Cory Booker

[Mister Mets]

With Lautenberg's passing, Cory Booker is likely to become Senator from New Jersey a little bit sooner than expected, assuming there's a special election.

So, does this make him a likelier presidential contender in the next cycle?

As Mayor of Newark, he has gotten more media attention than most Senators. But now he could also serve in statewide office for a little while before the 2016 presidential campaign kicks off. There was some speculation that two years in the Senate wouldn't be enough, but what about three?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Of course it will, but he'd still only have two years in the Senate come 2016. And with his huge ego he'd probably run against Clinton, hoping to pull an Obama.

[Bull Moose Base]

Well, the best parallel for Hillary's invincible position for the nomination is probably Gore 2000... when a New Jersey senator gave him a serious scare in New Hampshire. If Booker is elected this year, he would be green for 2016 but have only one year less than Obama had in the 2008 race and the equivalent experience Christie had (albeit in a different office) for the 2012 race he almost entered. Still, I'd be surprised if he ran. Hillary selecting him as a running mate is a little more plausible if he's elected this year instead of next but I'd still say that's fairly unlikely too.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

He has base problems that Obama did not. He's in a very similar situation to Cuomo, actually - a successful politician with a strong record, but serious issues with the left flank. I don't give him any real shot at upsetting Hilary in the primary.

If she doesn't run, I'd give him decent odds in the primary, but I still suspect he'd lose the primary to the strongest female candidate.

If he gets to the general election, I think he'd lose a close one to Christie but beat most other Republicans.

[Bull Moose Base]

Also, it's not a given that a special election will be held.

[Cryptic]

Even if he is elected to the Senate, I don't see him taking the plunge for President in '16.  He'd probably wait till '20 or '24, depending on the outcome of '16.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

He's ambitious, not stupid.

[bballrox4717]

I don't see it unless there's a huge crowd clamoring for him to get in, which is unlikely.

[Joe Biden 2020]

He is 44 years old right now, so by 2016 he will be 47, 51 by 2020, 55 by 2024.  He's got plenty of time age wise.  I have a funny feeling that if he ran in 2016, he might be seen as too young by enough of the electorate.  He's not a Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or John F. Kennedy.  Those three men had unique circumstances aiding them that Cory Booker does not have.  Plus, if he runs and loses in 2016, it may hurt him for 2020.  Heck, he's young enough that he could hop into the Senate and wait for 2028 where he would still be 59.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I could see Booker agreeing to be the nominee's running mate, but with him having to pull of a special election this year and the general election in 2014, I can't see him wanting to run a race in 2016.  His backers will have donor fatigue.  (I know there's a dispute as to whether the special takes place this year or next, but I red the law as calling for a 2013 special.)

[milhouse24]

He is 44 years old right now, so by 2016 he will be 47, 51 by 2020, 55 by 2024.  He's got plenty of time age wise.  I have a funny feeling that if he ran in 2016, he might be seen as too young by enough of the electorate.  He's not a Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or John F. Kennedy.  Those three men had unique circumstances aiding them that Cory Booker does not have.  Plus, if he runs and loses in 2016, it may hurt him for 2020.  Heck, he's young enough that he could hop into the Senate and wait for 2028 where he would still be 59.

I didn't realize he was 44, I thought he was younger.  I think he's smarter than Obama in governing and management.  Obama's more media-friendly. 

I think putting Booker as VP would excite Young Voters because he has a lot of energy. 

[Rooney]

If Booker has the ambition to be president 2016 would be the year for him to run. Lets say that a miracle happens and a Republican wins the White House in 2016 by 2020 Senator Booker will have a long, "liberal record" that is backed up by Senate roll call votes. A sitting liberal United States Senator has never defeated an incumbent Republican presidential. If Booker becomes a Senator the sooner he runs for president the better before he can gain a long voting record.

[milhouse24]

I actually don't think Christie would win the GOP nomination or the Presidency, so he should jsut appoint himself to the Senate seat, and let Booker run for Governor.

[Blue3]

There's no special election. Christie makes an appointment, who serves through the rest of the term until 2014. This actually weakens Booker's chances, if he now has to go up against a popular Republican moderate who's the incumbent.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He actually thinks that Obama isn't enough of a pawn of Wall Street. If the Democratic party actually stands for anything, he has zero chance.

[PolitiJunkie]

There's no special election. Christie makes an appointment, who serves through the rest of the term until 2014. This actually weakens Booker's chances, if he now has to go up against a popular Republican moderate who's the incumbent.

That isn't necessarily true. The statute is vague. More likely than not, if Christie does not schedule a special election (which he very well may to avoid the controversy), Democrats will sue, and they will win in the very liberal New Jersey Supreme Court.

[Mister Mets]

Now there's going to be a special election in October.

The winner of the special election will start serving his or her term in November.

So, Senator in waiting Cory Booker will probably be a Senator an year and change sooner than he expected. And it's likely he'll get more attention than the typical Senator or Governor the same way winners of offcycle elections like Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie and Scott Brown did.

This may have changed the 2016 primary.

[Reluctant Republican]

Now there's going to be a special election in October.

The winner of the special election will start serving his or her term in November.

So, Senator in waiting Cory Booker will probably be a Senator an year and change sooner than he expected. And it's likely he'll get more attention than the typical Senator or Governor the same way winners of offcycle elections like Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie and Scott Brown did.

This may have changed the 2016 primary.

Has it though? He'd still have less than 2 years in the senate when he would have to announce  a run for president. I'm not suggesting that makes it impossible, but I do think it's a strike against him. I don't think he'll have an issue to run on against Clinton, unlike Obama with the Iraq War. But where would these two differ where Booker's policy would be viewed more favorably by the base? Maybe he would endorse Clinton early and hope his loyalty was rewarded.

Now if Clinton does not run, maybe he could go for it and build a strong candidacy in a weaker field. But I still think he'd jockey for vp rather than run outright. It seems to me Booker does not enjoy taking risks unless the odds are in his favor. A run and loss now risks making him yesterday's news. Best for him to try for vp, where even if he loses, the position ensures he'd be a strong candidate four years later.

[Mister Mets]

Now there's going to be a special election in October.

The winner of the special election will start serving his or her term in November.

So, Senator in waiting Cory Booker will probably be a Senator an year and change sooner than he expected. And it's likely he'll get more attention than the typical Senator or Governor the same way winners of offcycle elections like Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie and Scott Brown did.

This may have changed the 2016 primary.

Has it though? He'd still have less than 2 years in the senate when he would have to announce  a run for president. I'm not suggesting that makes it impossible, but I do think it's a strike against him. I don't think he'll have an issue to run on against Clinton, unlike Obama with the Iraq War. But where would these two differ where Booker's policy would be viewed more favorably by the base? Maybe he would endorse Clinton early and hope his loyalty was rewarded.

Now if Clinton does not run, maybe he could go for it and build a strong candidacy in a weaker field. But I still think he'd jockey for vp rather than run outright. It seems to me Booker does not enjoy taking risks unless the odds are in his favor. A run and loss now risks making him yesterday's news. Best for him to try for vp, where even if he loses, the position ensures he'd be a strong candidate four years later.

It's largely due to other circumstances which may not apply to Booker, but losing vice presidential candidates don't tend to win the party's nomination for President.

He would also be a poor fit geographically for any presidential contenders from the Northeast (Cuomo, Gilibrand, Patrick, Warren.)

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I really don't think he'll even run. Patrick is far closer to Obama and will almost definitely run.

I think there's a pretty good chance for a Jersey vs. Jersey showdown in 2020, though.