Rank the 5 most likely nominees for each party

[Mr. Morden]

Haven't had one of these for a while.  Now that CPAC's done, time to do it again.

Rank from 1-5 who you think is most likely to win the 2016 presidential nomination for each of the two major parties.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Democratic:

5. Brian Schweitzer
4. Kirsten Gillibrand
3. Joe Biden
2. Andrew Cuomo
1. Hillary Clinton

Republican:

5. Jeb Bush
4. Rick Santorum
3. Paul Ryan
2. Chris Christie
1. Marco Rubio

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Since lower-ranked contenders are basically ranked depending on who doesn't run in front of them (Gillibrand's chances skyrocket if Hillary declines, for example), I'll just place them in a form of power rankings.

1. Rubio
2. Christie
3. Walker
4. Paul
5. Martinez

vs.

1. Hillary
2. Cuomo
3. Gillibrand
4. Schweitzer
5. Biden

The Republican bench is MUCH deeper than the Democrats', although I think a lot of their stars have a higher chance of implosion between now and the primaries. I don't think Martinez runs, but she'll be very formidable if she does and picks the right staff. Not buying the candidacies of Biden, Ryan, or Jindal.

[Blue3]

1. Rubio
2. Christie
...
3. Santorum
4. Paul
5. Walker




1. Hillary
...
2. Cuomo
3. Gillibrand
4. Schweitzer
5. Biden

[Del Tachi]

1.  Chris Christie
2.  Marco Rubio
3.  Bobby Jindal
4.  Rand Paul
5.  John Thune

vs.

1.  Hillary Clinton
2.  Andrew Cuomo
3.  Joe Biden
4.  Mark Warner
5.  Martin O'Malley

[Penelope]

Republicans:

1. Christie
2. Ryan
3. Paul
4. Santorum
5. Jindal

Democrats:

1. O'Malley
2. Patrick
3. Schweitzer
4. Cuomo
5. Warren

[Old Man Svensson]

Republicans:

1. Christie
2. Rubio
3. Jindal
4. Paul
5. Huntsman

Democrats:

1. Clinton
2. O'Malley
3. Cuomo
4. Schweitzer
5. Gillibrand

[publicunofficial]

Dems:

1) Hillary Clinton
2) Joe Biden
3) Andrew Cuomo
4) Martin O'Malley
5) Brian Schweitzer


Reps:

1) Rand Paul
2) Marco Rubio
3) Chris Christie
4) Rick Santorum
5) Jeb Bush

[Maxwell]

Being honest.

Republicans:
1. Rubio
2. Christie
3. Paul
4. Santorum
5. Walker

Democrats:
1. Clinton
2. Cuomo
3. Biden
4. Schweitzer
5. Warren

[Mr. Morden]

Here's my take….

Dems:
1) Clinton
2) Cuomo
3) O'Malley
4) Klobuchar
5) Schweitzer

Commentary:
-Gotta go with Cuomo at #2 if only because his fundraising potential is virtually unlimited.  And he comes across as having the gravitas of a president.  Yes, his problems with the base are real, but he has a lot of time to work on that.

-After Clinton and Cuomo, you could rank the remaining potential candidates in virtually any order.  O'Malley is #3 by default just because there's virtually a 100% chance that he runs if Clinton doesn't.  80% of success in life is just showing up, and that's enough for #3 on this list.

-I see that no one else has included Klobuchar on their list so far.  I just think that if Clinton doesn't run, there'll still be a strong desire within the party to nominate a woman, and Klobuchar is definitely the most likely non-Clinton woman to run.  Gillibrand would be a "better" candidate, but she probably won't run if Cuomo does, and he probably will run if Clinton doesn't.  Warren, meanwhile, has neither said nor done anything to suggest that she's interested in running.  Should also note that people on this forum overestimate the degree to which issues like SOPA would hurt her.  Few voters over the age of 30 are likely to care that much about issues like that.

