Who would be the best candidate to replace Obama and why?

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

We need one of these, since we have one on Romney and one on Biden.

If for some reason Obama needs to be replaced as the Democratic Presidential nominee, who would be the best candidate to replace him and why?

[Gravis Marketing]

Joe Biden. He's already been chosen by Obama as the best qualified to fill in if something happened, and he has unparalleled experience for the job.

[Senator Ben]

Obviously Hillary

[PittsburghSean]

I'd say Hillary again. I contemplated thinking about if they should drop Obama at the convention in Charlotte back in 2011 when it looked like he just wasn't in for the fight. Democrats made their choice though... so they will either win or go down with the ship.

But if they chose to throw him off ship, Clinton is the best choice because she is popular now, and Bill is very popular. The VP nod could be someone out west since she is strong in the blue collar communities.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Hillary, probably. Feingold is the ideal, of course.

[PittsburghSean]

Part of the problem here is that the Democratic Party is just too wimpy to dump Obama even if it might be for their own good politically. They had a chance to run a primary campaign against him at the time the liberal base was very upset with him. Yet when the liberals had the chance, they turned that chance down. Sure it would have hurt them in 2012, but perhaps when Romney failed in 2016, that it would take them back to their roots and frighten the DNC establishment a little bit.

As critical as I am of the tea party, they did something good for the Republicans (which I find bad being an ideological liberal): they brought the Republicans to their roots. We don't have that movement. Occupy was disorganized and even corrupt and incompetent. Democrats used to be the party of FDR, JFK and LBJ. Now they are very wimpy, wishy washy and weasel lite. 

[Politico]

Clinton because she is effective, like Romney and unlike Obama.

What a disastrous move it was putting the smooth-talking community organizer in the Oval Office.

[milhouse24]

It would make more sense for Hillary to run now in 2012, than in 2016 at the age of 69.  
I don't want to sound like an Ageist but it takes the rare candidate and the rare set of circumstances for a geriatric person to win, especially in this age of media.  Perhaps one of the primary reasons Ronald Reagan was able to win in his older age was his mastery of image and media based on his acting experience.  Bill Clinton had the next best personality and Hillary is a far cry from Bill's personality, which partially explains why she lost in 2008.  

But if Hillary wants to ever become president, her best chance is to force a contested convention now in 2012.  There will be a lot of unhappiness with Obama's leadership, and Hillary will make a very good alternative.  

Otherwise, I don't think Hillary can win in 2016, unless the country gets a lot worse, and Hillary can separate herself from Obama.  If the country's economy is doing good in 2016, then voters will vote based on personality; and Hillary will lose because her personality is not that great.  I would say Hillary's personality is equal to Romney's as both have buttoned-up reserved and aristocratic attitude so it would be a closer contest.

[Comrade Funk]

It would make more sense for Hillary to run now in 2012, than in 2016 at the age of 69.  
I don't want to sound like an Ageist but it takes the rare candidate and the rare set of circumstances for a geriatric person to win, especially in this age of media.  Perhaps one of the primary reasons Ronald Reagan was able to win in his older age was his mastery of image and media based on his acting experience.  Bill Clinton had the next best personality and Hillary is a far cry from Bill's personality, which partially explains why she lost in 2008.  

But if Hillary wants to ever become president, her best chance is to force a contested convention now in 2012.  There will be a lot of unhappiness with Obama's leadership, and Hillary will make a very good alternative.  

Otherwise, I don't think Hillary can win in 2016, unless the country gets a lot worse, and Hillary can separate herself from Obama.  If the country's economy is doing good in 2016, then voters will vote based on personality; and Hillary will lose because her personality is not that great.  I would say Hillary's personality is equal to Romney's as both have buttoned-up reserved and aristocratic attitude so it would be a closer contest.

She's the most popular politician in the country, and you're saying her personality will make her lose. Great logic.

[Lieutenant Governor Clinton1996]

Hillary Clinton, or Brian Schweitzer

[Cobbler]

It would make more sense for Hillary to run now in 2012, than in 2016 at the age of 69.  
I don't want to sound like an Ageist but it takes the rare candidate and the rare set of circumstances for a geriatric person to win, especially in this age of media.  Perhaps one of the primary reasons Ronald Reagan was able to win in his older age was his mastery of image and media based on his acting experience.  Bill Clinton had the next best personality and Hillary is a far cry from Bill's personality, which partially explains why she lost in 2008.  

But if Hillary wants to ever become president, her best chance is to force a contested convention now in 2012.  There will be a lot of unhappiness with Obama's leadership, and Hillary will make a very good alternative.  

Otherwise, I don't think Hillary can win in 2016, unless the country gets a lot worse, and Hillary can separate herself from Obama.  If the country's economy is doing good in 2016, then voters will vote based on personality; and Hillary will lose because her personality is not that great.  I would say Hillary's personality is equal to Romney's as both have buttoned-up reserved and aristocratic attitude so it would be a closer contest.

She's the most popular politician in the country, and you're saying her personality will make her lose. Great logic.

