Which of these 2016 Democratic Candidates do you support?

[milhouse24]

Both Hillary and Warner will be very experienced in 2016. Warner doesn't have much achievements either and many Democrats vote due to name recognition and celebrity status than due to experience or achievements. Obama won partially due to being a celebrity, despite having a lack of experience. Just because we have had three young Presidents recently does not mean we will always elect young Presidents. Reagan was elected at ages 69 and 73 and Bush Sr. was elected at age 64 (both in landslides), and that was relatively recently. This shows that we are willing to elect old people as President. Besides, Warner will be over 60 in 2016 as well and I don't really see what he will do in the next 6 years to really distinguish himself from all the other Senators. McCain and Dole lost primarily due to the ECONOMY, NOT due to their age. McCain was actually leading Obama in some polls before the financial crisis hit. You say Hillary being from New York will hurt her, but Obama was from Chicago (a very liberal, corrupt, and crime-infested city) and that didn't hurt him. Why would it hurt Hillary if it didn't hurt Obama?

There is no guarantee that Hillary will win in 2016, but I think that it is pretty likely that she will at least win the Democratic nomination if she chooses to run. Just because Democrats wanted change in 2008 doesn't mean that they will want change in every election. Democrats sure didn't want change in 2000, because otherwise Bill Bradley would have beaten Al Gore. Besides, electing Hillary would represent change by electing our first female President. I don't see Hillary being wrong on any issues in 2016 and it's foolish to assume that every single Obama and Edwards voter in 2008 would oppose Hillary in 2016, since Obama and Edwards won't be running that year. Warner sure wouldn't get over 90% of the black vote like Obama did, and a lot of women who supported Obama and Edwards in '08 will support Hillary in 2016 if she chooses to run. Hillary will only need to win a small amount of the Obama and Edwards voters in 2008 to win in 2016, and that should be no problem for her to do. I'm not sure if either Warner or Hillary will run in 2016, but I seriously doubt Warner will run if Hillary does. What will he have to run upon? What argument is he going to use?

Hillary didn't run in 2004 because Bush was still relatively popular that year. She didn't want to ruin her political future with a loss in 2004. I said Warner might be a wimp because he chickened out in 2008 when everyone thought he was going to run. I'm not so sure he won't chicken out in 2016. Just because someone has the credentials and experience to run for President doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is actually going to run. I'm not sure that Warner is the best candidate to beat Hillary (there are a lot of other possible candidates) and I'm not sure that he will run in 2016.

I think Warner served as Governor and has more executive experience because of that, than Hillary, but you can choose to ignore that part if it doesn't suit your goals.  If you want a celebrity candidate with a thinner resume, then pick Hillary.  I'm just saying that I personally believe that Warner has a better resume and experience and is ready to be president in 2016.
It is more likely that Hillary WILL NOT RUN in 2016.
It is more likely that Warner WILL RUN in 2016.
Obama won because he was not tainted by the Iraq War.  He was an anti-govt "democrat tea party" against big govt foreign policy.
The govt says you can retire at 62, so I'm going to let Hillary retire when she is 68.  I trust the govt.  Reagan was the oldest president ever, but he looked younger, and was very image conscious as an actor.
You obviously don't know anything about Iowa.  Obama is from Illinois and bused in far more volunteers into Iowa than Hillary did.  He won Iowa because of geography.  Hillary won NH because of geography.  Its GOTV, politics 101.  Guess what, Hillary will probably lose Iowa again in 2016.
A lot of left-wing democrats want change, that is why they voted for Nader.  I think Hillary is taking the easy road, she should run for governor and be her own woman.  She's content with being an administrator, but that's her passion.  I personally think its easier for governors to win the presidency.
I think Warner can win Iowa and at least pull even in SC.  I've said why I think Warner is ready for the Presidency because he's been a governor and a senator and is the right age.  If voters don't buy it then so be it, but he's not going to wait because of Hillary.  He IS RUNNING in 2016 no matter what Hillary does.  Hillary certainly isn't scared of Warner and Warner shouldn't be scared of Hillary, it simply does not matter what Hillary decides.
Obviously in 2004, Hillary was a coward and did not want to challenge Bush because she feared losing.  After all, a majority of the country voted against Bush, so half the country disliked Bush and would have voted for Hillary.  Hillary would have done better than John Kerry in 2004.
As I've said before, why would Warner as a 1 term governor feel that he can make a case to be president?  He saw a better option in the Senate.  If he was not term-limited, he would have won a 2nd term as Virginia's governor.  
You are making slanderous statements because you are afraid of Warner and that he will beat Hillary in 2016.
In my opinion, Warner is simply the best candidate in 2016, he has the credentials and he is simply not in awe or afraid of Hillary like you or others may be.
Again, if I were to wager, Hillary will likely not run in 2016 and Warner will definitely run in 2016.  Its really not that difficult to comprehend.