-Schweitzer is likely to run if Clinton doesn't.  Has the potential for joint appeal among the netroots and rural voters, but I can't quite bring myself to rank him higher than this, because he just doesn't come across as an authoritative figure to me on TV.  I know people praised his convention speeches, but it looked to me like the stage was too big for him.  It's a big step up from Montana politics to national politics, and I'm not sure if he can make the leap.

-Tempted to include Biden, but I think that even if he runs (which, given his age, is not a sure thing) his support will fade once other candidates catch up in name recognition.  His gaffiness would ultimately sink him, given the modern media environment.  It's fine when he's #2, but running on his own, he wouldn't be taken seriously.

GOP:
1) Rubio
2) Christie
3) Paul
4) Jindal
5) Ryan

Commentary:
-Paul at #3 is very tough.  He's given every indication of being interested in running, but I think it's not a sure thing, because it means giving up his Senate seat.  But assuming he does run, I think he'd likely do very well.  But even if he's one of the top two or three contenders, the party establishment will likely rally around whoever his strongest opponent is, because his foreign policy views are toxic to the party leadership.  (Same dynamic as 1996, when the party rallied around Dole after Buchanan won New Hampshire.)  In fact, because of this dynamic, Paul's the only candidate who I could see winning both Iowa and NH, yet losing the nomination.  Still, I suppose Paul might be able to overcome this if he's willing to compromise a bit more on foreign policy.  And so many of the other potential candidates who I'd rank below him are ideologically interchangeable, so Paul is #3 by default.  I mean, his chances of winning the nomination are probably something like 10%, but the field is so large and splintered that that's enough for #3.  (Though, yeah, I'm really tempted to move him lower down the list.)

-Jindal is one of the folks who I just mentioned as being more or less ideologically indistinguishable from other candidates.  However, he's nearly a 100% lock to run, and like O'Malley, just showing up is enough to rank high on the list.  Also, his ethnicity means that he's guaranteed to get a decent amount of media coverage, and so isn't going to fade into oblivion right away.

-Ryan has very strong favorability numbers among Republicans.  The party loves him, even if there aren't many who have him as their #1 choice for president.  But because he's so well liked, if other choices fizzle, he has a good chance of winning.  Tempted to put him higher on the list, but the problem is that I now see him as being less than 50/50 to run in the first place, and you can't win if you don't run.

-Walker would make the top 5 if I knew for certain that Ryan wasn't running.  But Ryan still might run, so Walker doesn't quite make it, since I think Walker would defer to Ryan if Ryan wants to run.  But both of them are young, so 2016 wouldn't be the last chance to run for either of them.

-Santorum, like Jindal, is nearly a 100% lock to run, but he's basically the identity politics candidate for Evangelicals (even though he's Catholic!).  And those candidates always do well, but never win the nomination.  Rather than expanding beyond his 2012 base, he'll probably do worse than 2012, because he faces stiffer competition.  So I can't include him in the top 5.

[Mallory]

This is probably going to be completely wrong considering we're still 3.5 years out, but still...

Republicans

1) Marco Rubio
2) Chris Christie
3) Bob McDonnell
4) Rand Paul
5) Either Brian Sandoval or Susana Martinez

Democrats

1) Andrew Cuomo
2) Brian Schweitzer
3) Martin O'Malley
4) Mark Warner
5) Elizabeth Warren

....

Sorry about the No. 5 Republicans, could choose! I think there's some serious talent there, but I can't see either Martinez or Sandoval raising their profile enough to get through a primary!

[Averroës Nix]

I largely agree with Morden's analysis. A few points of disagreement:

- Gillibrand belongs in the top 5 for the Dems, possibly as high as second. I can't cite anything to suggest that she wouldn't defer to Cuomo, but I'm highly skeptical of the idea that she would.

- O'Malley and Jindal strike me as Pawlenty-esque; each has the qualifications of a first tier contender, but both come across as unremarkable and lacking the presence expected of t a candidate. Their low popularity in their home states is a warning sign.

- Walker belongs in the to 5 for the Reps. The chances of Ryan running seem close to nil at this point.

