Democrats 2016

[humder]

 What Democrats will be interested in running for President in 2016?

[Reaganfan]

The buzz will surround Vice President Biden and Secretary Clinton. I'm guessing that others like Senator Warner may run...but who knows. The Democrats nominate people out of hats. In 1976 it was the random Governor of Georgia, then in 1988 it was the random Governor of Massachusetts, then in 1992 it was the random Governor of Arkansas. In 2004, it was just a random U.S. Senator and in 2008, it was a one-term Senator from a non-swing state.

[phk]

Clinton/Ford might be the ticket in 16' if he redeems himself, if not than its Clinton/Bayh.

[Bacon King]

The buzz will surround Vice President Biden and Secretary Clinton. I'm guessing that others like Senator Warner may run...but who knows. The Democrats nominate people out of hats. In 1976 it was the random Governor of Georgia, then in 1988 it was the random Governor of Massachusetts, then in 1992 it was the random Governor of Arkansas. In 2004, it was just a random U.S. Senator and in 2008, it was a one-term Senator from a non-swing state.

Compared to Republicans:

68: random failed candidate from eight years ago
76: random congressman who had recently randomly became president after randomly being appointed VP
80: random actor / random governor
88: VP of random actor
96: random senator
00: random governor / random son of aforementioned vp of random actor
08: random senator / random failed candidate from eight years before

in other news, the word random starts sounding really weird after you say it in your head over and over like that.

[Mr. Morden]

Yeah, none of the presidential nominees from the last couple of decades were really that "random".  People were talking about Obama as a potential future presidential candidate back in 2004, when he was still running for Senate.  People were talking about Bill Clinton as a future presidential candidate before 1988, etc.

[Middle-aged Europe]

The buzz will surround Vice President Biden and Secretary Clinton. I'm guessing that others like Senator Warner may run...but who knows. The Democrats nominate people out of hats. In 1976 it was the random Governor of Georgia, then in 1988 it was the random Governor of Massachusetts, then in 1992 it was the random Governor of Arkansas. In 2004, it was just a random U.S. Senator and in 2008, it was a one-term Senator from a non-swing state.

Compared to Republicans:

68: random failed candidate from eight years ago
76: random congressman who had recently randomly became president after randomly being appointed VP
80: random actor / random governor
88: VP of random actor
96: random senator
00: random governor / random son of aforementioned vp of random actor
08: random senator / random failed candidate from eight years before

in other news, the word random starts sounding really weird after you say it in your head over and over like that.

However, you might on to something here. The Republicans tend to nominate people who (unsuccessfully) ran as president before.

McCain: tried to become Republican nominee in 2000
Dole: tried to become Repulican nominee in 1988, was the VP nominee in 1976
Bush Sr.: tried to become Republican nominee in 1980
Reagan: tried to become Republican nominee in 1976
Nixon: was the Republican nominee in 1960
Exceptions to the rule: Bush Jr., Ford

The same can't be said about the Democrats. Al Gore ran for president in 1988. And Hubert Humphrey had tried prior to 1968. But that's about it, I think. The Democrats don't usually nominate people who ran for president before. I guess that's bad news for Hillary Clinton. But then again, this might bode well for Romney in 2012.

(Ironically, in 2000 the Democrats nominated someone who had run for president before, but the Republicans chose a first-timer.)

[Lunar]

Brian Schweitzer is already holding events in Iowa and is thus clearly interested in the job.  Take that how you will.  He's folksy and stuff

[Mr. Morden]

However, you might on to something here. The Republicans tend to nominate people who (unsuccessfully) ran as president before.

McCain: tried to become Republican nominee in 2000
Dole: tried to become Repulican nominee in 1988, was the VP nominee in 1976
Bush Sr.: tried to become Republican nominee in 1980
Reagan: tried to become Republican nominee in 1976
Nixon: was the Republican nominee in 1960
Exceptions to the rule: Bush Jr., Ford

The same can't be said about the Democrats. Al Gore ran for president in 1988. And Hubert Humphrey tried prior to 1968. But that's about it, I think. The Democrats don't usually nominate people who ran for president before. Bad news for Hillary Clinton, I guess.

