Wonder if Biden would stay on as VP candidate if Hillary were nominated and asked him.  Not so crazy an idea if Obama's re-elected and his approvals inch up into mid-50s by 16, Hillary's are in 60s, Biden's as "Do No Harm" a pick as she could make.

Biden knows.  He's he guy who coined "Bin Laden's dead. General Motors is alive."

Obama's approvals are 10 points higher than HW's and Carter's were when they lost.

"We're not stupid" is Romney's umbrella lie since he obviously thinks everyone is.  I agree with his belief though.  As do you, Politico.

(And demographic trends will bring equality for gays soon.)

You figured it out yourself.  The most likely year for it to happen is 12 and most likely the year it happens is not 12.  I'll guess the number of years before it happens is 12.

While Romney has lied more shamelessly than any nominee I've ever seen, I tend to think he's just a standard politician and the difference for him (and our perception) is the mainstream media is more inept than ever in its history, emboldening him to push it further, while the Internet makes it easier for the few who are paying attention to spot one absurd lie after another.

Btw, my generic thinking on the Democratic nomination in 2020 is as follows:

If the Democrats have a contested primary in 2020, then it means that the GOP must have won the 2016 presidential election.  The question is then, who was the Democratic nominee in 2016?  The two most likely possibilities are:

1) Hillary Clinton
2) a man

(#3: A woman who is not Hillary Clinton is also possible though far less likely, as there aren't that many likely female 2016 presidential candidates aside from HRC, so it's not clear that any of them runs in '16, or that they would necessarily win the nomination.)

If Hillary Clinton runs in 2016, then I expect that a lot of the candidates who might otherwise want to run that year sit it out to avoid going up against the Clinton juggernaut.  If so, then 2020 might see several of those people who we're now calling 2016 candidates (e.g., Cuomo, O'Malley, Schweitzer) finally decide to run.

OTOH, if the 2016 Democratic nominee is a man, then there'll be a strong push for him to pick a female running mate, and the two most obvious options are Gillibrand and Klobuchar.  If the ticket then goes on to lose to the GOP candidate, then, assuming that losing female running mate (whether it be Gillibrand, Klobuchar, or whoever) had a decent performance on the campaign trail, she'd be in a strong position to be the early 2020 Democratic nomination frontrunner, as she'd probably be the most well known Democratic woman in the country at that point (aside from HRC, who'll be too old to run in 2020).

Sounds about right.  If Hillary ran for the nomination and lost to a man (e.g. Schweizter or O'Malley), he'd probably be pressured to run with not just a woman like Klobuchar or Warren but with Clinton-loyalist Gillibrand.  So she may be the 2020 favorite if Hillary ran and lost the nomination.  But Hillary losing would also probably mean some other variable was going on, (like support for protectionism reaching fever pitch) and who knows how that issue's development would affect a subsequent primary?

If Hillary didn't run, and it's not for personal reasons, it might mean the GOP is headed for another wave (e.g. Romney wins 2012 and presides over a surging recovery) which might mean someone like Cuomo may wait out 2016 himself (unless he overcorrects for his father's miss) and he's a decent bet for 2020.

But in the internet age, people get presidential speculation before they even win their first guber or senate race.  So the 2020 nominees may still be complete no-names right now.  Still, between Hillary running for re-election, Gillibrand and Cuomo, I'd say there's a very good chance the 2020 Democratic nominee is a New Yorker.

Who were the perceived 5 most likely nexts as guessed from Mays of past re-election years? 

I'll go with this:

92
1.Perot
2.Clinton
3.Cuomo
4.Quayle
5.Dole
--------
96
1.Gore 
2.Dole 
3.W
4.Quayle
5.Alexander
---------
04
1.Kerry
2.Hillary
3.Rudy
4.McCain
5.Edwards
----------

Gingrich today said he'll be too old to run in 2020.  So looks like we got Perry, Santorum and Gingrich back for 2016 so far...

I strongly disagree with Romney's assertion that any President would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden... McCain even said in one of the 08 debates that launching raids into Pakistan would be a silly idea as it would put at risk our relationship with the Pakistanis...

If I were Romney- I wouldn't bring Obama's biggest foreign policy achievment to the forefront of this campaign

I don't get it either.  btw, Romney said the same thing as McCain, ripping Obama for his willingness to enter an ally's sovereign territory.

I still do not get why killing Bin Laden was such a "huge achievement" for the president. One, it showed that, like Bush, Obama is willing to violate international boundaries to "get someone." This flies in the face of everything Obama ran on in 2008.

Not really. Obama said as a candidate he would do this if necessary.  Then he did it.

Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom

You don't think Jerry Brown will be re-nominated in 14?  If one of these guys is first elected in 18, it'd be like if Rubio ran now.  I assume plenty of people first elected as a senator or governor between now and 16 maybe 17 will get chatter and some may run, but 18 seems pushing it a bit.

Edit: It's possible a downturn could put Brown in Patterson's position where the incumbent can't win but his party could easily but it's a semi-rare, specific circumstance.

Definitely the singing. But it all contributes to that celeb image.

I don't know what it is about Obama that invites such criticism for things all other presidents do.  How is the president supposed to not be a celebrity? Romney has been singing non-stop on the campaign trail by the way.

