Another 2016 Hypothetical Democratic Matchup

[TheresNoMoney]

Many of these 8 candidates are likely to run for president in 2016. If the election were today, who would you vote for?

[N.i.K.]

It's funny, but I could see many of these people as top contenders. I'm not sure about Warner, though. I'm not sure if he could break out in the field. I'm going to discount Biden, Clinton, and Patrick in this scenario, purely because it makes it easier, and because I doubt they'll run. Anyway, I doubt they could hold a candle to the rest.

I would guess that the main battle would be between Cuomo, Schweitzer, and Warren. Warren would probably be the choice of the progressives, while Schweitzer would probably be a favorite of the Mountain West/heartland. I could see a lot of Democrats getting excited about a Schweitzer candidacy. Cuomo would probably be the favorite of the combine, and have Wall Street behind him.

So, really, I don't know who would win. It'd be fun to speculate, though. I think Schweitzer would win Iowa.

Schweitzer, really, is probably the Democrats' best choice. I'd have a hard time trying to think of a reason to vote against him. Pro-energy enrichment, pro-gun, skeptical of overseas conflict, pragmatic. He would have tremendous appeal in Red States. Tremendous. Not because of his policies, but because of his folksy demeanor. He could definitely connect with voters. Other than that, Republicans would have a hard time trying to label the public school-educated farmer as "out-of-touch" or "wrong for America," while they would easily do so with other Democrats:

Cuomo: Corrupt NYC liberal hostile to American values. The product of a dynasty. A son of privilege. The ultimate insider. Do you really want this man running your country?
Warren: Elitist Ivy League professor. Too feminist. She doesn't care about you.

And so on. So my vote would be for Schweitzer. For god's sake, the man uses a branding iron to veto bills. How badass is that?

[Frodo]

It's funny, but I could see many of these people as top contenders. I'm not sure about Warner, though. I'm not sure if he could break out in the field. I'm going to discount Biden, Clinton, and Patrick in this scenario, purely because it makes it easier, and because I doubt they'll run. Anyway, I doubt they could hold a candle to the rest.

I would guess that the main battle would be between Cuomo, Schweitzer, and Warren. Warren would probably be the choice of the progressives, while Schweitzer would probably be a favorite of the Mountain West/heartland. I could see a lot of Democrats getting excited about a Schweitzer candidacy. Cuomo would probably be the favorite of the combine, and have Wall Street behind him.

So, really, I don't know who would win. It'd be fun to speculate, though. I think Schweitzer would win Iowa.

Schweitzer, really, is probably the Democrats' best choice. I'd have a hard time trying to think of a reason to vote against him. Pro-energy enrichment, pro-gun, skeptical of overseas conflict, pragmatic. He would have tremendous appeal in Red States. Tremendous. Not because of his policies, but because of his folksy demeanor. He could definitely connect with voters. Other than that, Republicans would have a hard time trying to label the public school-educated farmer as "out-of-touch" or "wrong for America," while they would easily do so with other Democrats:

Cuomo: Corrupt NYC liberal hostile to American values. The product of a dynasty. A son of privilege. The ultimate insider. Do you really want this man running your country?
Warren: Elitist Ivy League professor. Too feminist. She doesn't care about you.

And so on. So my vote would be for Schweitzer. For god's sake, the man uses a branding iron to veto bills. How badass is that?

And what are your thoughts on O'Malley, the one candidate you haven't mentioned here?

[greenforest32]

Based on what I know of the candidates and their positions on the issues so far I would say O'Malley

[N.i.K.]

It's funny, but I could see many of these people as top contenders. I'm not sure about Warner, though. I'm not sure if he could break out in the field. I'm going to discount Biden, Clinton, and Patrick in this scenario, purely because it makes it easier, and because I doubt they'll run. Anyway, I doubt they could hold a candle to the rest.

I would guess that the main battle would be between Cuomo, Schweitzer, and Warren. Warren would probably be the choice of the progressives, while Schweitzer would probably be a favorite of the Mountain West/heartland. I could see a lot of Democrats getting excited about a Schweitzer candidacy. Cuomo would probably be the favorite of the combine, and have Wall Street behind him.

