Talk Elections

I support Hoffman barely over Feingold.

I voted Giannoulias, but I also support Cuomo, Warner and Booker.

Nobody else?

My preferred candidate is Cuomo, but I would support several other ones as well.

Feingold

Of those listed, Feingold, but I voted Other.

Brian Schweitzer

Well, we know Ben hasn't voted yet, because Warner has no votes.

I vote Warner, Hoffman, Giannoulias, Booker

Schwietzer/Feingold would be a great ticket.

Other : Governor Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota)

 and lol at a black democrat winning the governor mansion in Alabama.

Schweitzer

Cuomo, though it's way too early for this question.

Mark Kirk is going to beat Giannoulias. *fingers crossed*

Anyway, Warner or Feingold.

I want someone on the ticket that will carry electoral strength like a southern or a more balanced ticket.  The current ticket is balanced but not geographically and there is a downside that's why I support a more centrist ticket in the long run like Warner or Schweizer.

I think Warner would beat Cuomo in the primary.

Feingold

Two back to back black presidents? Well, certainly would be interesting, but I can't see it.

I agree with NiK here. One Obama was elected, the pizzazz associated with electing a black President went away, and thus I don't think many people would be extremely eager to see one elected a second time anytime soon.

of these I like Davis the best.
and it would be pretty cool if he could manage to be elected Gov.
though of course I don't live there, but it would be cool for the rest of us. post-racial and all that.

Feingold? I can't see him running.

Fmr. Gov. Tim Kaine
Gov. Cory Booker
Gov. Brian Schweitzer
Gov. Artur Davis
Sen. Russ Feingold
Gov. Andrew Cuomo
Sen. Alexi Giannoulias

Brian Schweitzer

Cory Brooker- I understand people's reservations about the probability of two consecutive black presidents (or two consecutive black Democratic nominees), but Brooker is a different kind of politician than Obama, with a different narrative and a different background.  It won't be lightning striking twice.

For what its worth, I like Cuomo as well, and favor Feingold, although I don't think he's likely at all to run.

Artur Davis or Cory Booker would be good choices, though I don't necessarily favour one over the other.

Feingold.

If Franken were to run however, I would have a hard time choosing between him and Feingold.

Feingold or Cuomo.

Russ Feingold could easily lose this fall.

I am undecided. I am more of a moderate, so I am hoping for someone more moderate, but I also like someone who isn't going to screw around on the issue of actually creating a middle class base through good paying private sector jobs.

Schweitzer because he's the most conservative. If not, I would gladly vote for Bayh.

No, he can't.

If Dave Westlake were nominated, then he would win a landslide. But he only has a 3-point lead over Ron Johnson, and then he only polls at 49. So he very well could loose.

How come you like conservatives so much?

As for Feingold, after seeing Massachusetts this winter, I can see any democrat losing.

Russ Feingold is the only American politician with balls that I am aware of, so him of course.

Who's "David Hoffman"?

And Booker's no governor, nor is Giannoulias a senator, etc.

Hoffman was the guy who ran against Giannoulias in the Democratic primary for IL Governor in 2010. And I think it's implied that Booker and Giannoulias could hold those positions in 2016 (or by that point), rather than now.

How many times do I have to say it before you get it inside your head...Scott Brown would have lost to any competent Democrat.

Sestak. More Conservative.

     Senator Feingold, no question.

Feingold. He actually has some principles, which is pretty damn rare for a Democratic Senator.

Franken?

No. Franken is a sleazeball.

Why? He's funny and he's a good Senator.

He cheated on Frannie and was a major crackhead in the 80s. And he lost his funniness sometime in the 90s. And no, he's not a good Senator.

If you're going to say Franken cheated on his wife and used drugs, then I need some reliable sources or I'm not going to believe that. And Franken is a better Senator than Norm Coleman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken#Saturday_Night_Live
Maybe not cheating, but definatley drugs.

Al Franken groped boob on a subway one time.