[milhouse24]

You say you think the trend of presidents under 60 will continue but Warner will be 61 going on 62 in 2016.  Why not say Cuomo would win?  I also like how you contrast Warner's senate experience (2 term senator) with Hillary's (1 and 1/2 terms) when they'd both have served the same length of time in senate.

You're a smart guy.  Of course Warner served as a Governor and Hillary was selected as First Lady.  Cuomo could win, but as a New Yorker, he faces antagonism in Iowa and SC.

[Bo]

Both Hillary and Warner will be very experienced in 2016. Warner doesn't have much achievements either and many Democrats vote due to name recognition and celebrity status than due to experience or achievements. Obama won partially due to being a celebrity, despite having a lack of experience. Just because we have had three young Presidents recently does not mean we will always elect young Presidents. Reagan was elected at ages 69 and 73 and Bush Sr. was elected at age 64 (both in landslides), and that was relatively recently. This shows that we are willing to elect old people as President. Besides, Warner will be over 60 in 2016 as well and I don't really see what he will do in the next 6 years to really distinguish himself from all the other Senators. McCain and Dole lost primarily due to the ECONOMY, NOT due to their age. McCain was actually leading Obama in some polls before the financial crisis hit. You say Hillary being from New York will hurt her, but Obama was from Chicago (a very liberal, corrupt, and crime-infested city) and that didn't hurt him. Why would it hurt Hillary if it didn't hurt Obama?

There is no guarantee that Hillary will win in 2016, but I think that it is pretty likely that she will at least win the Democratic nomination if she chooses to run. Just because Democrats wanted change in 2008 doesn't mean that they will want change in every election. Democrats sure didn't want change in 2000, because otherwise Bill Bradley would have beaten Al Gore. Besides, electing Hillary would represent change by electing our first female President. I don't see Hillary being wrong on any issues in 2016 and it's foolish to assume that every single Obama and Edwards voter in 2008 would oppose Hillary in 2016, since Obama and Edwards won't be running that year. Warner sure wouldn't get over 90% of the black vote like Obama did, and a lot of women who supported Obama and Edwards in '08 will support Hillary in 2016 if she chooses to run. Hillary will only need to win a small amount of the Obama and Edwards voters in 2008 to win in 2016, and that should be no problem for her to do. I'm not sure if either Warner or Hillary will run in 2016, but I seriously doubt Warner will run if Hillary does. What will he have to run upon? What argument is he going to use?

Hillary didn't run in 2004 because Bush was still relatively popular that year. She didn't want to ruin her political future with a loss in 2004. I said Warner might be a wimp because he chickened out in 2008 when everyone thought he was going to run. I'm not so sure he won't chicken out in 2016. Just because someone has the credentials and experience to run for President doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is actually going to run. I'm not sure that Warner is the best candidate to beat Hillary (there are a lot of other possible candidates) and I'm not sure that he will run in 2016.

