Patrick wouldn't be a drag on a Clinton ticket but probably wouldn't shift any states either way. Patrick is younger than Joe Biden was in 2008, and is still eight years younger than Clinton.

For Clinton:

Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) - Not the first on everyone's minds, but rightfully admired by the liberal base, could solidify Colorado in the unlikely situation that it were to start slipping substantially away from Hillary.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) - May encounter accusations of inexperience and criticism for being only a one term Senator - though he'll have served as much time in the Senate as Barack Obama when he was elected. He's young and may prove to be a political force in time.

Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) - Governor for eight years, relatively well liked by the base, a fairly safe pick.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) - Choosing Warren would shore up liberal support big-time.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) - Young Senator from what may be a swing state in 2016 if Martinez happens to get the nomination or on the GOP ticket

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) - Relatively well liked by the base, from the pivotal swing state of Ohio

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) - Well liked by the base

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) - Would solidify Virginia in Clinton's favor

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) or Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) - Unlikely though experienced picks. It'd be interesting to see someone from my home state finally get on a major party ticket.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) - If there's anytime for the first openly LGBT Vice President, it's with Hillary at the top of the ticket at a time when more and more states are legalizing same-sex marriage - call me crazy but I predict that more than 25 states will have legalized it by 2017.

I'll do Rubio and Christie later.

Steve Buscemi - Great actor, honest, cool, helped with 9/11 rescue effort

Morgan Freeman - Great actor, great voice, he's already been President like four times on film, so I'm sure he has sufficient experience

Joe Pesci - Like George Carlin once said, Joe Pesci is a man you can trust.

About jokes on Cantwell's name -

There was a Republican candidate for Senate in 2006 in our state named Mike McGavick. Mike put up ads on buses - something along the lines of "Maria Can't-Vote-Well".

He lost by 17 points, 56.9% to 39.9%.

Republican candidates for statewide office in Washington who aren't named Slade Gorton, Dino Rossi or Rob McKenna tend to be unable to break 40%.

Nationwide would be another story and would certainly be narrower - she could probably be on a winning ticket as VP if the climate's right or if she's chosen by Hillary somehow, but she doesn't seem to have a ton of national name recognition even though she's been in the Senate for over a decade.

Also, 3 and a half years from now, Biden may actually be able to beat Christie. His approvals won't stay 70% forever - they may very well be back at 50/50 in a couple years.

Clinton/Warner '16 - 60.8%, 469 EV
Trump/Bachmann '16 - 37.4%, 69 EV

Let's see if I'm right. I was only one state off this year.

If unemployment is around 6%, and Hillary Clinton is the nominee, Clinton will win around 2008 margin popular and electoral vote wise, possibly slightly higher.

If a Democrat other than Clinton wins the nod and unemployment is around 6%, the Democrat will win by around a 2008 margin. If it's a stubborn 6.7-7% it will be a tossup, either side winning by a 2000-2004 like margin.

If a Republican wins in 2016 it will be by a narrow 2004-like margin. Possible GOP 45th Presidents could be Christie or Rubio, possibly but probably not Jindal, or maybe Martinez.

I'd vote for Hillary if she were the nominee but I might consider someone else first in the primary. I preferred Obama over Clinton in 2008 due to Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq War and Obama's early opposition to the invasion, as well as well as the fact that Obama seemed to do slightly better in polls against McCain than Clinton.

I have to say I was impressed by the U.S.-Egypt brokered Gaza ceasefire today, and if it holds I'll be even more impressed. I would be less skeptical of a Clinton run this time. But I still am a bit more liberal than the center of the Democratic Party, and would weight my options in who to support.

The main reason Obama got even the margin he did was because of the left coast loonies in lala land.

I have a suggestion. Please never leave Rhode Island, and never move to Ohio or Florida. I really, really like the fact that your vote doesn't matter.

By the way, where were those left coast so-called loonies when Bush beat Kerry in 2004? They already voted for Kerry, and they did not decide the election. And why this prejudice toward the west coast? Your state is more liberal than mine!

I'm sorry, but Nate Silver and his arithmetic were right. Sorry, those polls weren't skewed. Sorry, not everybody who disagrees with you is automatically an ultra leftist.

The GOP lost because it utterly alienated women, and minorities, who are only a slightly more substantial portion of the U.S. electorate this time around. It sounds to me like with his 47% talk, Romney alienated plenty of moderates, some of whom may have voted for Bush in 2004. Looks like your party has some work to do demographically Losefield, I mean, Winfield. Publicly penning an op-ed titled "Let Detroit go bankrupt" does not help a Republican candidate in Ohio and the upper midwest. This is common sense.

Seriously man. Your party lost Florida, twice in a row, a state that has historically been at least lean GOP. And they did it conditions where they probably should have won the state. I predicted a 303-235 Obama win with Romney winning Florida, but Obama won Florida. What does that tell you? Does it tell you keep doing the same thing? Because if it does at a party-wide level, the Republicans can expect to lose in 2016 and 2020 as well if economic conditions continue to improve, even gradually. If (and it is a big if) we're looking at 6 to 6.5% unemployment in 2016, do the Republicans even have a chance anyway?