Cuomo would be the first Italian American president!  That will bring all the Italian swing voters back to the Democrats.

So he did use cocaine. I never knew that. Well, good thing that he stopped using it. And while I strongly disapprove of Franken doing cocaine, he wasn't the only politician who did something illegal. Obama used cocaine and smoked weed, while many politicians (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and possibly Bush Jr.) just smoked weed.

Italians (and for that matter, most white ethnic groups) really don't care much for identity politics, so I doubt Cuomo would have that kind of impact.

I think most white ethnic groups have strong tendencies to ethnic national candidates.
The Irish will vote for a Kennedy
Mormons will vote for Romney
Jewish people will vote for Lieberman
Italians voted for Giuliani but there aren't as many in Iowa or SC
Evangelical Protestants vote for Dubya

For anyone that lives in the northeast, there are a lot of Italians so its surprising that there's never been an Italian as president but then again, there's only been one Roman Catholic president and 2 nominees (Kerry).  Ferrarro was Italian but she was known more for being a woman.

By white ethnic groups, I didn't mean religious groups. I meant white ethnic groups such as German, Polish, French, Russian, Swedish, etc. For Jewish people, most of them would vote for any Democrat, regardless of whether that Democrat is Jewish. The non-Jewish Obama won 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008. The Kennedys do appeal to many Irish voters, but their appeal is much more broad than that. And I'm honestly not sure most Italians voted for Giuliani, at least not when he ran for President. And I doubt most Italians would really care that much about the fact that we never had an Italian-American President.

Roch, I would say that a ton of politicians did blow. It was the power drug of the '80s, and was big in college in the '60s and '70. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Obama and Bush both cocaine in college. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't!

Also the entire cast of SNL was high pretty much 24/7 during the '80s.

No offense, but I don't think there are enough Jewish people as swing voters to influence a national election.  Maybe if Wall Street bankers donate to one particular candidate giving them a money advantage.  But I'm not sure what you mean by religious groups, since most Italians are Roman Catholic.  I think its kinda weird that you group all white people together and consider Jewish people separate from white people.  You need to recognize there are strong ethnic and religious factions in non-Jewish white people.  The Christian Evangelicals are a very strong group comprised mostly of Anglicans, southern whites protestants with roots in England.  German, Polish and other Northern Europeans are mostly Reformed Christians but there really aren't as many of them in the US as Italians and Irish Catholics. I believe that Italian and Irish groups were heavily segregated in the US because of their Catholic religion and has formed a formidable ethnic and religious group.  Because of this, a prominent Italian American and win swing voters back to the Democratic party.  I don't think the Republicans will ever nominate a Catholic Italian because the Evangelicals have too much power.  I think Hispanics would also be attracted to any white-Catholic candidate. Why would Italians not care about having an Italian president?  Just because the Pope lives in Italy?  I think a moderate Italian can win a lot of Italian republican voters, Pelosi is too liberal.  Giuliani lost votes because there are very few Italians in Iowa, NH, and SC.  I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the influence of ethnic immigrant groups.  Ask an Italian person if they would vote for an Italian or Roman Catholic as president?  Do you think that White Catholics are no longer an influential voter group?

I think you misunderstood my post. I said that I doubt white ethnic groups (and I never said Jews aren't white) really care that much about the ethnicity of a candidate. Many white ethnic groups have intermarried numerous times over the last 150 years, and for a lot of Americans, the only thing Italian, German, French, etc. about them are their last names. Those voters don't care about a candidate's ethnicity. They care more about a candidate's positions on the issues. And I doubt much more Catholics would vote for Cuomo than for another Democrat because we already had a Catholic President (and a Catholic VP) and thus there would nothing new to see here. Identity politics might have mattered a lot to white ethnic groups in 1900, but it sure doesn't now.