[NewYorkExpress]

Democrats:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Kirsten Gillibrand
3. Martin O'Malley
4. Brian Schweitzer
5. Joe Biden OR Andrew Cuomo

Republicans:
1. Marco Rubio
2. Rand Paul
3. Jeb Bush
4. Scott Walker
5. Susana Martinez OR Ted Cruz

[xavier110]

Democrats
1. Clinton
2. Biden
3. Cuomo
4. O'Malley
5. Schweitzer

Republicans
1. Christie
2. Rubio
3. Paul
4. Walker
5. Bush

[TDAS04]

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Biden
3. Cuomo
4. Gillibrand
5. Schweitzer

1. Jeb Bush
2. Christie
3. Ryan
4. Santorum
5. Rubio

[BluegrassBlueVote]

The number of lists containing O'Malley's name in this thread either reveals how overstated his chances are or just how shallow the Democratic bench is as of today.

[NHI]

1. Clinton
2. Cuomo/Biden
3. Patrick
4. Schweitzer
5. Warren

1. Rubio
2. Christie
3. Paul
4. Walker
5. Bush

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Republicans:

1. Chris Christie (very good chance he's the only moderate in the field and wins every primary over a divided field.
2. Marco Rubio
3. Rand Paul
4. Scott Walker
5. Jeb Bush

Democrats:

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Elizabeth Warren
3. Kirsten Gillibrand
4. Mark Warner
5. Andrew Cuomo (He won't have the moderate wing to himself like Christie will)

[Fritz]

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Joe Biden
3. Andrew Cuomo
4. Brian Schweitzer
5. Martin O'Malley

1. Jeb Bush
2. Chris Christie
3. Marco Rubio
4. Rand Paul
5. Paul Ryan

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Democrats:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Joe Biden
3. Andrew Cuomo
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Brian Schweitzer

(Warren would be number five, but I don't think she's running.)

Republicans:
1. Marco Rubio
2. Chris Christie
3. Jeb Bush
4. Rick Santorum
5. Susana Martinez

[Mr. Morden]

This is why I can't go along with you guys who are putting Warren way up in 2nd or 3rd place.  The relative evidence of presidential ambition from the three most commonly talked about non-Clinton female presidential contenders, as compiled in the "Who is running?" thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164982.0

Gillibrand

-Created a PAC which donated money to numerous candidates in key races last year in numerous states, including Iowa and New Hampshire.
-Met with the Iowa delegation at the DNC last year.
-Said she would serve out her term and not run for prez, but the denial included some weasel words in case she changes her mind.

Klobuchar

-Met with the Iowa delegation at the DNC last year, said "I can see Iowa from my porch".
-Also met with the South Carolina delegation at the DNC last year.
-Actually, she met with basically everyone in sight at the DNC, and kept appearing on TV every night in interviews.
-Campaigned in Iowa last fall for Christie Vilsack.
-Attended Iowa's inauguration party in January, titled the "First in the Nation Celebration" (hint, hint).
-Told lame jokes at the Gridiron Dinner, where there was a song performed (not by her) about her presidential ambitions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-0vrtsP9Sc
-Denied interest in the presidency after Chris Matthews tried to corner her on it, but the denial was pretty vague.

Warren

-Has made no trips to early primary states, nor met with any key movers and shakers or Super PAC funders or anything of the like.  In general, hasn't done anything to suggest she's interested.
-Not only that, but she's avoiding the national media: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/elizabeth-warrens-silent-senate-approach-87636.html
-When asked about whether she would run for president, this is the answer she gave:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-2016/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bballrox4717]

This is why I can't go along with you guys who are putting Warren way up in 2nd or 3rd place.  The relative evidence of presidential ambition from the three most commonly talked about non-Clinton female presidential contenders, as compiled in the "Who is running?" thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164982.0

Gillibrand

-Created a PAC which donated money to numerous candidates in key races last year in numerous states, including Iowa and New Hampshire.
-Met with the Iowa delegation at the DNC last year.
-Said she would serve out her term and not run for prez, but the denial included some weasel words in case she changes her mind.