I think Warner served as Governor and has more executive experience because of that, than Hillary, but you can choose to ignore that part if it doesn't suit your goals.  If you want a celebrity candidate with a thinner resume, then pick Hillary.  I'm just saying that I personally believe that Warner has a better resume and experience and is ready to be president in 2016.
It is more likely that Hillary WILL NOT RUN in 2016.
It is more likely that Warner WILL RUN in 2016.
Obama won because he was not tainted by the Iraq War.  He was an anti-govt "democrat tea party" against big govt foreign policy.
The govt says you can retire at 62, so I'm going to let Hillary retire when she is 68.  I trust the govt.  Reagan was the oldest president ever, but he looked younger, and was very image conscious as an actor.
You obviously don't know anything about Iowa.  Obama is from Illinois and bused in far more volunteers into Iowa than Hillary did.  He won Iowa because of geography.  Hillary won NH because of geography.  Its GOTV, politics 101.  Guess what, Hillary will probably lose Iowa again in 2016.
A lot of left-wing democrats want change, that is why they voted for Nader.  I think Hillary is taking the easy road, she should run for governor and be her own woman.  She's content with being an administrator, but that's her passion.  I personally think its easier for governors to win the presidency.
I think Warner can win Iowa and at least pull even in SC.  I've said why I think Warner is ready for the Presidency because he's been a governor and a senator and is the right age.  If voters don't buy it then so be it, but he's not going to wait because of Hillary.  He IS RUNNING in 2016 no matter what Hillary does.  Hillary certainly isn't scared of Warner and Warner shouldn't be scared of Hillary, it simply does not matter what Hillary decides.
Obviously in 2004, Hillary was a coward and did not want to challenge Bush because she feared losing.  After all, a majority of the country voted against Bush, so half the country disliked Bush and would have voted for Hillary.  Hillary would have done better than John Kerry in 2004.
As I've said before, why would Warner as a 1 term governor feel that he can make a case to be president?  He saw a better option in the Senate.  If he was not term-limited, he would have won a 2nd term as Virginia's governor.  
You are making slanderous statements because you are afraid of Warner and that he will beat Hillary in 2016.
In my opinion, Warner is simply the best candidate in 2016, he has the credentials and he is simply not in awe or afraid of Hillary like you or others may be.
Again, if I were to wager, Hillary will likely not run in 2016 and Warner will definitely run in 2016.  Its really not that difficult to comprehend.

Again, I just want to clarify that I don't support Hillary or oppose Warner. I am just pointing out from a neutral point of view that unless something unexpected happens in the next 6 years, Hillary will probably be the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2016 due to her massive amounts of supporters and how close she came last time. Few voters actually care that much about executive experience--Palin's executive experience sure didn't help McCain much. If you personally support Warner, that's great, but there is a difference between personally supporting someone and thinking that your candidate will win.

Hillary also looks pretty well for her age and unlike Reagan, she is smarter and probably wouldn't get dementia as early as Reagan did. There are a lot of politicians (especially in Congress) over 70, so having another President over 70 isn't really that unusual. Don't tell me what I know and don't know about Iowa. I know a lot. What source did you get your info about Obama busing in a lot of voters from Illinois? I never heard that before and are Illinois voters even allowed to vote in a different state? I seriously doubt geography was a large reason why Obama won Iowa or Hillary won New Hampshire. It had more to do with their campaign strategies than with geography.

Hillary did manage to distinguish herself from Bill during the campaign and as Secretary of State. Just because Democrats wanted change in 2008 DOES NOT mean that they will want change in 2016. Also, just because 4 out of the last 6 Presidents were Governors doesn't necessarily mean that Governors are particularly favored for the Presidency. I'm not sure Warner will win IA and SC because 2016 will have different circumstances than 2008 and if Hillary runs, she will run a better campaign than in 2008.

What slanderous statements am I making? That I don't think Warner will run in 2016 if Hillary runs? That's my opinion--there's nothing slanderous about it. Maybe I'll be right, or maybe I'll be wrong. Also, there might be more than one anti-Hillary candidate in 2016, and thus theoretically several candidates could split the anti-Hillary vote in 2016 and allow Hillary to win. (And as a side note, Hillary was smart not to run in 2004. Bush could have just raised the terror alert right before the election and beat her, damaging her future Presidential chances.)

[milhouse24]

Again, I just want to clarify that I don't support Hillary or oppose Warner. I am just pointing out from a neutral point of view that unless something unexpected happens in the next 6 years, Hillary will probably be the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2016 due to her massive amounts of supporters and how close she came last time. Few voters actually care that much about executive experience--Palin's executive experience sure didn't help McCain much. If you personally support Warner, that's great, but there is a difference between personally supporting someone and thinking that your candidate will win.