Again you seem to group Catholics with Protestant Christianity and there is a huge difference between the two, just as there is a huge difference between Judaism and Roman Catholicism.  You should ask Pat Robertson if there is a difference between Southern Evangelicals and Roman Catholics.  It is true that a lot of Protestant factions have inter-married, but Jews and Catholics have continued to attend their own churches and are more recent immigrants.  It is true that Kennedy was elected in 1960 but he was killed before he finished his term, and many people disliked him and distrusted him because he was Catholic.  That was only 40 years ago, but before that Catholics were segregated and often had to attend different schools!  This may shock you but there are still plenty of families with BOTH catholic parents, Irish-Italian parents are very common.  In the South there is still relative distrust of Catholics from conservative Christians.  That is why I doubt the GOP will ever nominate a Catholic, Jewish, or Mormon as president because the Protestant Evangelicals have too much power.  I think a moderate Italian-American Democrat will be able to win back those Republican Catholics.  Remember, until Reagan, most Catholics voted for Democrats on social issues because Catholics were Union Workers who were segregated and oppressed in society since the 1920s.  If Cuomo wins the NYS Governor, he will have convinced the NYC Italian Republicans to vote for him (the ex-Giuliani voters).  I also think Italian-Catholics in Ohio and Florida will vote for someone like Cuomo for President.  We had an Irish-Catholic president but we never had an Italian-Catholic president and it would still be an interesting media story.  If white ethnic groups don't matter, then why did you say Jewish voters voted for Obama, when the GOP is more tough on Mid-east enemies and protecting Israel and has Lieberman's defection?  I know more Jewish Republicans than Jewish Democrats. 

Those are all religious groups, and religious groups in the U.S. are composed of several different ethnic groups (due to intermarriage). In my first post, I was talking about white ethnic groups, not white religious groups. Two different things.

Most Italian-Americans ARE also Italian-Catholics and at least my personal experience a lot of Italian-Americans with BOTH Italian Parents.  Most white Catholics have parents that are either Italian, Irish, or Latino.  That doesn't really qualify as a whole lot of intermarriage with white protestants.  The Italian-American Roman Catholic churches are still very influential and there are lots of Little Italy towns and Parades, so I sincerely doubt that Italian-Americans have fully mixed with other white protestants.  I'm specifically talking about Roman Catholics and most Italian-Americans are Roman Catholics.  Sure some wasps have converted to Catholicism like Newt and Brownback.  But for the most part, Roman Catholics are Irish, Italian, and Hispanics.  That is why I think a moderate Italian-American candidate can rally Italian-Americans to the Democratic Party as swing voters.  Even voters who are half-Italian maybe inclined to vote for Cuomo than the GOP nominee.  Italian-Americans clearly make up a strong ethnic group if they decide to side with Cuomo.  Italian-Americans are clearly a different ethnic group than white-protestants/evangelicals.

Most Catholics in the U.S. have many different ethnic backgrounds. Most of them probably have some German, English, French, Swedish, and other ancestors as well. Most of the people I know who are Catholic don't care about whether a particular candidate is Catholic or not or about the ethnic origin of a particular candidate. They just look at the issues and at a candidate's charisma. Just because someone self-identifies as Italian-American doesn't mean they don't have other ancestries and doesn't mean that they will vote for a candidate just because that candidate is Italian/Catholic. Heck, Joe Biden is our first Catholic VP, but I doubt Obama did much better among Catholics than Gore or Kerry did relative to the national average. Most Catholics just didn't really care that much about electing our first Catholic VP. Even electing a Catholic President is nothing new. And the U.S. is a much different and more tolerant place now than it was in 1960. Thus, I doubt Cuomo would do much better with Catholics and Italian-Americans than Obama did relative to the national average. And again, White Protestants and Evangelicals are not ethnic groups--they are religious groups composed of several different ethnic groups.