So, really, I don't know who would win. It'd be fun to speculate, though. I think Schweitzer would win Iowa.

Schweitzer, really, is probably the Democrats' best choice. I'd have a hard time trying to think of a reason to vote against him. Pro-energy enrichment, pro-gun, skeptical of overseas conflict, pragmatic. He would have tremendous appeal in Red States. Tremendous. Not because of his policies, but because of his folksy demeanor. He could definitely connect with voters. Other than that, Republicans would have a hard time trying to label the public school-educated farmer as "out-of-touch" or "wrong for America," while they would easily do so with other Democrats:

Cuomo: Corrupt NYC liberal hostile to American values. The product of a dynasty. A son of privilege. The ultimate insider. Do you really want this man running your country?
Warren: Elitist Ivy League professor. Too feminist. She doesn't care about you.

And so on. So my vote would be for Schweitzer. For god's sake, the man uses a branding iron to veto bills. How badass is that?

And what are your thoughts on O'Malley, the one candidate you haven't mentioned here?

Ah, he slipped my mind. I think he would be a good, solid candidate for the Democrats, and in line with the base. As I recall, he's had a fairly successful term as Governor, and has some fairly achievements under his belt (gay marriage, Compstat), as well as propositions to close the budget deficit. Playing guitar will probably increase his appeal. I see him competing with Cuomo and Warren in many respects, though Cuomo will have the advantage of big money, and Warren (if she runs, and, let's assume she does) is more endearing to the Democratic base, I think. I get the feeling the O'Malley would play well with women nationwide, though I'm not really familiar with his base in Maryland. I see him as a notch below the "big three" in this scenario, though that might change. I have no idea how much exposure Cuomo's more moderate policies will get in Democratic circles. I think that he'll be a favorite of the Wall Street and media establishment, though. Especially if he has a big ol' wedding to his girlfriend over the next three years.

However, I see a few weaknesses for the general election that the Republicans will pound on. For one, he plans to raise taxes on couples making more than 150K, and plans to apply the state tax to gasoline. Depending on how high prices are, the GOP would be able to make note of that frequently, and claim (though dubiously) that he would plan to do so nationwide. So, in all, I think that makes him a slightly weaker candidate than Schweitzer. But not by any means unelectable. Not by any means at all.

Now, on the GOP hatred scale, I would suspect that of these four, this is how it would work, from most hated to least hated.

1. Warren (there's no disputing this, really. If she wins, she'll have knocked off a Republican folk hero, and is a Harvard academic. Republicans would hate her. Hate her. On a level equal, if not greater than, Obama).

2. Cuomo ("Lamestream" media will favor him, Republicans will tar him as a big government man wanting to run your life).

3. O'Malley (Truthfully, I'm not sure what the reaction would be, but I doubt it will be substantially worse than your standard Democratic politician. Might have good relations with Congress, actually).

4. Schweitzer (I see no truly effective way for Republicans to tar him at this point. He's a farmer who speaks Arabic, is folksy, doesn't run around with women, and has a Cowboy-style image.  It'd be hard, to say the least.)

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Elizabeth Warren would be an absolute disaster for Democrats.  Ultra-liberal college professor from Massachusetts, second-wave feminist, open class warrior (while being a multi-millionaire), gun-grabber, hostile to Christianity, has a cutesy, condescending speaking style which irritates people.

She's the negative stereotype that not just Republicans but swing voters have of liberals.  She's a walking caricature.  She's a Mallard Fillmore character, with the pretentiousness of an Ayn Rand villain.  The Democrats would do better to renominate Walter Mondale than her (and his loss would look like a nail-biter compared to hers, unless unemployment is really at 4% and rainbows are flying out everyone's asses).

I don't particularly dislike Elizabeth Warren, just my mostly-objective advice freely offered.

[N.i.K.]

I agree, Wormy. She'd be less experienced than Obama and more polarizing from the get-go. Dems love her, though, so if she runs I wouldn't rule out a nomination... even though such a nomination would favor the Republicans.

I don't discount the 2016 Dem field, but I'm pretty sure Cuomo and Warren would be underdogs.