Hillary also looks pretty well for her age and unlike Reagan, she is smarter and probably wouldn't get dementia as early as Reagan did. There are a lot of politicians (especially in Congress) over 70, so having another President over 70 isn't really that unusual. Don't tell me what I know and don't know about Iowa. I know a lot. What source did you get your info about Obama busing in a lot of voters from Illinois? I never heard that before and are Illinois voters even allowed to vote in a different state? I seriously doubt geography was a large reason why Obama won Iowa or Hillary won New Hampshire. It had more to do with their campaign strategies than with geography.

Hillary did manage to distinguish herself from Bill during the campaign and as Secretary of State. Just because Democrats wanted change in 2008 DOES NOT mean that they will want change in 2016. Also, just because 4 out of the last 6 Presidents were Governors doesn't necessarily mean that Governors are particularly favored for the Presidency. I'm not sure Warner will win IA and SC because 2016 will have different circumstances than 2008 and if Hillary runs, she will run a better campaign than in 2008.

What slanderous statements am I making? That I don't think Warner will run in 2016 if Hillary runs? That's my opinion--there's nothing slanderous about it. Maybe I'll be right, or maybe I'll be wrong. Also, there might be more than one anti-Hillary candidate in 2016, and thus theoretically several candidates could split the anti-Hillary vote in 2016 and allow Hillary to win. (And as a side note, Hillary was smart not to run in 2004. Bush could have just raised the terror alert right before the election and beat her, damaging her future Presidential chances.)

Hillary is the anti-Obama in every political way.  She is the safe, conservative politician.  She is the female equivalent of Al Gore's personality.  Hillary may be the favorite if she does not consider herself too old to run, which is a strong possibility.  But there will be another grassroots candidate like Obama, Dean, etc who will have the support of the "people" and not the establishment.  Warner is a very popular guy and a likeable guy, he can be a spokesman for the people.  He's a southerner, just like Bill Clinton.  Warner simply has a better resume than Hillary in my opinion.  Hillary may be a good first lady, but she has never had to get her political hands dirty and make tough 3 am calls.  She's nothing more than a sidekick, poser who is trying to escape Bill's shadow.  She's had her time in the sun with Bill in the 1990's but she's had 8 years as First Lady and 8 years is enough for anyone to spend in the white house according to some laws.  I think her time should be over.
As for Iowa, everyone I know from Chicago goes to Iowa for the primaries, there is a much stronger GOTV presence from Chicago than any other major metropolitan area.  If you don't think geography helps a candidate that is your decision, but you don't work as a campaign strategist so continue living in your fantasy land.
If you don't want change in 2016, that is fine, but I'm sure most people will want change.  Change is good as someone famous once said.
In 2004, if Hillary wanted to do what was good for the country and help Democrats, she would have challenged Bush.  But she selfishly thought of her own personal ambitions for her own political future.  How many soldiers had to die in Iraq because Hillary was a coward in 2004, and didn't take the mantle of power that was given to her.  She's a selfish person, and if she really cared about the country and Americans, she would have ran and won in 2004.  She certainly had the name recognition to do it.  She's scared and she's always taken the safe route, that is why she'll never be president.  If you're with Hillary, you're a pro-war and pro-Iraq advocate who doesn't deserve to be a democrat.

[Bo]

Again, I just want to clarify that I don't support Hillary or oppose Warner. I am just pointing out from a neutral point of view that unless something unexpected happens in the next 6 years, Hillary will probably be the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2016 due to her massive amounts of supporters and how close she came last time. Few voters actually care that much about executive experience--Palin's executive experience sure didn't help McCain much. If you personally support Warner, that's great, but there is a difference between personally supporting someone and thinking that your candidate will win.

Hillary also looks pretty well for her age and unlike Reagan, she is smarter and probably wouldn't get dementia as early as Reagan did. There are a lot of politicians (especially in Congress) over 70, so having another President over 70 isn't really that unusual. Don't tell me what I know and don't know about Iowa. I know a lot. What source did you get your info about Obama busing in a lot of voters from Illinois? I never heard that before and are Illinois voters even allowed to vote in a different state? I seriously doubt geography was a large reason why Obama won Iowa or Hillary won New Hampshire. It had more to do with their campaign strategies than with geography.