I'm not sure why you continue to think that Italian-Americans don't exist in present day as an ethnic group, with dual Italian parents. Andrew Cuomo has both Italian parents and he was married to an Irish Catholic Kennedy.  The largest Catholic groups in America are Italians, Irish, and Hispanics.  Most French and Polish immigrants are Catholic as well.  
My point is that in a close election, every vote counts and Italian-Americans are large enough ethnic group to sway the election in Ohio and Florida.  You are Simply Wrong that the Catholic vote doesn't matter.  The Catholic vote is a significant swing vote and it helped GWB win the election primary because Bush was pro-life and anti-Gay marriage.  Here are some stats I found.
"Bush won Catholics 52%-47% in 2004, while Al Gore carried them 50%-46% in 2000".  
That's a big change and Kerry was seen as a very liberal pro-choice denounced catholic.
"In Ohio, Bush got 55% of the Catholic vote in 2004 compared to just under 50% of them in 2000. That means a shift of 172,000 votes into the Republican column. Bush won the state by just 136,000 votes this year."
"Obama won Catholics at 54 percent versus 45 percent for McCain"
The problem that Cuomo would face would be against the Catholic church which would denounce him as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, so maybe being Catholic is a liability because it will highlight the social issues of abortion and divide catholic voters, while also alienating evangelical southerners.  But Cuomo could win Ohio which has a large Italian-American population.
As I said before most Italians are not white-protestants.  Most ethnic Italians, Irish, and Hispanics are not white-protestants.  White Protestants are english, german, and northern europeans.

I never said Italian-Americans aren't a unique ethnic group. I just said identity politics among them isn't nearly as strong as it once was. Just because someone's parents are Italian doesn't mean he/she is more likely to vote for an Italian-American candidate. And in regards to your statistics, Bush got 3% more nationwide in 2004 than in 2000. Thus, the Catholic vote only trended 3% in his direction between 2000 and 2004. That's not much. Also, Obama got 5% more nationwide in 2008 than Kerry got in 2004. Thus, the Catholic vote only trended 2% in his direction between 2004 and 2008. That's not much either, and that was when the Democrats nominated the first Catholic VP. (Also, Biden's position on abortion doesn't appear to have alienated any Catholics.) Keep in mind that there is a difference between a swing and a trend. Since we already elected a Catholic President, I doubt nominating another Catholic would cause a huge trend in the Catholic vote in favor of the Catholic candidate. Just like I doubt that another black candidate would get 90+% of the black vote in the Democratic primaries if he ran for President. Since we have already elected a black (and a Catholic) President, there is nothing new to see here and people aren't going to be as enthusiastic about electing one as they were the first time around.

You doubt the Catholic vote matters yet Gore lost by 100 votes and Kerry barely lost Ohio.  I say every vote counts, and while you think Biden was ineffective, I think he was very effective at keeping Irish Catholic union swing voters (which HIllary won by large margins against Obama and they would have possibly defected to McCain).  I also think America has a strong Italian neighborhood culture and strong Roman Catholic church groups, so having the first Italian-American president would excite these Swing groups.  Kennedy was Irish but Cuomo is Italian.  That is a huge ethnic difference. If it is a close election, it would be a beneficial issue.

I never said the Catholic vote doesn't matter. I just don't think Catholics are as susceptible to identity politics as other groups are. The main reason that Gore and Kerry lost wasn't due to the Catholic vote. It was because they were poor candidates and didn't really do that well nationwide. And since Catholics only trended 2% in 2008, I doubt Biden helped Obama much with Catholics. Most Hillary supporters went to Obama anyway, and I doubt Biden was the reason for that. McCain and Palin just discredited themselves to the extent that most Hillary supporters saw Obama as the best option. I don't know anyone Italian who really cares that much about having an Italian-American President. Outside of Little Italy in NYC, I doubt most voters are going to care about that. And since we already had a Catholic President, electing another one isn't going to be a huge deal to anyone. My original post was that most Italian-Americans don't care much about identity politics, and I stand by that statement.

