If Clinton loses the 2016 GE, is Warren the early 2020 Dem. frontrunner?

[Mr. Morden]

If Clinton runs and wins the 2016 Democratic nomination (largely unopposed, but Sanders, Webb, and maybe one or two others might run against her….but Warren presumably won't), but then goes on to lose the general election to the Republican nominee, does Warren become the early polling leader for the 2020 Democratic nomination and the de facto early frontrunner, despite the fact that she'll be 71 years old on election day 2020?

And how would you then handicap the chances of her actually running in 2020?

[Del Tachi]

Clinton would probably have a youngish running mate in 2016, and I imagine that he would become the prohibitive favorite due to high name recognition.  Someone like Cory Booker could easily become the Democratic front-runner in this scenario; I imagine that Kamala Harris will try establishing a national profile in the Senate as well.   

[Mr. Morden]

Clinton would probably have a youngish running mate in 2016, and I imagine that he would become the prohibitive favorite due to high name recognition.  Someone like Cory Booker could easily become the Democratic front-runner in this scenario; I imagine that Kamala Harris will try establishing a national profile in the Senate as well.   

Her running mate will presumably be someone under 60, yes, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it'll be someone with sufficient charisma to become "the prohibitive favorite".  Tim Kaine, for example, is a decent pol, but I just don't see a losing Clinton/Kaine ticket leading to Kaine-mania in the Democratic Party.  He'd poll well, just because of the name recognition conferred by becoming the VP nominee as you say, sure, but the prohibitive favorite?  I don't see it.

[Del Tachi]

Clinton would probably have a youngish running mate in 2016, and I imagine that he would become the prohibitive favorite due to high name recognition.  Someone like Cory Booker could easily become the Democratic front-runner in this scenario; I imagine that Kamala Harris will try establishing a national profile in the Senate as well.   

Her running mate will presumably be someone under 60, yes, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it'll be someone with sufficient charisma to become "the prohibitive favorite".  Tim Kaine, for example, is a decent pol, but I just don't see a losing Clinton/Kaine ticket leading to Kaine-mania in the Democratic Party.  He'd poll well, just because of the name recognition conferred by becoming the VP nominee as you say, sure, but the prohibitive favorite?  I don't see it.

Didn't Joe Lieberman lead in some early polls for the 2004 Democratic nomination?

[Mr. Morden]

Clinton would probably have a youngish running mate in 2016, and I imagine that he would become the prohibitive favorite due to high name recognition.  Someone like Cory Booker could easily become the Democratic front-runner in this scenario; I imagine that Kamala Harris will try establishing a national profile in the Senate as well.   

Her running mate will presumably be someone under 60, yes, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it'll be someone with sufficient charisma to become "the prohibitive favorite".  Tim Kaine, for example, is a decent pol, but I just don't see a losing Clinton/Kaine ticket leading to Kaine-mania in the Democratic Party.  He'd poll well, just because of the name recognition conferred by becoming the VP nominee as you say, sure, but the prohibitive favorite?  I don't see it.

Didn't Joe Lieberman lead in some early polls for the 2004 Democratic nomination?

Yes, he was leading early on in 2003, because people hardly knew who any of the other candidates were.  Here's a typical poll from that timeframe:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8302/lieberman-leads-field-nine.aspx

But it was pretty widely recognized that this was just an artifact of name recognition, and most people regarded Kerry as the true frontrunner for the nomination.  (A status which he later lost to Dean before gaining it back again.)

[Lincoln Republican]

No.  Too old.

[IceSpear]

Yeah, she'll probably lead in the early polls. I'm not sure whether she'd run at that age though.

[henster]

Gillibrand, Harris, Booker, maybe Duckworth if she wins would be mentioned. I don't think Dems go with an older candidate if Hillary wins.

[Mister Mets]

I'd imagine younger Democrats would get mentioned, and start leading in the polls. Hillary Clinton's running mate will also have a high profile.

The main problem for Warren is there's no indication that she'd want to run at 71.

[TDAS04]

Probably not.  The sexist ageism is unfair but it exists. 

[Mr. Morden]

I realize that being 71 on election day 2020 means there's a good chance that she wouldn't run, but the separate question is whether she would lead the very early polls (which would begin as early as December 2016, if not earlier) for the Democratic nomination, and be regarded as the early frontrunner.  Plenty of voters are ignorant about how old she is, so I don't see why she wouldn't still be strong in the polls for some time.

[Skill and Chance]

Yes, I believe she would run.  And I don't think a male candidate can ever make a female candidate's age a campaign issue without a huge backlash among moderate women.

[ShadowRocket]

I think she would be. Along with whomever Hillary picked as her running mate and maybe Cuomo.

[Mister Mets]

I realize that being 71 on election day 2020 means there's a good chance that she wouldn't run, but the separate question is whether she would lead the very early polls (which would begin as early as December 2016, if not earlier) for the Democratic nomination, and be regarded as the early frontrunner.  Plenty of voters are ignorant about how old she is, so I don't see why she wouldn't still be strong in the polls for some time.

