Think of this...

[MorningInAmerica]

I know we're all battening down in our partisan hatches as November approaches...but serious question for American Democrats on the forum...

What happens to theparty IF the most popular Democratic politician since Kennedy loses his re-election bid?

And while it may sound like a trite question...seriously to the Democrats. Where do they turn?  

(Sorry mods, again. Feel free to move it. There's so many forums it's hard to figure it out!)

[Grad Students are the Worst]

My early prediction: A primay.

[MilesC56]

I still think the party should move right in that scenario, as it would obviously need to make inroads with the independent and conservative voters it has alienated.

As far as running a candidate, I still think the 2016 nomination would be Hillary's if she wants it.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Which Kennedy?

[MorningInAmerica]

My early prediction: A primay.

2016 Dem primary would be amazing. I actually think Hillary would be more likely to run in such a scenario (as opposed to her running after an Obama 8-year presidency). The possibilities are endless. Does Biden run? Cuomo? Warner? The good thing for both parties is that they both have a great crop of potential candidates to choose from.

In other words, 2016 can't possibly be NEARLY as dull as the 2012 presidential primaries.

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

My early prediction: A primay.

2016 Dem primary would be amazing. I actually think Hillary would be more likely to run in such a scenario (as opposed to her running after an Obama 8-year presidency). The possibilities are endless. Does Biden run? Cuomo? Warner? The good thing for both parties is that they both have a great crop of potential candidates to choose from.

In other words, 2016 can't possibly NEARLY as dull as the 2012 presidential primaries.

If Hillary runs, it'll be as dull as 2000 IMO.

[MorningInAmerica]

My early prediction: A primay.

2016 Dem primary would be amazing. I actually think Hillary would be more likely to run in such a scenario (as opposed to her running after an Obama 8-year presidency). The possibilities are endless. Does Biden run? Cuomo? Warner? The good thing for both parties is that they both have a great crop of potential candidates to choose from.

In other words, 2016 can't possibly NEARLY as dull as the 2012 presidential primaries.

If Hillary runs, it'll be as dull as 2000 IMO.

If by "dull" you mean "predictable", then I agree. But I can't think of a Democrat that would give Republicans more of a heart-ache.

[MorningInAmerica]

Which Kennedy?

I meant JACK Kennedy. JKF ('61-'63)

[pbrower2a]

I know we're all battening down in our partisan hatches as November approaches...but serious question for American Democrats on the forum...

What happens to theparty IF the most popular Democratic politician since Kennedy loses his re-election bid?

And while it may sound like a trite question...seriously to the Democrats. Where do they turn?  

(Sorry mods, again. Feel free to move it. There's so many forums it's hard to figure it out!)

Albania. Andorra. Argentina. Belgium. Botswana. Brazil. Bulgaria. Canada. Chile. The Republic of China (Taiwan, that is). Costa Rica. Croatia. Czech Republic...

It may be that secular liberalism has lost its relevance in national elections for several decades and can survive only locally as a political influence, perhaps in urban areas with political machines that serve the pariahs of the political order -- like Irish Catholics during the Gilded Age. It may mean that if you are a 66-year-old teacher of biology or earth science you choose between retirement and selling out evolution and the fossil record to the officially-mandated interpretation of science. If you are a teacher of history or social studies you learn to ignore the Civil Rights Movement and focus attention on the 'Reagan Revolution' because power is the ultimate reality in political life -- or retire or find another occupation. If you are a preacher you learn to preach subordination to tycoons and executives as if that were the Gospel -- or find another way of making a living. If you are a police officer you learn excuses for harassing dissidents or find another career.  Maybe the personalities of Karl Rove or Grover Norquist go beyond question.  Separation of Church and State is understood again as a myth, and women will be subordinate to their husbands as employees will be to their bosses.

There will have to be incredible economic growth to take the sting out of the injustice and inequity -- but the government will have no responsibility for such.

It means that the Republican Party can marginalize secularist types indefinitely especially because it has sure and permanent majorities and can probably change electoral laws at will to its convenience. Media of course will defer because the owners know what is best for churning out at the least a meager profit.

[krazen1211]

Pbrower seems to have articulated the new Democrat philosophy of giving the farm away to white college women, minorities, welfare kings, and government unions while telling everyone else to go pound sand.

I suspect their next guy will do so but not as openly.

[pbrower2a]

Pbrower seems to have articulated the new Democrat philosophy of giving the farm away to white college women, minorities, welfare kings, and government unions while telling everyone else to go pound sand.

I suspect their next guy will do so but not as openly.

