If Clinton loses the 2016 GE, is Warren the early 2020 Dem. frontrunner?

[Mr. Morden]

If Clinton runs and wins the 2016 Democratic nomination (largely unopposed, but Sanders, Webb, and maybe one or two others might run against her….but Warren presumably won't), but then goes on to lose the general election to the Republican nominee, does Warren become the early polling leader for the 2020 Democratic nomination and the de facto early frontrunner, despite the fact that she'll be 71 years old on election day 2020?

And how would you then handicap the chances of her actually running in 2020?

[Mr. Morden]

Clinton would probably have a youngish running mate in 2016, and I imagine that he would become the prohibitive favorite due to high name recognition.  Someone like Cory Booker could easily become the Democratic front-runner in this scenario; I imagine that Kamala Harris will try establishing a national profile in the Senate as well.   

Her running mate will presumably be someone under 60, yes, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it'll be someone with sufficient charisma to become "the prohibitive favorite".  Tim Kaine, for example, is a decent pol, but I just don't see a losing Clinton/Kaine ticket leading to Kaine-mania in the Democratic Party.  He'd poll well, just because of the name recognition conferred by becoming the VP nominee as you say, sure, but the prohibitive favorite?  I don't see it.

[Mr. Morden]

Clinton would probably have a youngish running mate in 2016, and I imagine that he would become the prohibitive favorite due to high name recognition.  Someone like Cory Booker could easily become the Democratic front-runner in this scenario; I imagine that Kamala Harris will try establishing a national profile in the Senate as well.   

Her running mate will presumably be someone under 60, yes, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it'll be someone with sufficient charisma to become "the prohibitive favorite".  Tim Kaine, for example, is a decent pol, but I just don't see a losing Clinton/Kaine ticket leading to Kaine-mania in the Democratic Party.  He'd poll well, just because of the name recognition conferred by becoming the VP nominee as you say, sure, but the prohibitive favorite?  I don't see it.

Didn't Joe Lieberman lead in some early polls for the 2004 Democratic nomination?

Yes, he was leading early on in 2003, because people hardly knew who any of the other candidates were.  Here's a typical poll from that timeframe:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8302/lieberman-leads-field-nine.aspx

But it was pretty widely recognized that this was just an artifact of name recognition, and most people regarded Kerry as the true frontrunner for the nomination.  (A status which he later lost to Dean before gaining it back again.)

[Mr. Morden]

I realize that being 71 on election day 2020 means there's a good chance that she wouldn't run, but the separate question is whether she would lead the very early polls (which would begin as early as December 2016, if not earlier) for the Democratic nomination, and be regarded as the early frontrunner.  Plenty of voters are ignorant about how old she is, so I don't see why she wouldn't still be strong in the polls for some time.

[Mr. Morden]

But also I imagine a few younger liberals will capture the attention of the Democratic Party, while Warren will focus on being a Senator.

By "early frontrunner", I mean 2017.  If Clinton loses next year, who will be regarded as the early frontrunner for the 2020 Dem. nomination as of two years from now, in early 2017?  I don't see much of an opportunity for any "younger liberals" to capture the attention of the Democratic Party between now and then except for Clinton's running mate.  And as I said, there's no guarantee that that person is going to catch fire.

An obvious opportunity for someone else to catch fire would be if they ran in the presidential primaries next year, but it looks like Clinton is only going to get token opposition from Sanders and Webb, who are both older than she is.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

I realize that being 71 on election day 2020 means there's a good chance that she wouldn't run, but the separate question is whether she would lead the very early polls (which would begin as early as December 2016, if not earlier) for the Democratic nomination, and be regarded as the early frontrunner.  Plenty of voters are ignorant about how old she is, so I don't see why she wouldn't still be strong in the polls for some time.

Revisiting what I wrote here: I'd guess that yes, she would lead early polls **if they don't include Sanders as an option**.  Sanders might be too old to run again, but pollsters still might include him.  We'll see.

Clinton would probably have a youngish running mate in 2016, and I imagine that he would become the prohibitive favorite due to high name recognition.  Someone like Cory Booker could easily become the Democratic front-runner in this scenario; I imagine that Kamala Harris will try establishing a national profile in the Senate as well.   

Her running mate will presumably be someone under 60, yes, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it'll be someone with sufficient charisma to become "the prohibitive favorite".  Tim Kaine, for example, is a decent pol, but I just don't see a losing Clinton/Kaine ticket leading to Kaine-mania in the Democratic Party.  He'd poll well, just because of the name recognition conferred by becoming the VP nominee as you say, sure, but the prohibitive favorite?  I don't see it.

Man, I was smart back then.