Hillary did manage to distinguish herself from Bill during the campaign and as Secretary of State. Just because Democrats wanted change in 2008 DOES NOT mean that they will want change in 2016. Also, just because 4 out of the last 6 Presidents were Governors doesn't necessarily mean that Governors are particularly favored for the Presidency. I'm not sure Warner will win IA and SC because 2016 will have different circumstances than 2008 and if Hillary runs, she will run a better campaign than in 2008.

What slanderous statements am I making? That I don't think Warner will run in 2016 if Hillary runs? That's my opinion--there's nothing slanderous about it. Maybe I'll be right, or maybe I'll be wrong. Also, there might be more than one anti-Hillary candidate in 2016, and thus theoretically several candidates could split the anti-Hillary vote in 2016 and allow Hillary to win. (And as a side note, Hillary was smart not to run in 2004. Bush could have just raised the terror alert right before the election and beat her, damaging her future Presidential chances.)

Hillary is the anti-Obama in every political way.  She is the safe, conservative politician.  She is the female equivalent of Al Gore's personality.  Hillary may be the favorite if she does not consider herself too old to run, which is a strong possibility.  But there will be another grassroots candidate like Obama, Dean, etc who will have the support of the "people" and not the establishment.  Warner is a very popular guy and a likeable guy, he can be a spokesman for the people.  He's a southerner, just like Bill Clinton.  Warner simply has a better resume than Hillary in my opinion.  Hillary may be a good first lady, but she has never had to get her political hands dirty and make tough 3 am calls.  She's nothing more than a sidekick, poser who is trying to escape Bill's shadow.  She's had her time in the sun with Bill in the 1990's but she's had 8 years as First Lady and 8 years is enough for anyone to spend in the white house according to some laws.  I think her time should be over.
As for Iowa, everyone I know from Chicago goes to Iowa for the primaries, there is a much stronger GOTV presence from Chicago than any other major metropolitan area.  If you don't think geography helps a candidate that is your decision, but you don't work as a campaign strategist so continue living in your fantasy land.
If you don't want change in 2016, that is fine, but I'm sure most people will want change.  Change is good as someone famous once said.
In 2004, if Hillary wanted to do what was good for the country and help Democrats, she would have challenged Bush.  But she selfishly thought of her own personal ambitions for her own political future.  How many soldiers had to die in Iraq because Hillary was a coward in 2004, and didn't take the mantle of power that was given to her.  She's a selfish person, and if she really cared about the country and Americans, she would have ran and won in 2004.  She certainly had the name recognition to do it.  She's scared and she's always taken the safe route, that is why she'll never be president.  If you're with Hillary, you're a pro-war and pro-Iraq advocate who doesn't deserve to be a democrat.

Hillary is definitely more charismatic than Gore. If Warner runs (which is a big if), I'm not so sure he'll automatically become the grassroots candidate. He might have some competitors in that field, and I'm not sure he'll really be able to stand out. And again, just because many Democrats wanted change in 2008 doesn't mean that they will want change in every election. Most (not all) Democrats did not want change in 2000, 1996, 1984, or 1980, and they probably won't want change in 2012. And Hillary could have just as easily lost to Bush in 2004. She was a good candidate, but Bush could have raised the terror alert right before the election and scared the heck out of many voters, thus allowing him to win reelection. He actually considered doing this in RL, but decided against it because his lead over Kerry was too large to risk losing. And if Hillary would have won in 2004, a lot of American soldiers would have still died in Iraq and also we might have lost that war instead of winning it (and this is coming from someone who opposes the Iraq War). And no one will care about Iraq in 2016.

[milhouse24]

Hillary is definitely more charismatic than Gore. If Warner runs (which is a big if), I'm not so sure he'll automatically become the grassroots candidate. He might have some competitors in that field, and I'm not sure he'll really be able to stand out. And again, just because many Democrats wanted change in 2008 doesn't mean that they will want change in every election. Most (not all) Democrats did not want change in 2000, 1996, 1984, or 1980, and they probably won't want change in 2012. And Hillary could have just as easily lost to Bush in 2004. She was a good candidate, but Bush could have raised the terror alert right before the election and scared the heck out of many voters, thus allowing him to win reelection. He actually considered doing this in RL, but decided against it because his lead over Kerry was too large to risk losing. And if Hillary would have won in 2004, a lot of American soldiers would have still died in Iraq and also we might have lost that war instead of winning it (and this is coming from someone who opposes the Iraq War). And no one will care about Iraq in 2016.

