Where will the Democratic Party be post-Hillary?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Whether she runs in 2016 and loses, runs in 2016 and serves one term, or runs and serves two full terms, who will the Democrats and wealthy donors look toward next?  More importantly, who will represent the party when Obama and the Clintons take a more private life?

[BaconBacon96]

Ooh good question. I think Kirsten Gillibrand and Julian Castro are two people that can be expected to become some of the party's leading names after Hillary.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Ooh good question. I think Kirsten Gillibrand and Julian Castro are two people that can be expected to become some of the party's leading names after Hillary.

Have either of those two actually done anything that's notable?

[BaconBacon96]

Ooh good question. I think Kirsten Gillibrand and Julian Castro are two people that can be expected to become some of the party's leading names after Hillary.

Have either of those two actually done anything that's notable?

Well Gillibrand advocated quite strongly for a reform to the way the military handles sexual assault. I think she was going for civilian oversight, but her bill was defeated in favour of a more moderate bill proposed by Claire McCaskill.

As for Castro, I've got nothing.

[Suburbia]

Probably O'Malley, Castro or Gillibrand.

[illegaloperation]

It could be somebody that isn't notable yet. ie. future governor or future senator

[TarHeelDem]

Assuming Hillary picks a young VP I wouldn't be surprised if they take up the mantle after she's done.

[DC Al Fine]

Chelsea Clinton will be in her mid 40's by the time Clinton finishes a second term...

[IceSpear]

Ooh good question. I think Kirsten Gillibrand and Julian Castro are two people that can be expected to become some of the party's leading names after Hillary.

It could be somebody that isn't notable yet. ie. future governor or future senator

Assuming Hillary picks a young VP I wouldn't be surprised if they take up the mantle after she's done.

These, basically.

[Mechaman]

[Mister Mets]

Interesting question.

There are three futures for the Democratic party, and that'll affect the next candidates.

One possibility is that it's a time of relative parity for Democrats and Republicans, with both parties winning the white house every now and then. In that case, we'd likely have a period of Republican victories until a likely currently obscure Democrat wins the White House at some point over a decade from now.

We may be in a period of Democratic domination which would be great news for Hillary's veep, in the likely event she picks someone who wouldn't be too old for the office in 2024.

Republicans could also start winning the majority of elections in which case it doesn't matter who Democrats nominate.

[Mechaman]

Interesting question.

There are three futures for the Democratic party, and that'll affect the next candidates.

One possibility is that it's a time of relative parity for Democrats and Republicans, with both parties winning the white house every now and then. In that case, we'd likely have a period of Republican victories until a likely currently obscure Democrat wins the White House at some point over a decade from now.

We may be in a period of Democratic domination which would be great news for Hillary's veep, in the likely event she picks someone who wouldn't be too old for the office in 2024.

Republicans could also start winning the majority of elections in which case it doesn't matter who Democrats nominate.

So pretty much what has been said for years?

[Del Tachi]

Where was the GOP post-GWB?

Seriously, this line of questioning indicates that at any moment in time the Democrats (or the Republicans for that matter) have a self-appointed monarch ruling over them to decide their fate...let's get real for a moment.

Politics is naturally competitive.  Not only is it competitive between parties, but also within parties and all the way down it the little personal conflicts that happen at Rotary Club meetings in rural Kansas.  Hillary's hold over the Democrats is far from absolute - she has 20 governors, 55 senators, three Presidents, almost 200 congressman, executive bureaucrats, hundreds of partisan judges, thousands of state legislators, many more thousands of local/municipal officials, fundraisers and party kingmakers big and small each with considerable influence within their respective circles each pulling the party in their own unique direction.  That's the way it's always been; why would it ever change?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

They'll find someone else. O'Malley, Schweitzer, Cuomo, Warren, Gillibrand, Warner, Kaine, Castro, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper...... Plenty of people to choose from.

[bballrox4717]

Really, if Hillary wins, there's absolutely no way of knowing since the party will mostly be playing defense outside her first year or two of office.