Yeah well 47.47% or 47.54% at least it says, that % of folks didn't want the anointed one & the casual observer can be excused for noticing, that Obama didn't win the popular vote blow-out he had wished for, the first president since Woodrow Wilson to see his support decrease; also Romney did better than Dukakis in 1988, GHWB in 1992, Dole in 1996 (only Kerry in 2004, did marginally better) and McCain in '08; both percentage wise as well as the EV; the anointed one might have been re-elected, but nothing on the blow-out scale he was expecting; that must catch in a few craw's; in terms of EV scoring, Obama only did better than Wilson, Truman, Carter and Dubya...not Mt. Rushmore territory is it? What would be sweet Irony, is if Obama and Dubya are both at 50.73% each...yep those stats are a bitch!

Romney also won a higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton in 1992, but sorry, he did not and thankfully never will become president. If your party does not bring itself into some passable approximation of reality within the next couple years they will continue losing elections that they could conceivably have won, and will spend an era in opposition. Which I'd be perfectly fine with, frankly. By the way, if you have not figured it out yet, calling President Obama "the anointed one" makes you sound delusional. Perhaps try "the elected one"?

I have an idea. Let's end the War on Drugs.

The past three Presidents have done drugs in their youth. A war on drugs is an unwinnable drain of resources costly in both lives and treasure, and legalizing and regulating substances and treating drug abuse as a health rather than a criminal issue would be better than what we have had for decades.

Besides, if you live in a country that will throw you in the slammer over a substance you decide to put into your own body to achieve some desired effect, but won't penalize bankers for ruining the economy, you aren't living in a free country.

So no, it isn't fair to attack Obama and say he's unfit for office because he did drugs a few times in the early 80s. That would be silly and I would frown upon it. If anything, you could use his and G. W.'s and Clinton's youthful drug experimentation to highlight the absurdity of continuing the War on Drugs, which all three of the presidents have continued to do.

Never, at any point in our history, are we gonna say, "Phew, got 'em all, there are no more drugs left, everybody's finally sober."

That's never, ever going to happen.

Milhouse, I'm a liberal. But I didn't attack George W. Bush for doing cocaine in the 60s or 70s. I think that would be ridiculous. So when you say "liberals attacked George W. Bush for cocaine", write a little asterisk next to it that says *except Statesman.

I attacked him for his policies (Iraq War was unnecessary and costly in blood and treasure, not going after bin Laden was a stupid decision, tax breaks for the wealthy did not help the economy recover long term and is a waste of money) while he was President, which, I think it's safe to say, got us to a worse place than where we when he took office. You might want to notice that Obama has a net gain of jobs, and George W. Bush had a net loss of jobs.

What if December 21, 2012 is the day they finally call Ohio?

Could happen, but I doubt it.

It could be that close, but I think Obama still has this thing. Two more debates, with large amounts devoted to foreign policy, not Romney's strong suit.

Obama - "Hey can I get the name of your coke dealer? You must be on the good stuff."

Uh... cocaine's a stimulant... if this comment's related to the debates, you might want to take into account that Obama looked like he needed a cup of coffee... if you're trying to sound clever, you're failing miserably. I've been around people who've done coke (thankfully I never did it myself), and they were the opposite of how Obama was on stage.

Anyway

To Mr. Obama - "Throw a punch next time."

To Mr. Romney - "You will never be my president."

If that's true, they're still outliers. This is going to damage Romney heavily.

This week will probably be looked at as the week Romney lost the election, and we haven't even gotten to the debates. Something has seriously backfired with his campaign the last month.

I think Romney ran a campaign too far to the right when he really should have been appealing to the center all along, and he's done a poor job of re-centering his campaign around independents. If you're trying to be a president for all Americans, it's unwise to just write off 47% of the electorate from the start, even if cracking 53% seems unlikely.

One thing is for certain, Mitt seems like he's unable to go a week without making a major gaffe, or without having something he said or did months or years ago come back to haunt him.

Little effect. A negative number or the unemployment rate rising would have been damaging to Obama. If the unemployment rate drops below 8.0% with the October jobs report, Romney will be the one in trouble. That said, 96,000 isn't enough. But I don't see what Romney's done or is proposing to fix that problem.

42 10s now... Clinton was the 42nd President... and 70%... about his approval rating right now.

I thought it was excellent and blunt. If I lived in Massachusetts, I'd be proud to vote for her.

10.

He spoke forever and it didn't get boring. It was substantive, yet it was also full of feeling. He effectively skewered Romney and effectively defended Obama's accomplishments. If Obama can match this tomorrow, he's pretty much got the election sewn up. All that's left are the debates, which are not Romney's strong suit (but rather his empty suit).