Hillary is running just as safe as Gore ran.  Obama risked it all in 2008 and challenged Americans to be better.  Hillary is going to play it safe and be the boring candidate who won't rock the boat or bring America to Greatness.  You can decide whatever you want, but I want America to be the Best it can be, and I want a candidate who is scared of looking bad, but is willing to challenge the status quo and bring a progressive vision for America's future.
Again, Hillary was too scared to go against Bush, she was a chicken scared of a real winner who defeated Gore.  Bush was a great political candidate and campaigner and Hillary knew she had no chance.  Now, her husband, Bill Clinton had the cajones to challenge and beat GHWB.  He put it all on the line and said America is heading in the wrong direction and Bill led us to Greatness.  I don't see Hillary doing that or willing to do that when its a tough situation.
You may not care about the Iraq War, but tell that to the Iraq and Afganistan war veterans and their families.  You don't represent them and unlike cowards who sided with Bush, they had the conviction and bravery to risk their lives.  The only way I see her winning in 2016 is if no one cares about anything, she can win by default if the issues don't matter. 

[MasterRegal]

@milhouse24

You have a very simplistic view of presidential politics.

Assuming both Warner and Clinton run in 2016...

First, age has nothing to do with running and winning. If that's the case Reagan would have never been President. If a candidate can show they have the health to run a 2-year campaign, the voters will believe they can be President. Voters did not oppose McCain because of his age (he got 46% of the vote), they opposed him because of his views on the economy, his choice for Vice President, his move to the right and his inability to shake Bush's legacy. BTW, Warner will be 62 upon Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017. He ain't exactly a young chap and I don't think voters will be able to tell the difference between a 62 year-old candidates and 69 year-old candidate.

Winning Iowa I would say is not essential to winning the primary. Clinton came in third and ended her primary in June with 18 million votes. She didn't win, but it did not put her out of the campaign. Bill Clinton got 3% in 1992. Is winning helpful? Absolutely, if you have a candidate with a large base, a massive campaign operation and a star name, winning the caucus isn't exactly needed. Remember, Clinton never led in a single poll in Iowa if memory serves me right. She lost that caucus because of her position on Iraq. You say that Warner is likely to win SC, I would tend to agree he has a good chance of winning there, but you forget black voters are tremendously loyal to Hillary Clinton. Clinton led among black voters in a majority of the polls in SC but lost the state because Obama won Iowa and Bill Clinton's poor choice of words. I'll be willing to bet black voters will stick with Clinton even if some other candidate won Iowa in 2016.

If any candidate can restart a campaign machine, it is Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton is campaigning for candidates that supported her. That's going to go a long way. If she leaves Foggy Bottom January 20, 2013, all she has to do is restart her PAC and start raising money for the 2014 midterms. Her contacts list is the largest sans Obama's. I can't ignore that Warner has $1.5 million on hand, but I'm willing to bet Clinton can easily make up a deficit. Last I checked, Warner had some pretty good favorable ratings, but is your hope for him to run in 2016 contingent on him winning reelection in 2014?

Regarding experience, you're making the mistake of reading someone's curriculum vitae at face value. It's nice to say Warner was Governor for 4 years, Senator for 8 years (by 2016), served on this committee, served on that committee. Bill Richardson tried that in Iowa. I think Obama (4 years in Senate), Bush (6 years as Governor), Carter (4 years as Governor), Lincoln (2 years as Congressman) and a host of other President's proved it does not matter what you can show on paper. Personality matters, likability matters, your political machine matters, fundraising matters. I could easily make the argument that six of our forty-four Presidents were once Secretary of State, therefore Clinton is more likely to be President, but that is too simplistic. You say it is easier for Governor's to win the Presidency and I will tend to agree, but Warner would be a 2-term entrenched Senator by 2016. Clinton would likely have been out of office for 4 years working on a campaign.

Now I don't understand your argument regarding Clinton in 2004. You call her a coward for not running in 2004 because she was looking out for her own political ambitions (running for reelection in 2006 and president in 2008), but give Warner props for not running for President in 2008 because he was looking out for his own political future? This right here reveals a deep bias and your inability to judge these two potential candidates.