Her age isn't as significant as the perception she's not interested in running.

If she indicated that she might want to run for President in '20, she'd probably poll pretty well in December '16.

Even if she had softened to the idea of running for President, she might not want to express that opinion publicly so early. I doubt it would hurt her chances for reelection, but it makes her a bigger target for Republicans and fellow Democrats.

[Orser67]

Nah, she could definitely be a candidate, but I don't think she'd be the frontrunner. That's partly because I think her strength among Democrats is a little overrated. But also I imagine a few younger liberals will capture the attention of the Democratic Party, while Warren will focus on being a Senator.

[Mr. Morden]

But also I imagine a few younger liberals will capture the attention of the Democratic Party, while Warren will focus on being a Senator.

By "early frontrunner", I mean 2017.  If Clinton loses next year, who will be regarded as the early frontrunner for the 2020 Dem. nomination as of two years from now, in early 2017?  I don't see much of an opportunity for any "younger liberals" to capture the attention of the Democratic Party between now and then except for Clinton's running mate.  And as I said, there's no guarantee that that person is going to catch fire.

An obvious opportunity for someone else to catch fire would be if they ran in the presidential primaries next year, but it looks like Clinton is only going to get token opposition from Sanders and Webb, who are both older than she is.

[bobloblaw]

She'll be older in 2020 than Hillary is in 2016. What is the Dem fascination with geezer leaders? Not one is under 70.

[Skill and Chance]

She'll be older in 2020 than Hillary is in 2016. What is the Dem fascination with geezer leaders? Not one is under 70.

The life expectancy for a woman of their social status is easily in the 90's.  For this reason, it's easy for most people to think of Clinton and Warren as 10 years younger than they actually are.

[Suburbia]

Somewhat. Booker, Gillibrand, O'Malley, Harris will be co-frontrunners as well.

[Bull Moose Base]

But also I imagine a few younger liberals will capture the attention of the Democratic Party, while Warren will focus on being a Senator.

By "early frontrunner", I mean 2017.  If Clinton loses next year, who will be regarded as the early frontrunner for the 2020 Dem. nomination as of two years from now, in early 2017?  I don't see much of an opportunity for any "younger liberals" to capture the attention of the Democratic Party between now and then except for Clinton's running mate.  And as I said, there's no guarantee that that person is going to catch fire.

An obvious opportunity for someone else to catch fire would be if they ran in the presidential primaries next year, but it looks like Clinton is only going to get token opposition from Sanders and Webb, who are both older than she is.

I'd be kind of surprised if Kamala Harris doesn't get a plum speaking slot at the convention. But if Hillary loses, I think we'll see 2020 polls within a few days and Warren will lead them.

I also think even at 71 and with a GOP incumbent, she'd be more likely to run than she is now.

[pikachu]

Maybe. But if she is, it'll be more of a Bush 2016 type of frontrunner than a Romney 2012 type. By 2020, Gillenbrand, Booker, and maybe Harris will be ready to run for President, and they'd provide her with legitimate competition. Also, while this is extremely superficial, it'd be running another 69 year old white woman 4 years after another one failed.

[heatmaster]

If Hillary loses, will it really matter,  who Democrats recruit in 2020? It's virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent President,  and should it be Jeb Bush sitting in the White House come 2020, no Democrat worth there salt will embrace the idea of running,  but 2020 is 5 years away; who knows what will happen over the next two years or so, or longer for that matter. Only the gods only know.

[DS0816]

I don't think Elizabeth Warren is interested in the presidency.

[bobloblaw]

She'll be older in 2020, than Hillary was in 2016. Why this sudden fascination with old candidates?

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

I realize that being 71 on election day 2020 means there's a good chance that she wouldn't run, but the separate question is whether she would lead the very early polls (which would begin as early as December 2016, if not earlier) for the Democratic nomination, and be regarded as the early frontrunner.  Plenty of voters are ignorant about how old she is, so I don't see why she wouldn't still be strong in the polls for some time.

Revisiting what I wrote here: I'd guess that yes, she would lead early polls **if they don't include Sanders as an option**.  Sanders might be too old to run again, but pollsters still might include him.  We'll see.

Clinton would probably have a youngish running mate in 2016, and I imagine that he would become the prohibitive favorite due to high name recognition.  Someone like Cory Booker could easily become the Democratic front-runner in this scenario; I imagine that Kamala Harris will try establishing a national profile in the Senate as well.   

Her running mate will presumably be someone under 60, yes, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it'll be someone with sufficient charisma to become "the prohibitive favorite".  Tim Kaine, for example, is a decent pol, but I just don't see a losing Clinton/Kaine ticket leading to Kaine-mania in the Democratic Party.  He'd poll well, just because of the name recognition conferred by becoming the VP nominee as you say, sure, but the prohibitive favorite?  I don't see it.

Man, I was smart back then.