So Dubya was a good candidate cuz he beat Gore by 100 votes in Florida?  Dubya won the Catholic vote on abortion issue.  If Obama picked Bayh, and McCain picked someone else, Blue Collar Union Catholics would have gone to McCain.  You can have your doubts, but if Cuomo is on the ticket, Hispanic Catholics will also vote for him, and put him over the top.  There has been no top Italian candidate, except for Giuliani and HE WAS ON TOP of the polls so someone out there said they would vote for him.  I'm sure no one will tell you they Need an Italian president, but if its a moderate Italian on the ticket like Cuomo, he will get the Italian vote, guaranteed.  Someone like Pelosi is seen as too liberal.

Actually Gore won the Catholic vote in 2000. If Gore would have opposed abortion, he would have lost most of the pro-abortion Catholics (as well as the Democratic base) which voted for him, without gaining many voters that went for Bush. From these exit polls, it appears that about half of Catholics support abortion. And I never said Bush was a good candidate. I just said Gore was a bad one because all the issues in 2000 favored him and yet he still lost. I seriously doubt Catholics would have voted for McCain if Obama would have picked a different VP. Latino Catholics already vote for the Democrats (including non-Catholic Democrats), so having them vote for Cuomo won't be anything new. Giuliani overwhelmingly lost in the end and the reason he was leading in some polls wasn't because he was Italian--it was because a lot of people still remembered him for 9/11. And Cuomo could just as easily get painted as too liberal--I mean, Republicans try to portray all Democrats as too liberal. And if you said Bush won Catholics due to the abortion issue, don't that mean Cuomo is going to lose Catholics due to the abortion issue as well? I mean, Kerry was also Catholic, just like Cuomo is. And thus, I still think that Cuomo won't do much better with Catholics relative to the national average than Obama did in 2008. I guess we'll see whether I'm right if Cuomo ever runs for President and wins the Democratic nomination.

Biden was chosen because he appealed to working class Irish/Italian Union Catholics, who had also voted for HIllary in the primaries.  If McCain picked a Catholic VP like Santorum, he might have picked up PA.  Bush won a fair share of Hispanics in 2000 and 2004.  Giuliani may have been perceived as liberal, but he did top polls because blue state catholics answered the polls.  But why would a catholic in Iowa, NH or SC vote for Huckabee, McCain, or Thompson because none of those 3 are appealing to a republican catholic.  Huckabee is a pro-life evangelica and raised taxes, McCain is a military war hero with no economic experience, and Thompson was a lazy country grandpa.  Who was answering the polls and why did they not vote for Giuliani?  Cuomo DOES risk losing catholic voters, but he is hoping that Italians will still support him based on ethnicity over religious dogma, because after all, Giuliani was pro-choice and all the Catholic republicans in NYC voted for him.  Sure some CAtholics may be concerned on abortion, but if a candidate is a Moderate on the Economy, Cuomo can keep those Fiscally minded Catholics.  Also, since most Blue Collar Union Catholics voted for HIllary in the Primary, they will also likely vote for Cuomo in the primary giving him the Nomination, most likely.  As for Kerry, he was neither Italian or Irish, so he never had a core ethnic voter group to appeal to.  Kerry's father is a converted Roman Catholic Jewish man and his mother was a Blue-blood.  Kerry spoke french and had a snobbier childhood than Dubya, so Kerry never connected very well with Blue-collar catholics in a way that the Irish Kennedy could. But my point is that Political STrategists try to appeal to ethnic and religious groups because it can help their Candidate get votes.  Sure, it is good to focus on issues, but Campaigns want to focus on the heart and forming a familial bond with the candidate and this is done through religion, ethnicity, geography, so voters can welcome the Candidate as if they were part of their extended family.  They want the candidate to connect on a very personal level to maintain and sustain the votes.