[milhouse24]

Okay, Reagan was the exception, not the rule.  He dyed his hair and he looked at least 10 years younger.  But Hillary also dyes her hair blonde to be more appealing.  There was a lot of talk about whether McCain would survive 2 terms, given his age and it was a talking point among democrats, but not the main reason.

Clinton lost Iowa because the Senator from Iowa was in the primaries.  Granted Vilsack also ran in 2008, but I think he dropped out before the caucus.  Clinton, being the Big Star, should have won Iowa and swept everywhere else, but there was a very strong reason that Democratic voters were anti-Hillary in the primaries.  She should have won all the primaries, but she didn't and she became a sore loser after Iowa.

We've had Hillary and Bill from 1992 to 2000, does anyone really really want them again in 2016?  I'm sure there is nostalgia for the past, but I think people want new blood, and Warner's a decent 2nd choice, amongst others.  But since Warner is a Senator, it will be difficult for him to claim accomplishments, he needs to emphasize his governorship successes.

I think Hillary was a great First Lady or co-president, but do we really need her to be co-president again?  Do we really want a 3rd and 4th Hillary and Bill term?  She's just trying to win by Nepotism because she is the wife of a former president.  She can be a Senator or Governor, but there are other Female politicians who have succeeded on their own, without the political hand-holding of their husbands. 

I don't think Warner was ready to be president in 2008 or ready to run for president.  He had only served one term as Governor.  Maybe you thought he was ready, but I didn't.  I don't think it was cowardly of him to say he needed more experience.  But if you think that Hillary had 8 years of First Lady experience, then she should have been plenty ready to run in 2004.  She was a Coward and you can admit she was a Coward, and she let a lot of soldiers die in war, when she had a decent chance of defeating Dubya in 2004.  Where were you and the other Democrats in 2004 that thought she should have run.  She missed her chance to make a difference, and now she's a sore loser grasping at anything to make herself look like a real leader, but she's not a leader by any present-day standards.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

I feel like Feingold could be strong in 2016  Although the Tea Party sending waves through the GOP has been getting more headlines, the progressive base has been frustrated with Obama too on several issues.  Historically the party looking for a third White House term has generally nominated establishment candidates- the VP in every recent case except for Cheney.  But it's possible, that since Obama tapped into a strong appetite for fundamental reform, it could be difficult to put back in the bottle.  That energy could be re-focused on someone like Feingold who Democrats would trust more to deliver on it.  Even if Feingold lost now and Obama lost in 2012, I still think he'd be a prospect.

[leatherface]

If there is a candidates the Democrats coalesce around, it should be Hillary Clinton. My scenario goes like this, Joe Biden will be persuaded by Barack Obama sometime in early 2012, I believe it could be February to swap positions with Hillary Clinton. He will resign the Vice Presidency, be quickly confirmed by the Senate for his new position at the State Department. Obama will invoke the 25th amendment, nominate Clinton for Vice President. Her confirmation prospects are problematic, especially if as current polls predict the House is controlled by Republicans. But I think she should get it, therefore as they enter the election sweep stakes they do so as Incumbents. The Democrats will give Obama and Clinton a coronation at there convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. I think it will be a tough race, but in the end Obama will prevail by a bigger than expected margin of victory (Possibly on the scale of LBJ's 1964 triumph) Clinton will be in the envious position of being free enough to go on extended fund-raiser tours for her expected campaign for the 2016 campaign and like Dick Nixon in '60, Humphrey in '68, Bush in '88 and Gore in 2000 she will be the quaisi incumbent and will encounter as many advantages as disadvantages. I think the Republicans will turn to Jeb Bush as there savior on the basis of his strong convention speech in Tampa in 2012, but also in retrospect after eight years of Obama, George W. Bush will be seen in a more kinder light and Bush is a brand name and therefore not the curse it was years before, Republicans see Jeb Bush as his own man and Hillary Clinton will be under pressure to perform in a way she never expected. Clinton will pick Mark Warner of Virginia to be her ticket mate, while Bush will go with Governor John Kasich of Ohio. The election will hinge on a handful of states and could be a repeat of 2000 for its closeness.

