has been on fire lately (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What hurt him is he didn't change the senate procedures when he had the chance after 2010. If Dems keep the senate chamber, he needs to do so in 2012. I'm comfortable with him as leader right now though.

      I think Chuck Schumer is next in line?

      "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

      by xsonogall on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 02:07:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Durbin is Majority Whip. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        So Durbin is next in line as far as seniority.   Schumer would make for an interesting Majority Leader though(I belive he's the number 3 guy after Reid and Durbin)

        It will be interesting to see how that plays out in 2016 if Reid retires.

      •  Optics (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, Harry has stepped up a few times. He's also stepped on Obama's message more than a few times. We need somebody fresher and stronger and more focused to put a new face on our brand. Harry and frankly Nancy too have been successfully caricatured as cartoon boogeymen by the other side.

        A major focus in the new term has got to be legislative reform. Filibuster needs to be reigned in.  Who can do that? Who's best to pit against The Turtle in the Senate and his odious cohorts in the Kantor- run house?

        "What everyone wants is a job and some hope."--RFK

        by For Dean in Dixie on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 03:01:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's the more likely scenario (0+ / 0-)

          I believe John Boner (prefer Boner to Boehner) won't become House Minority Leader if the Democrats regain the majority rule in the House of Representatives.  He isn't at all a Tea Party Republican and it's been evident he's been under serious pressure to try to unite the GOP in the House while handling the Tea Party crowd at the same time.  He hasn't been the effective leader he was supposed to be when he was voted to replace Tom DeLay.  If Eric Cantor survives the challenge from Wayne Powell this election cycle, then it's likely he'll become the leader for the GOP in the House as he's more tied to the Tea Party than Boner is.

          Nancy Pelosi - I hear you on this although she's better at organizing and is better on the issues for progressive than Harry Reid is.  Pelosi voted against the 2002 War Resolution in Iraq whereas Reid voted for it.  Pelosi is also more pro-choice whereas Reid is more pro-life.  I would say a large number of Democrats want her to regain the gavel again.

          Harry Reid, on the other hand, will likely remain as Senate Majority Leader.  I see that as a far more likely scenario.  That being said, I would still support an effort to bring new fresh blood:

          John Kerry - A number of people who were on my Kerry campaign team in 2004 had raised the question of him becoming Senate Minority Leader.  Obviously back then it would have been difficult for Kerry to obtain that position as he just lost the election to President Bush.  Still, when he regained the fire in his belly, he started to become strong again and he's been effective since.  He's a strong with debating and never backs down from a fight with the GOP if faced with one.  However, it's more likely Kerry will be considered for Secretary of State.  His passion is foreign policy and the environment and I believe he'd rather be focused on those issues than trying to manage the operations of running the U.S. Senate.

          Sherrod Brown - He's definitely a strong Democrat and is liked by many on Daily Kos.  He's not a divisive person my any means and could definitely bring a good name to Ohio.

          Dick Durbin - I like Durbin.  If Reid steps down as Senate Majority Leader, I wouldn't have a problem with Durbin taking over.  He's more liberal than Durbin is and was a very early Obama supporter.

          Also, it might be nice if say a women were to become Senate Majority Leader.

          •  Oops! Error spotted! (0+ / 0-)

            "Dick Durbin - I like Durbin.  If Reid steps down as Senate Majority Leader, I wouldn't have a problem with Durbin taking over.  He's more liberal than Durbin is and was a very early Obama supporter."

            Now I actually meant "he's more liberal than Reid is."

          •  My guess - John Kerry will be the next SoS... (0+ / 0-)

            ...if Obama wins reelection.

            Then maybe Deval Patrick will run for his seat, setting the stage for him nationally to compete for the presidency in 2016 or later. Don't know if he will win the nomination, but it would be nice for Patrick to be in the senate.

            "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

            by xsonogall on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 05:02:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, a Senator Deval Patrick sounds nice (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I never thought of that.

            •  Kerry (0+ / 0-)

              is a good senator and should stay in to run foreign relations committee. He is certainly qualified to be SoS, but we need a stylistically different type to be the face of the US on the international stage. More of a schmoozer/also 3-D chess player type.

              What about good old Richardson? Still credible?

              Deval Patrick certainly needs to move up. Where and when exactly may depend on outcome of Warren/Brown battle.

              "What everyone wants is a job and some hope."--RFK

              by For Dean in Dixie on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 06:20:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  From what I remember, Richardson was... (0+ / 0-)

                ...exonerated from the charges that kept him from being commerce secretary.  Of course the GOP still won't make it that easy if he were nominated, but making him SoS would have the advantage of not having Kerry leave the senate (hence the Dems having to sweat out another off-cycle election that landed us the Coakley debacle), as well as Obama making history as having nominated the first Hispanic SoS. (At least I'm assuming he'd be the first. Not sure this is accurate.)