If Hillary loses, it's really easy to the see the emerging split between Warren/De Blasio type liberals who want the party to focus on both social and economic liberalism and the current status quo Democrats who are socially liberal but economically moderate. For future presidential contenders in 2020 against an incumbent Republican, I'd expect them to mostly come from the Senate or be retired governors since the gubernatorial talent won't really come until 2018.

I'd expect Gillibrand and Booker to be the early presidential favorites immediately following a Clinton loss.

[IceSpear]

Really, if Hillary wins, there's absolutely no way of knowing since the party will mostly be playing defense outside her first year or two of office.

If Hillary loses, it's really easy to the see the emerging split between Warren/De Blasio type liberals who want the party to focus on both social and economic liberalism and the current status quo Democrats who are socially liberal but economically moderate. For future presidential contenders in 2020 against an incumbent Republican, I'd expect them to mostly come from the Senate or be retired governors since the gubernatorial talent won't really come until 2018.

I'd expect Gillibrand and Booker to be the early presidential favorites immediately following a Clinton loss.

I think everyone expected the "Warren vs. Cuomo" schism (obviously most Democrats fall in between these two, but I'm making a point) to play out in 2016, but Hillary is managing to hold this coalition together due to her immense good will within the party, overwhelming popularity, electability, and a desire for a female president. But once Hillary is gone, either due to losing, not running for re-election in 2020, or being termed out, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[jamesyons]

I expect a deep divide where without the leadership and popularity of Hillary Clinton among Democrats there will be a battle between the business types led by Cuomo versus Warren as others have stated and there will probably be another group led by Gillibrand/Castro that will try to continue the Obama political views.

[Non Swing Voter]

Probably a latino candidate.

[cbannon5]

Look out for current Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom from California.  Could become governor in 2018 and then a serious Presidential candidate in 2024.

[eric82oslo]

Look out for current Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom from California.  Could become governor in 2018 and then a serious Presidential candidate in 2024.

Do you guys think that Kamala Harris could be a viable VP choice in let's say 2024 or 2028? She's very smart, very liberal, very photogenic, very easygoing, very full of ideas, does well in interviews and so on. Plus she's Indian-Jamaican. That is half Asian and half Afro-American. Not necessarily a bad combination for the rising majority. The only minus I can think of is that she doesn't seem to excite people all that much, at least not compared to people like Kirsten Gillibrand, Barack Obama or even Julian Castro. However, she could possible be Julian Castro's VP choice in 2024. I imagine a Texas/California ticket could be an extremely strong one in the 2020ies, when the US population has moved even more determinedly south and west. Don't forget that the US population living in the south increased by an ever so shocking 18 million between 2000 and 2010, and the speed of change hasn't seemed to slow down any since then. Besides, California is now back to be one of the fastest growing states in the nation (both population- and economy-wise), after a temporary dip during Schwartzeneger's governorship, when it seemed that California might not be able to attend to its debt obligations anymore, besides living through a major energy shortage/crisis. Those days of worry seem to more or less have been put to rest/to the past, with the revival of California's economy during Governor Jerry Brown's reign. I guess the last VP or presidential candidate from California was Reagan, that's already 25 years ago. California deserves more national attention for sure. Even more so since its only 5 years since the last president from Texas stepped down. Texas is much more out of the mainstream than California has ever been. So much out of the mainstream in fact that their constant chitchatter of dissolving from the union and threat of forming its own nation, in fact never seems to stop, but rather just a cry that's constantly growing stronger (among parts of the Texas grassroots).

[Bojack Horseman]

If you look solely at election trends and not the "red states going for Hillary" polls, the Democrats would probably win about 290-303 electoral votes in 2016. 2020 would be an uphill battle, and I think if Hillary is re-elected, the Republicans will win the White House in 2024. That will mean it'd been 20 straight years since the Republicans won a nationwide election.

[ShadowRocket]

I agree that there would be heightened tension between the populist and business-friendly wings. I think the first time, post-Hillary, when the presidential nomination that the primaries would be fueled largely by that.