Both parties have some tendency to nominate people with some kind of high national profile (i.e., people who are famous), but that tendency is stronger in the GOP.  Part of that is simply because there are more years in which the Democrats have a field of candidates who are largely unknowns, without high visibility candidates from previous years making another go at it.  (I mean, who would have been the most famous Democratic candidate going in to 1992?  Jerry Brown?)

Then you have cases like 1988, where a high profile retread from the previous election cycle (Hart) *could* have won it, but he shot himself in the foot Plaxico Burress-style.

And then there are cases like 2008, where Obama wasn't famous going *into* the election cycle, but his status as the only black candidate and the only non-Gravel, non-Kucinich candidate to be against the Iraq War from the beginning got him lots of free media, which raised his national profile to the point where his star status was equal to that of Hillary Clinton.

[Lunar]

Personally, I think it has more to do with influence-peddlers and power circles in the Democratic Party being favorable to a non-Clinton or a newcomer while I think such power circles are a little more entrenched in the GOP.  I think people overestimate the logic that the GOP nominee will come from 2008's losers, but a lot of them are currently favored even in my own mental estimates.  Yarr, anyway, I think while the GOP might have a higher tendency to nominate the "next in line," presidential elections are infrequent enough that other items, like electability, could become the forefront characteristics.

[Holmes]

Schweitzer, Sandlin, Kaine, Warner, a Udall, Bayh, Strickland(if he's not hated at the end of his term), Caroline Kennedy!? Nah.

But there will be no Clinton or Biden.

[JSojourner]

Brian Schweitzer is already holding events in Iowa and is thus clearly interested in the job.  Take that how you will.  He's folksy and stuff

Lunar,

Is there a site that tracks who visits Iowa and New Hampshire?  Or do we actually have to do the work of culling multiple sources?  ;-)

I think such a site would be fascinating -- no political commentary.  Just one that reports on any pol who visits these states and then a tally tracking how often.

Is there such an animal?

[tmthforu94]

Maybe it is because I don't follow Democrat politics as much, but I know of very few young Democrats with bright futures. Republicans have a lot. But Democrats, all of the possible contenders are old already.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

The usual bunch. You know all my grandfathers.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, if the Democrats' nominee for the 2016 election is in any way similar too Obama he/she won't become a nationally known figure until about four years from now.

[TheresNoMoney]

Brian Schweitzer. Maybe Martin O'Malley in Maryland?

I do think Hillary Clinton will run for president again as well.

[Bacon King]

Maybe it is because I don't follow Democrat politics as much, but I know of very few young Democrats with bright futures. Republicans have a lot. But Democrats, all of the possible contenders are old already.

Eight years from now the Democrats will have an entirely new batch of possible contenders prepared, I'm sure.

[humder]

 Yep, we have new possible Democrat candidates to be elected in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Mark Warner.

[Matt Damon™]

Scott Kleeb

[Matt Damon™]

Schweitzer owns and would be a far better POTUS than Obama

[justfollowingtheelections]

Assuming that Obama wins again in 2012 and his presidency has been (or at least considered by the public) relatively successful (both likely predictions), Hilary will run.  Whether she will win remains to be seen and will depend on how successful the Obama administration will be.

[WalterMitty]

caroline kennedy.

[they don't love you like i love you]

caroline kennedy.

You all know I am one of the few people on the forum who supports here, and I am now laughing my ass off.

[WalterMitty]

caroline kennedy.

You all know I am one of the few people on the forum who supports here, and I am now laughing my ass off.

she has some improving to do, for sure. but she has seven years to practice.

[Psychic Octopus]

Mark Warner.