                Haven't seen Richardson in a while though.

                "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

                by xsonogall on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 08:23:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Deval Patrick (0+ / 0-)

    Of the many Dems who have acted as spokespeople for Obama on these moronic political shows, both left and right,the most impressive to me is Deval Patrick who has the kind of reasoned demeanor we have come to love in Obama.

    I hope its Hillary for my 85 year old mother's sake because she would like to see a female President in her lifetime but from an evolution standpoint-Deval has the potential.

    We must get away from the politcal catcalls, talking points mentality, talking heads with no credibility and begin to discuss issues in depth. I am afraid with Hillary it would be another case of deja vu plus she is being admired as secretary of state but her presidential campaign was some of the worst political hackery I have seen but thank goodness it allowed for Obama to win.

    •  Deval Patrick right now is my favorite choice (0+ / 0-)

      His speech at the Democratic National Convention really got people fired up.  This was when the convention started to get on fire.

      I love how he said Democrats need to grow a backbone and stand up for what they believe it.  Now that's a Democrat who is a fighter.

      Regardless of what Patrick says, I'd say we should push him as much as possible to become a one of the Democratic candidates for president in 2016.

  •  On the other side (0+ / 0-)

    There won't be any deep soul-searching by the GOP.

    Their recent pattern of deciding they weren't wingnutty enough and their historic pattern of giving the nomination to the guy who is next will give us the two "next" guys fighting for the nomination--the primary runner-up and the veep candidate.

    Yes, it's true.  In 2016 the GOP primaries will be all about Santorum and Ryan.  

    For the party of Elliott Richardson in my lifetime, this is really getting pretty sad.


    by Allen on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 05:03:28 PM PDT

    •  Santorum and Ryan will be ammunition for Democrats (0+ / 0-)

      If they run for president in 2016.

      Actually, it would be interesting to see Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan running for president because knowing how Santorum always acts like a bully and ideological ass, he'd be going up against the GOP's "wiz kid" who claims to be good at numbers.

  •  How about polling them on the issues? (0+ / 0-)

    Will they pass EFCA and ENDA, stop our ongoing wars, seek no further ones, downsize the military and shutter our overseas bases, honestly work to get full equality for women and the entire GLBT spectrum, do away with tax preferences for capital gains, dividends and the like, reign in the FIRE economic sector, work to make water a right and to seriously rein in lobal warming and pollution, etc?

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 05:05:28 PM PDT

  •  Martin O'Malley (0+ / 0-)

    I think he blew his chances of momentum for being a presidential candidate in 2016 because he didn't exactly give a moving speech at the Democratic National Convention.  He also got off message when asked, "Is the U.S. better off now than it was four years ago?"  He replied, "No, but that's not the issue here."

  •  What about Whitehouse? (0+ / 0-)

    If Hillary runs I'm on her team.  If she doesn't I'd like to see some new, more progressive faces.  Gov. Patrick, and Sen. Gillibrand would be interesting.  Also in the Senate I really like Sherrod Brown, and Sheldon Whitehouse.  Whitehouse is one of my personal favorite Senators -- smart, articulate, progressive.  I'm surprised no one ever mentions him when speculating about potential candidates.

    •  The bigger question is: What about broad appeal? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know enough of Sheldon Whitehouse to make an opinion but considering he's the junior U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, what would he offer that other candidates wouldn't (aside from being smart, articulate and progressive)?  Could he be able to communicate to the Midwest, South and other states that aren't typically Northeastern or blue like Rhode Island?

      •  Whitehouse for the White House (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your thoughtful reply.  I don't know a great deal about Whitehouse's background, (besides the fact he was a former prosecuting attorney), but I do know each time I hear him speak on the air, or in committee hearings (on CSPAN) he comes off as extremely bright and exceedingly well spoken. He is certainly a excellent communicator, and would do well in a Senate leadership post.   I certainly don't know if he would inspire the national electorate but I don't think his Northeastern roots and the fact he is a junior Senator should work against him.  (After all Gillibrand, Patrick are from the east, and Barack Obama was a junior Senator.)  

        •  No apology needed (0+ / 0-)

          I've seen Sheldon Whitehouse speak on CSPAN before and he's certainly quite an aggressive yet articulate guy.  Very bright I might add.  I'm sure he would be a strong communicator.  The one thing I would worry would be with Whitehouse campaigning in states like West Virginia, Oklahoma or even Utah.  Those states are seriously red and not all receptive to Democrats unless they happened to lean on the conservative end of the political spectrum.

          I'd say right now though, we should be concerned about keeping the U.S. Senate in Democratic favor, expanding it, as well as putting the House of Representative into Nancy Pelosi's leadership.

  •  Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    was endorsed by both Gillibrand and Pelosi earlier this year. Google it if you dont believe me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site