Her personality was one of the reasons she lost in 2008. The reason she's so popular now is because she is no longer in the "game" since she's in the nonpolitical position of Secretary of State. There's also the fact that Obama is unpopular right now, leading a lot of people to look at her in a better light in comparison. I'd argue that if she were President now instead of Obama, she'd be losing to Romney because she isn't as likeable as Obama (which is saving him right now).

[Governor Scott]

Hillary, Feingold, Cuomo, or Schweitzer in that order.

[Politico]

Hillary, Feingold, Cuomo, or Schweitzer in that order.

Feingold is to 2010 what Santorum is to 2006. Cuomo walks and talks like he just came off the set of The Godfather (I love the real Italian-American culture, but many people would be terrified by Cuomo's appearance and mannerisms because of stereotyping). Schweitzer needs to lose a lot of weight if he ever wants to be taken seriously for president.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It would make more sense for Hillary to run now in 2012, than in 2016 at the age of 69.  
I don't want to sound like an Ageist but it takes the rare candidate and the rare set of circumstances for a geriatric person to win, especially in this age of media.  Perhaps one of the primary reasons Ronald Reagan was able to win in his older age was his mastery of image and media based on his acting experience.  Bill Clinton had the next best personality and Hillary is a far cry from Bill's personality, which partially explains why she lost in 2008.  

But if Hillary wants to ever become president, her best chance is to force a contested convention now in 2012.  There will be a lot of unhappiness with Obama's leadership, and Hillary will make a very good alternative.  

Otherwise, I don't think Hillary can win in 2016, unless the country gets a lot worse, and Hillary can separate herself from Obama.  If the country's economy is doing good in 2016, then voters will vote based on personality; and Hillary will lose because her personality is not that great.  I would say Hillary's personality is equal to Romney's as both have buttoned-up reserved and aristocratic attitude so it would be a closer contest.

She's the most popular politician in the country, and you're saying her personality will make her lose. Great logic.

Her personality was one of the reasons she lost in 2008. The reason she's so popular now is because she is no longer in the "game" since she's in the nonpolitical position of Secretary of State. There's also the fact that Obama is unpopular right now, leading a lot of people to look at her in a better light in comparison. I'd argue that if she were President now instead of Obama, she'd be losing to Romney because she isn't as likeable as Obama (which is saving him right now).

I wouldn't be so sure. Hillary wouldn't have devoted months to health care in the middle of the recession like Obama did. She wanted real universal health care... there's no way she would have taken on such a project with the way things were. Without health care reform, the Democrats might have kept the House in 2010 and then Hillary would have been free to pursue other things on her agenda.

I suspect she'd be polling about the same as Obama is now.

[Cobbler]

It would make more sense for Hillary to run now in 2012, than in 2016 at the age of 69.  
I don't want to sound like an Ageist but it takes the rare candidate and the rare set of circumstances for a geriatric person to win, especially in this age of media.  Perhaps one of the primary reasons Ronald Reagan was able to win in his older age was his mastery of image and media based on his acting experience.  Bill Clinton had the next best personality and Hillary is a far cry from Bill's personality, which partially explains why she lost in 2008.  

But if Hillary wants to ever become president, her best chance is to force a contested convention now in 2012.  There will be a lot of unhappiness with Obama's leadership, and Hillary will make a very good alternative.  

Otherwise, I don't think Hillary can win in 2016, unless the country gets a lot worse, and Hillary can separate herself from Obama.  If the country's economy is doing good in 2016, then voters will vote based on personality; and Hillary will lose because her personality is not that great.  I would say Hillary's personality is equal to Romney's as both have buttoned-up reserved and aristocratic attitude so it would be a closer contest.

She's the most popular politician in the country, and you're saying her personality will make her lose. Great logic.

Her personality was one of the reasons she lost in 2008. The reason she's so popular now is because she is no longer in the "game" since she's in the nonpolitical position of Secretary of State. There's also the fact that Obama is unpopular right now, leading a lot of people to look at her in a better light in comparison. I'd argue that if she were President now instead of Obama, she'd be losing to Romney because she isn't as likeable as Obama (which is saving him right now).

I wouldn't be so sure. Hillary wouldn't have devoted months to health care in the middle of the recession like Obama did. She wanted real universal health care... there's no way she would have taken on such a project with the way things were. Without health care reform, the Democrats might have kept the House in 2010 and then Hillary would have been free to pursue other things on her agenda.

I suspect she'd be polling about the same as Obama is now.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Maybe she wouldn't have pursued health care reform, but I feel like she would've and probably wouldn't have succeeded. Obama was actually liked by some Republicans when he was elected, Hillary was hated by most. And I think 2010 would've been bad for Democrats no matter what, because of the economy.

[Vasall des Midas]

Joe Biden. He's already been chosen by Obama as the best qualified to fill in if something happened, and he has unparalleled experience for the job.

Anything else would look funny this far in, anyways.

[JulioMadrid]

Hillary Clinton would easily win against Romney, and probably Mark Warner, too.

[Cobbler]

Clinton, Schweitzer or Warner would probably be strongest.

[Peter the Lefty]

Best candidate: Hilary Clinton
Best president: Bernie Sanders, even though he's an independent.  Feingold would also be good.