You forgot to mention that she's added Secretary of State to her resume.  Which is what makes the comparison to 2000 closest.  Last 3 Democratic VPs have ended up as a presidential nominee.  Hillary as the highest ranking Administration figure after Obama and Biden roughly corresponds to that.  It'd be rare for Biden as  Democratic VP to yield to a Secretary of State but the stuff you mention plus his age make it likely. 

As for who'd run against her, the past 2 Democratic running mates ran against the guy who picked them but I don't know that would lead anyone eyeing VP to run given the Clintons' rep for holding grudges.  And Clinton himself did not pick someone from his same field.  And Biden was probably just as or more likely to end up VP if he hadn't run.

I do wonder if say Jeb is the GOP nominee if Cuomo and Rubio's potential availability as VPs would lead both parties to change that same state rule.

This will have no effect on Independents or Democrats. But I will say this--it is an exceptional way to excite the GOP base. Lots of us don't like Obama because of his policies. But the reason why a lot of us hate Obama is because of absolutely everything in that ad.

Which enraged you more: when he killed a fly or when he sang for five seconds?

Though Romney will naturally try to avoid W being part of the conversation, for his close circle of economic advisors, he chose two of W's chief economic advisors.  (Romney also cited Dick Cheney as the exemplary VP pick, not that that means anything.)  The biggest difference between W and Romney, counter to their images, is Romney's platform is much more conservative.

McDonnell needs to be in his own category of people running ads for themselves simultaneous to cementing their position as worst possible choice.

On the scale of 1 to 10, how grumpy would the conservatives get if Romney picked someone who was pro-choice?

12. Romney has said pro-choicers are not even being considered.

That's the first thing I've read that makes me think Romney's going to pick a pro-choice running mate.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/group-wasteful-of-taxpayer-for-gingrich-to-keep-secret-service-protection/

I want some credit for recognizing the Gingrich campaign had more laughter to give.

I don't think the GOP Dream Act hurts since Romney is pretty obviously looking for a way to walk back the immigration red meat he threw out during the primary.  Price fall probably driven by Rubio's more convincing denial (unless he's ineptly overdoing the traditional feigning disinterest) and (or itself driven by) new PPP polling showing he doesn't help with Latinos and hurts in Florida.

McDonnell and Ryan... Romney's far too cautious to ever do that and if his polling dropped and he needed a game change, he'd go with one with more potential upside. I do enjoy McDonnell's tossing aside tradition and running ads for himself for VP.

I used to think Christie was too high because Romney can't possibly trust him but have to take that back after PPP showed him helping Romney most.  That will probably the biggest factor in the selection. Christie, is slightly more subtle than McDonnell, but pretty transparently fishing for an offer.

Pawlenty should be tied with Portman.

Romney just insulted a bakery beloved in Pennsylvania...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/romney-cookie-pennsylvania-bakery_n_1436333.html

He's probably finished there unless he can revisit the bakery with a running mate whose passion for cookies is such that he single-handedly makes their profits skyrocket.  Romney Campaign would have to vet Christie very carefully to see if he's a man who enjoys eating cookies or not.

Romney is at 60% nationally.

The only questions in the next 4 months are:

* Will Romney get 50% in states like AR, KY, NC ? 60% in states like MT, NM, OR ? 70% in NJ, NY, RI etc. ?

* Who will Romney pick as VP ?

...

I think I'm going into hibernation in the next 4 months and only post again at the end of August, because I think it will get annyoing with all the polls showing John Kerry 2.0 (=Mitty) ahead by 3, then down by 5 and then again tied ...

What are your opinions ?

I'm in.

various simultaneous polls are pretty likely to be all over the place until November. the obvious thing to do for everyone is shut up and trust Nate Silver

So I guess Gallup is on the Republican pollster conspiracy against Obama? Of course as soon as PPP shows Obama ahead it will be completely legit, with no mention of the fact that it is a democratic polling firm.

If PPP revealed their name stood for Phony Politically-Driven Polls, it wouldn't change fact that they had the best track record last 2 cycles and have more credibility than any other pollster.

Iowa becomes more irrelevant for the GOP each cycle, Florida more influential.  Winning Florida might be diminished a bit if Rubio or Jeb had homefield advanatge but even so, that plus already being well-positioned to dominate the invisible primary...  One of the more interesting dynamics of 2016 is you have two legacies in Jeb and Hillary as speculated frontrunners and their proteges as two other speculated frontrunners in Rubio and Cuomo (Cuomo of Bill Clinton; Gillibrand is more of a Hillary protege).  I wonder if the symmetry could lead to bipartisan support for scrapping that fairly useless constitutional penalty on same-state running mates.

Let me get this straight: Is Team Obama really gearing up for this re-election battle by arguing we should return welfare to the way it was before the Clinton era reforms? Is Barack Obama really going to transform into Walter Mondale? Please pinch me!

The problem for Romney in this new twist are his words.  Women are likely to take umbrage at his suggestion that stay-at-home mothers receiving welfare lack dignity because they don't have a real job.  And they're likely to recognize the Romney campaign's professed offense at Hillary Rosen comment's as calculated and disingenuous, in light of his own comments.  It aggravates two problems he already has (1) women aren't into him (2) his image as a phony.

I think the Romney campaign's pattern of distortions is going to bite them.  I know the finer points of reality get lost on voters.  But there's only so much you can do this one and their first anti-Obama ad before people stop taking you seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/15/mitt-romney-mothers-welfare-moms_n_1426113.html

Oops.  That turned up even faster than the several days it took Romney to address Rush Limbaugh's comments (saying only that he himself would have used different language).