Strange interpretation of what I said. It's that liberalism will have died as a political force, at least on the national scale. That's why I had the list of countries with democratic government and didn't have Zimbabwe, Zambia, Yemen, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Syria ... on my list. Zaire and Yugoslavia of course no longer exist.

If President Obama fails to win re-election without an economic meltdown as severe as that of 2007-2009, a diplomatic or military debacle, or a personal scandal, then no liberal can. The political order can then freeze, and conservatives can then tell liberals "My Way or the Highway" and mean it. Heck, Mexico might become a better place to live once American addicts can no longer afford the illegal drugs that make much of Mexico a combat zone. After all, honest work will bring only poverty.      

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You shouldn't get so hyper when contemplating the other side winning.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The party should move left or get out of the way.

[Yelnoc]

The party should move left or get out of the way.

Get out of the way of what?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The party should move left or get out of the way.

Get out of the way of what?

Out of the way of the American people.

[Comrade Shmoo]

The party should move left or get out of the way.

Get out of the way of what?

Out of the way of the American people.

And leave politics to the Republicans?

[Senator Sbane]

If republicans try to cut Medicare while lowering taxes for the rich, expect another wave in 2014.

[Mister Mets]

The potential Democrats for 2016 are going to have amazing resumes.

Hillary Clinton was Senator for the third most populated state in the Union, and Secretary of State. And I'd say her political experience is equivalent to a senior adviser for Bill Clinton.

Hickenlooper and O'Malley have Executive experience as Governors and Mayors.

Emanuel has Executive experience as Mayor of Chicago, and Legislative experience in addition to White House work in two administrations.

Mario Cuomo is a New York Governor, who served as Attorney General in a large state (where he has some experience with Wall Street crooks) and in the US Cabinet as HHS Secretary.

Their best arguments would be that Obama was punished for Bush's economy, but that he also wasn't ready for the responsibility of the presidency, which explains some early mistakes that they can avoid.

The 2010 election meant that potential rising stars lost, taking the likes of Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak and Florida's Alex Sink out of consideration.

I could see an Al Franken suggesting that Obama's problem was that he just wasn't progressive enough.

The big question is what Obama would do. He would be in his Mid 50s, with high name recognition and the support of a few key constituencies, in addition to some attractive accomplishments. And he would have the excuse that no President could have been reelected with that economy.

Hillary or Obama would start out as the clear frontrunner.

In the unlikely event both choose to run, it would leave room for a third candidate who can argue it's time for someone new.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Emanuel has Executive experience as Mayor of Chicago, and Legislative experience in addition to White House work in two administrations.

Rahm Emanuel??? Really??

[mondale84]

Emanuel has Executive experience as Mayor of Chicago, and Legislative experience in addition to White House work in two administrations.

Rahm Emanuel??? Really??

Yeah Rahm can rot in Chicago.

[Rhodie]

Surely Bubba is more popular than Obama?

[asexual trans victimologist]

Surely Bubba is more popular than Obama?

Of course he is, but it won't do him any good because the 22nd Amendment doesn't have exceptions for non-consecutive terms like they do in some other countries.

[Rhodie]

Surely Bubba is more popular than Obama?

Of course he is, but it won't do him any good because the 22nd Amendment doesn't have exceptions for non-consecutive terms like they do in some other countries.

Ah misunderstood the thread.

[Mr.Phips]

The potential Democrats for 2016 are going to have amazing resumes.

Hillary Clinton was Senator for the third most populated state in the Union, and Secretary of State. And I'd say her political experience is equivalent to a senior adviser for Bill Clinton.

Hickenlooper and O'Malley have Executive experience as Governors and Mayors.

Emanuel has Executive experience as Mayor of Chicago, and Legislative experience in addition to White House work in two administrations.

Mario Cuomo is a New York Governor, who served as Attorney General in a large state (where he has some experience with Wall Street crooks) and in the US Cabinet as HHS Secretary.

Their best arguments would be that Obama was punished for Bush's economy, but that he also wasn't ready for the responsibility of the presidency, which explains some early mistakes that they can avoid.

The 2010 election meant that potential rising stars lost, taking the likes of Pennsylvania's Joe Sestak and Florida's Alex Sink out of consideration.

I could see an Al Franken suggesting that Obama's problem was that he just wasn't progressive enough.

The big question is what Obama would do. He would be in his Mid 50s, with high name recognition and the support of a few key constituencies, in addition to some attractive accomplishments. And he would have the excuse that no President could have been reelected with that economy.

Hillary or Obama would start out as the clear frontrunner.

In the unlikely event both choose to run, it would leave room for a third candidate who can argue it's time for someone new.

If Obama loses this year, there is no way he gets the nomination again.  The Democratic elites hate him for the record losses he has caused the party at the local and Congressional level during his Presidency.