[TheresNoMoney]

I honestly don't think Warren will even run, but there has already been some speculation I wanted to include another woman on the list. I assume there will be at least one woman who runs. Besides Clinton, I could see Kathleen Sebelius or Christine Gregoire possibly running.

I know that if Clinton decides to run, she probably wins. Cuomo probably would decline a bid rather than go up against her.

[Comrade Funk]

Schweitzer or O'Malley. Cuomo is much worse than his father.

[Pictor Ignotus]

Clinton

[Nagas]

Torn between Cuomo and Schweitzer. Both are pragmatic and successful governors.

[Chris B]

I voted for Schweitzer as he couldn't be painted as your stereotypical Democrat by the Republicans. 

Though O'Malley and Warren would be worthy of consideration.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

I'd prefer Warren, but Schweitzer would be very hard to beat in a general, and is also a very impressive man, whereas some of the others wouldn't. So, if the primary wasn't over, I'd probably go Schweitzer.

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

I don't understand Brian Schweitzer's draw other than that it's hard for the conservative commentariat to paint a Montana farmer in jeans and a bolo tie as an effete liberal elitist. How is being Governor of Montana any better preparation for the White House than being governor of...say...Alaska?

[Cobbler]

I would vote for Schweitzer or Cuomo. Both are very pragmatic governors that have crossover appeal. Schweitzer is a politician that one can feel like they can trust, and is a different kind of Democrat. The folksy personality and various centrist stances help too. Cuomo has also been a very centrist governor, and would make an excellent president as well.

And I feel like those two are the most electable after 8 years of a Democratic presidency. But I might be looking like a fool in a few years, so we'll see.

[Vosem]

The 2016 Democratic field is really impressive. I could see myself voting for H. Clinton, Schweitzer, or Cuomo, and, if their opponents are really horrible, Warner or Biden; but in 2012 I'm stuck voting for Gary Johnson if Mitt Pathetic-But-I'm-Supporting-Him-Anyway Romney doesn't get the nomination.

[ModerateCoward]

Warren, would be the best choice. But If we are talking about seriously winning 2016 and actually accomplishing something than Schweitzer. He is probably best risk vs reward/strategical vote. He might have some conservative stances(gun control) , but advocates Universal Single-payer healthcare, so he might be he is acceptable to real left-wingers(not liberals), also hard for Republicans to smear him. O'malley and Cuomo are Obama and Clinton style moderate heroes, while they might please liberals to certain extent but would be bad choices.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

Cuomo, easily.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Andrew Cuomo would be the most conservative Democratic nominee since John Davis.

[HST1948]

Ranked
Hillary Clinton    
Andrew Cuomo    
Martin O'Malley    
Brian Schweitzer     
Deval Patrick         
Mark Warner 
Vice President Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren

Hillary would be my absolute first choice, but I doubt she would run.  Cuomo would be my second.  After that O'Malley, Schweitzer, and Patrick are all pretty much tied.  I think Schweitzer would make a good candidate from a geographical and electability standpoint, even though I don't agree with him on some issues. Elizabeth Warren would be an absolute disaster for the Democrats... the electoral map would look like 1972 with her at the head of the ticket.  Even if we are definitely going to lose in 2016 I don't want to be embarrassed with a landslide like that.     

[politicus]

Schweitzer (if I could vote). A surprisingly liberal guy that doesn't look and talk like the stereotypical liberal. Their only real chance of keeping the presidency after 8 years with Obama and a good contrast to Romney if he is the incumbent president.

[Bluegrassball]

I don't understand Brian Schweitzer's draw other than that it's hard for the conservative commentariat to paint a Montana farmer in jeans and a bolo tie as an effete liberal elitist. How is being Governor of Montana any better preparation for the White House than being governor of...say...Alaska?

Probably about as well as being governor of Arkansas prepares you. Plus he will be term limited in 2012 and will have four years to pad his resume--possibly a cabinet position.

[Sasquatch]

Out of those listed, I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren.

[Zioneer]

Brian Schweitzer, because of what Blackwater NiK said, and because he's probably one of the most cunning politicians the Mountain West has seen for a generation. For goodness sakes, the man is a Democrat with some incredibly liberal positions in ruby-red Montana, and has the highest gubernatorial approval rating in the country!