This'll sure change minds.

Yeah.

This would be interesting. It might make a few would-be "I'm gonna hold my nose and vote Romney" voters switch to Johnson, but I don't know if it will have a really big impact on the election or not. But it might get some non-voters to the polls.

A friend of mine who is disappointed with Obama but also really dislikes Romney told me he probably wouldn't vote this year. He leaned towards Ron Paul on some issues, and this might give him a reason to vote. I recommended to him that if he didn't like Obama and couldn't stomach Romney, he might like some proposals by either Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

There is no era of good feelings on the horizon. There may be candidates that win 35-40 states against weak opposition. But no 50-state + DC sweeps, even with a World War III (provided elections are still ongoing under those circumstances).

The economy, abortion and how to handle the end of the War on Drugs, which is being scaled down after being recognized as having been a failure for 30-40 years, and transitioning the US to single payer universal health care. Same-sex marriage will be legal in all fifty states, and marijuana will be legal for adults in most states, and will no longer be a Schedule I substance as listed by the Feds.

The economy will be in healthier shape than now, though questions will persist on how to move it forward faster. A comprehensive single payer health care system introduced in 2029 will greatly help the poor and middle class still without coverage, and will reduce health care costs. Glass-Stegall will have been re-implemented in 2025, after a recession and financial industry bailout in 2020.

Abortion will remain controversial, though the number of pro-choice will outnumber those pro-life by 55-45, and those count themselves as pro-life will be more moderate and will largely support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and not Todd Akin's position.

Same-sex marriage is hardly controversial, with 80% of people supporting it. Same-sex marriage becomes legal in all fifty states in 2025.

The end of the War on Drugs will finally have allowed marijuana to become legal 45 of 50 states by 2037, with 70% of adults supporting ending prohibition. With the War on Drugs ending, controversy remains on whether to legalize and regulate heroin and cocaine, or to keep them illegal but not actively try to stop trafficking and switching to a treatment-based rather than penalty-based criteria for dealing with harder drugs.

Presidents:
44 - Barack Obama (D-IL) 1/20/2009 - 1/20/2017
45 - Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) 1/20/2017 - 1/20/2021 (narrowly defeated for re-election)
46 - Marco Rubio (R-FL) 1/20/2021 - 1/20/2025 (lost re-election, similar margin to 1992)
47 - Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) 1/20/2025 - 1/20/2033
48 - Julian Castro (D-TX) 1/20/2033 - 1/20/2041

Vice Presidents:
47 - Joe Biden (D-DE) 1/20/2009 - 1/20/2017
48 - Sherrod Brown (D-OH) 1/20/2017 - 1/20/2021
49 - Bobby Jindal (R-LA) 1/20/2021 - 1/20/2025
50 - Julian Castro (D-TX) 1/20/2025 - 1/20/2033
51 - Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) 1/20/2033 - 1/20/2041

The 2040 election will be between Vice President Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) and Senator George P. Bush (R-TX)

Clint Eastwood is still worth his weight in gold.

Eastwood dissed student loans, which comes off as elitist. His speech was less than impressive. His movies are good, he should stick to acting.

Humphrey, and Humphrey would win.

The gaffe prone George Romney would probably make a better president in 1969 than his son would in 2013. But he would stumble a lot on the campaign trail. Humphrey would take Missouri and Kentucky, Wallace would take Tennessee and South Carolina, and many states around the country would shift to narrow Humphrey victories.

Humphrey ~45% 345 EV
Romney ~41% 129 EV
Wallace ~14% 64 EV

Mitt Romney wants to do what his dad couldn't, and also thinks of it as a thing to check off on his personal "successful person" checklist. He doesn't actually have a particularly altruistic reason to run for president (like his father may or may not have), like trying to provide more people with healthcare or ending a war.

Ostensibly his campaign is based on the economy and jobs, but he doesn't care if the jobs he creates are ones that offer no hope of social mobility or if the employers discriminate against their employees, or if the projects as part of his energy policy damage the environment. He doesn't care for the facts, like the fact that the last time Republicans had the White House and Congress they spent like there was no tomorrow, and created the conditions for an economic collapse and a bailout to happen (and for a stimulus to be necessary), not to mention keeping two wars going which costs a lot of money. He doesn't care for the fact that the Bush tax cuts cost a lot of money to keep going, he just acts like revenue grows on trees out of nothing like the Bush administration did. He doesn't care that for eight years, the Republicans were the kings of "I don't have to pay for it."

He hasn't stuck to a consistent position on anything. He doesn't care about the people who are not wealthy who will be adversely affected by the Ryan budget, which he considers a blueprint for where the country should be going.

He did not offer solutions tonight. He offered canned soundbites and blatant pandering. He offered lies, distortions and half-truths.

But he did not offer solutions.

I'm not worried at all. Ryan's Kermit-like delivery doesn't impress me, and his speech was riddled with inaccuracies. I look forward to a strong rebuttal next week.