Who is the most likely person to run for the Dem. nomination besides Clinton?

[Mr. Morden]

Hillary Clinton is presumably the most likely person to run for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, since most of the rest of the field would likely sit out if she doesn't run.

But who's the second most likely person to run?  Not the second most likely to win the nomination, but the second most likely to run for the nomination?

At this point, I'd actually have to go with Sanders.  Since Clinton now seems pretty likely to run, the question is largely "who would still run if Clinton's in the race?".  O'Malley is virtually a lock to run if Clinton bows out, but I don't think he's going to go through with it if Clinton's in the race.  Same for Biden, Klobuchar, etc.  Schweitzer is a possible candidate even if Clinton runs, but I think Sanders is more likely at this point.

[This question obviously excludes no-name non-entities like Vermin Supreme and the like.]

[Frodo]

Bernie Sanders -the party establishment will ultimately decide that a competitive primary is a lesser evil to another Ralph Nader.

[cbannon5]

I think O'Malley has shown that he is preparing for a run in 2016, regardless of whether or not Hillary runs. 

[Bull Moose Base]

Sanders, Schweitzer and O'Malley all sound like they have some willingness to run even knowing they'd lose. And each with their own reason.. Sanders wants to promote his issues and pull Hillary to the left, Schweitzer probably wants to set up a media career and O'Malley would be running for VP. (I bet he wouldn't attack her at all in a primary.) Because Schweitzer's wife is openly opposed to his running, I'd call Sanders and O'Malley 1-2.

[Mr. Morden]

I remain very curious to see if Clinton will agree to debate Sanders (should he be her lone challenger).  And in general, how well he would do.  Of course he's not going to win the nomination, but Clinton (like any frontrunner) will inevitably have a bad week, a gaffe, whatever.  If Sanders is her only challenger he'll get at least some play, and he'll be the face of any discontent with Clinton within the party (and there will surely be *some*).  It's unclear how far he can go with that.  Clinton is still the favorite in all 50 primaries, but Sanders would inevitably do better than the 1% or whatever he's polling at now.

[henster]

I think O'Malley is running regardless of what Clinton does he's ambitious enough and Sanders is a nonfactor he's not a Democrat.

[Suburbia]

Biden, O'Malley.

[© tweed]

I remain very curious to see if Clinton will agree to debate Sanders (should he be her lone challenger).  And in general, how well he would do.  Of course he's not going to win the nomination, but Clinton (like any frontrunner) will inevitably have a bad week, a gaffe, whatever.  If Sanders is her only challenger he'll get at least some play, and he'll be the face of any discontent with Clinton within the party (and there will surely be *some*).  It's unclear how far he can go with that.  Clinton is still the favorite in all 50 primaries, but Sanders would inevitably do better than the 1% or whatever he's polling at now.

don't be surprised if he gets everyone excited by pulling within single digits in a few Univ of New Hampshire polls either

[H. Ross Peron]

Schweitzer or Sanders

[Vosem]

O'Malley may run, he seems too committed not to, but he'll drop out before Iowa; if Mikulski retires it's easy for me to imagine him running for the Senate. Schweitzer and Sanders will run and compete in the early primaries; Schweitzer will represent discontent from the right of the party, Sanders from the left. I doubt either will win any primaries, but I can see both coming within single-digits, in IA and NH respectively. Clinton will have been openly campaigning for almost a year by early 2016; people will find things not to like. Of the two, I think Sanders has the better shot at carrying a primary or two, but he doesn't have the strength to win the nomination regardless of what happens. If Clinton were to crash for some reason and Schweitzer had been campaigning for some time, I could see him beating a late entry and becoming the nominee.

[Likely Voter]

Schweitzer has made it pretty clear he is running, already making some swipes at Hillary. So he seems to be a lock.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sanders, Schweitzer and O'Malley all sound like they have some willingness to run even knowing they'd lose. And each with their own reason.. Sanders wants to promote his issues and pull Hillary to the left, Schweitzer probably wants to set up a media career and O'Malley would be running for VP. (I bet he wouldn't attack her at all in a primary.) Because Schweitzer's wife is openly opposed to his running, I'd call Sanders and O'Malley 1-2.

Sanders seems somewhat reluctant. I mean if there was another good liberal with any chance at all running, there'd be no chance Sanders runs.

[moderatevoter]

Something I don't really understand is (and this could be incredibly dumb of me to ask, but it's 3 AM here):

If Schweitzer was allegedly scared out of running for Senate because of some opposition research against him (which, according to some Politico article even DSCC staff feared would make him unelectable in Montana), then why is he still running for President? Won't the dirt just come out in this race?

Also, I am 99.999% sure O'Malley is going to run.

[BaconBacon96]

Schweitzer and Sanders are both highly likely to run I think. O'Malley certainly has a chance, but he seems more hesitant to run against Clinton than the other two.

[Mr. Morden]

If Schweitzer was allegedly scared out of running for Senate because of some opposition research against him (which, according to some Politico article even DSCC staff feared would make him unelectable in Montana), then why is he still running for President? Won't the dirt just come out in this race?

That assumes that the reason for him skipping the Senate race is because of said oppo research, as opposed to him simply not wanting to waste his time on a Senate race when he'd rather run for president.

[moderatevoter]

Right, that's what I'm getting at. I'm thinking this may be the case.

[IceSpear]

O'Malley may run, he seems too committed not to, but he'll drop out before Iowa; if Mikulski retires it's easy for me to imagine him running for the Senate. Schweitzer and Sanders will run and compete in the early primaries; Schweitzer will represent discontent from the right of the party, Sanders from the left. I doubt either will win any primaries, but I can see both coming within single-digits, in IA and NH respectively. Clinton will have been openly campaigning for almost a year by early 2016; people will find things not to like. Of the two, I think Sanders has the better shot at carrying a primary or two, but he doesn't have the strength to win the nomination regardless of what happens. If Clinton were to crash for some reason and Schweitzer had been campaigning for some time, I could see him beating a late entry and becoming the nominee.

I could see someone gaining traction (though probably not win) against Hillary in Iowa, since it's a quirky anti-establishment state and the caucus system will help them a lot. But NH will be a solid Hillary state. Let's not forget she won it even over Obama in a huge upset.

[ShadowRocket]

I think Sanders and Schweitzer will both run, but Sanders seems more likely between the two since I could see Schweitzer getting cold feet at the last minute.

While he's likelier to run than some of the other non-Hillary prospects, I don't think O'Malley ultimately runs in a field that includes Hillary. Unlike Sanders and Schweitzer, he has time to wait especially if he can win Milkuski's Senate seat in the distant future. Which could happen as early as 2016.