Klobuchar

-Met with the Iowa delegation at the DNC last year, said "I can see Iowa from my porch".
-Also met with the South Carolina delegation at the DNC last year.
-Actually, she met with basically everyone in sight at the DNC, and kept appearing on TV every night in interviews.
-Campaigned in Iowa last fall for Christie Vilsack.
-Attended Iowa's inauguration party in January, titled the "First in the Nation Celebration" (hint, hint).
-Told lame jokes at the Gridiron Dinner, where there was a song performed (not by her) about her presidential ambitions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-0vrtsP9Sc
-Denied interest in the presidency after Chris Matthews tried to corner her on it, but the denial was pretty vague.

Warren

-Has made no trips to early primary states, nor met with any key movers and shakers or Super PAC funders or anything of the like.  In general, hasn't done anything to suggest she's interested.
-Not only that, but she's avoiding the national media: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/elizabeth-warrens-silent-senate-approach-87636.html
-When asked about whether she would run for president, this is the answer she gave:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/elizabeth-warren-2016/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would love to see Gillibrand run, but I kind of doubt it if Cuomo runs because they're coming from the same fundraising base. I see her more as VP candidate IMO. If Cuomo and Clinton didn't run I could see her being a frontrunner.

Klobuchar doesn't excite anybody. At least O'Malley has some accomplishments that liberals could be proud of (like the death penalty).

2 and a half years is a long time for Warren to make that call. She already has the name ID and an announcement that she is running would excite the base. Just look at the reception she got at the DNC. I understand it's the trend that the race begins during the previous presidential election lately, but the right candidate who excites the base can rise up in the polls and fundraise well incredibly quickly, especially if the voters aren't excited about the crowd of candidates. We saw it with Perry, though obviously he blew his shot.

I understand your ambition point that she really doesn't seem interested at this point, but the election literally happened 4 months ago. There's time for her to get interested. I'm sure Obama didn't see himself as president in March 2005.

[You kip if you want to...]

Most to least

Democrats
Hillary
Schweitzer
Cuomo
Biden
Gillibrand

GOP
Christie
Rubio
Ryan
Martinez
Thune

[Mister Mets]

Democrats...

1. Hillary Clinton
If she wants it, she's the overwhelming favorite for the nomination. Everyone else would have to fight for it.

2. Kirsten Gilibrand
The party's interested in nominating the first female presidential nominee. Gilibrand also has a liberal record, as well as the ability to sound more moderate than she really is. And the party tends to favor younger candidates. If Hillary doesn't run, she's a strong contender.

3. Deval Patrick
He has a good chance of winning the New Hampshire primary, and getting the support of African-American voters in other primaries. That's a plausible path to the nomination.

4. Andrew Cuomo
Top-tier political talent. Impressive resume and connections.

5. Joe Biden
The party's not eager for a white guy in his 70s, but Biden has drive and resources.

Republicans
1. Chris Christie
Of the top-tier candidates (Jeb, Rubio, Ryan being the others) he seems most likely to run. He's a hell of a campaigner, and can fit the mold of what the party's looking for after the 2012 shellacking (in the Senate races more than in the presidential race).

2. Paul Ryan
National name recognition. Proximity to Iowa.

3. Marco Rubio
It's not clear that he'll run, since his mentor also considering a bid for the office. There are some experience issues, but many Republicans would like to see a conservative version of Obama.

4. Rand Paul
Has his father's network, and the love of certain conservative voters. Also has a good shot at being competitive in every primary.

5. Jeb Bush
He has more connections than anyone else, but he may decide his time has passed. Or the party may convince him that Rubio will be a better fit for rebranding.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Of whom I think will run:

Democrats

1. Andrew Cuomo
2. Brian Schweitzer
3. Kirsten Gillibrand
4. Joe Biden
5. Martin O'Malley

Republicans

1. Marco Rubio
2. Chris Christie
3. Rand Paul
4. John Thune
5. Scott Walker