[feeblepizza]

If there is a candidates the Democrats coalesce around, it should be Hillary Clinton. My scenario goes like this, Joe Biden will be persuaded by Barack Obama sometime in early 2012, I believe it could be February to swap positions with Hillary Clinton. He will resign the Vice Presidency, be quickly confirmed by the Senate for his new position at the State Department. Obama will invoke the 25th amendment, nominate Clinton for Vice President. Her confirmation prospects are problematic, especially if as current polls predict the House is controlled by Republicans. But I think she should get it, therefore as they enter the election sweep stakes they do so as Incumbents. The Democrats will give Obama and Clinton a coronation at there convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. I think it will be a tough race, but in the end Obama will prevail by a bigger than expected margin of victory (Possibly on the scale of LBJ's 1964 triumph) Clinton will be in the envious position of being free enough to go on extended fund-raiser tours for her expected campaign for the 2016 campaign and like Dick Nixon in '60, Humphrey in '68, Bush in '88 and Gore in 2000 she will be the quaisi incumbent and will encounter as many advantages as disadvantages. I think the Republicans will turn to Jeb Bush as there savior on the basis of his strong convention speech in Tampa in 2012, but also in retrospect after eight years of Obama, George W. Bush will be seen in a more kinder light and Bush is a brand name and therefore not the curse it was years before, Republicans see Jeb Bush as his own man and Hillary Clinton will be under pressure to perform in a way she never expected. Clinton will pick Mark Warner of Virginia to be her ticket mate, while Bush will go with Governor John Kasich of Ohio. The election will hinge on a handful of states and could be a repeat of 2000 for its closeness.

Clinton/Warner vs. Bush/Kasich would be a major landslide for Hillary.

[leatherface]

I disagree!, there would be fatigue from eight years of Obama, as there would have been after George W. Bush, and likewise after Bill Clinton. I can't say who would likely emerge as the winner on Nov. 8, 2016 but it won't be a landslide for either candidate. Both would have appeal and drawbacks in equal proportion. The outcome will hinge on who has a better ground game, but my hunch is Bush will pull it out, on the basis of (i) he would be a challenger, albeit with a brand name (ii) Clinton being a woman, she can come across as shrill (iii) Voters going for a New York Democrat and (iv) Her husband and the Obama approval ratings (v) Economy

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

If there is a candidates the Democrats coalesce around, it should be Hillary Clinton. My scenario goes like this, Joe Biden will be persuaded by Barack Obama sometime in early 2012, I believe it could be February to swap positions with Hillary Clinton. He will resign the Vice Presidency, be quickly confirmed by the Senate for his new position at the State Department. Obama will invoke the 25th amendment, nominate Clinton for Vice President.

Pretty sure the president will be discussing this one on Mythbusters.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Russ Feingold.

[Thom01]

"Which 2016 Dem candidate do you support?"

Frankly, I'm stunned that Momma Grizzly Bear Clinton's name is not on the list. Even if the election is as late as 2016. You've got to know that her eye hasn't left that prize just because she was narrowly defeated by a better organized campaign in 2008. She wants that post baa-aahd. And she'll stop at nothing to attain it. Her arrogant ego can't handle not being the first elected female president in history.

Barry got his prize. Now it's her turn. For whatever it's worth, that is.

[Senator Snowstalker]

I like Feingold, but he won't run. At best, he's eying a comeback if Kohl retires in 2012.

Anyway, what about Bob Casey?

[N.i.K.]

Cross off Feingold, Artur Davis, and most likely Alexi Giannoulias and Evan Bayh. Add John Hickenlooper to the list, provided he can be a successful governor of Colorado.

[Senator Napoleon]

Wow, most of these candidates end up flopping.

Cory Booker won't be able to run in 2016, but I'd love to see him President.

Booker can't beat Christie, so there's no way for him to get his foot in the dorr enough to make a Presidential bid until he's old ntil 2024. At this point we are looking way too far into the future.

Cuomo might be a good bet but he's not my favorite by any means.

[Big Wiggly Style]

Russ Feingold. It's a shame that he wasn't re-elected because he was one of the only honest men in Congress.

[Mehmentum]

Warner, he was a great governor.  There is also no way Virginia wouldn't vote for him in the general. 

[Alaska Thunderfvck]

Id be very happy over a Warner/Bennett ticket in 2016.