No, Biden was primarily picked to counter claims that Obama was inexperienced. I clearly remember the 2008 campaign, so I know. This is the same reason for why Cheney was picked in 2000. McCain would not have won PA no matter who he picked for VP. Obama won the state by double-digits and Santorum was voted out in a landslide in 2006. Bush wasn't Catholic, so what's your point about him winning some Latinos? You're making a lot of assumptions about how blue-collar Catholics vote. They didn't vote for Biden in the 2008 Democratic primaries. Why would they necessarily vote for Cuomo? Catholics don't subscribe to identity politics, as evidenced in 2004. No one cared what Kerry's ethnicity or religion was. I didn't hear anyone complaining that Kerry wasn't Irish or Italian, or about the fact that his dad was Jewish and his mom was French. Kerry did worse than Gore among Catholics despite the fact that he was Catholic and Gore was not. JFK was also a spoiled rich kid, maybe even to a greater extent than Kerry was. The reason he did a better job appealing to Catholics than Kerry did was because Catholics were excited to elect the first Catholic President, but since electing Kerry would have been nothing new, his religion wasn't a big deal among Catholics. And again, if candidates are going to talk about race, religion, and ethnicity too much, then they risk dividing and alienating many voters. I know appealing to certain ethnic and religious groups is important, but not all ethnic and religious groups subscribe to identity politics nowadays, and thus that is not the best way to appeal to them.

Well, Evan Bayh had more Senate and Executive experience than Obama as well, so why was Biden chosen then?  JFK appealed to Irish Catholics primarily but I'm sure Italians also voted for him.  I actually think Kerry lost votes because people thought he was a French-speaking liberal European socialist, and not a true American Christian Texan like Bush.  Dubya's ethnicity of a Wasp helped him secure more votes from the Christian Conservative voters.

Obama picked Biden over Bayh because picking Bayh would have meant losing a Senate seat (which would have made it harder for Obama to push through his agenda) and also because the Democratic base was less happy with Bayh because he was more conservative than Biden.    I agree that Kerry lost votes due to perceptions of him being an elitist, but this just strengthens my point that identity politics don't work as well with Catholics as it used to. Also, this proves my point that I doubt Cuomo will do significantly better than Obama did with Catholics relative to the national average if the Democrats nominate him.

Again you seem to be grouping Italian-Catholics with Irish-Catholics.  There was an Irish President, but there has not been an Italian president.  There may also someday be an HIspanic-Catholic president.  Kerry was neither Irish or Italian.  Bush won because he won Christian Conservatives, so identity politics helped him in that instance.  Also, Dodd or Richardson could have been picked over Biden as well.

Senator Russ Feingold or Andrew Cuomo.  I think Andrew Cuomo would run the strongest, since his family has so much name recognition.   

I seriously doubt any Irish-American or Italian-American voters voted against Kerry because he wasn't Irish or Italian. This isn't 1900. An Irish or Italian candidate with the same record, personality, and campaign as Kerry would have still lost by about the same margin to Bush. I never said anything about Evangelicals, so that's irrelevant. Chris Dodd was a bad VP pick because he was too closely tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Richardson was considered a bad VP pick because he had some corruption allegations and also because Obama's campaign feared that having a black and a Latino on the same ticket might be too much for many voters.

Basically nobody knew this. He's a Catholic from Boston named Kerry. It's reasonable to assume he's Irish.

Did you ever think that Obama just liked Biden better than Bayh? I bet someone looked at it as analytically as you like Axelrod or Plouffe, but in the end they were both safe choices.

I like Feingold and Cuomo for 2016 as of right now (I voted for Cuomo on this thread).

I think Sen. Alexi Giannoulias would be good looking enough to run.

Kerry downplayed it a lot, but most people in Boston knew he was not irish after the globe reported about his father and grandfather's name change.  Kerry downplayed being catholic as well.  It made him seem like he wasn't proud of being himself, a rich european prep schooler.

Again, I will state that Italian-Americans will vote for a moderate Italian candidate like Cuomo.  How do you explain how Giuliani won the NYC mayorship when the city is completely Democratic?  How did Bloomberg win the mayorship?  Surely neither of their ethnicities swayed voters across the political aisle.

No, Italian-Americans will not necessarily vote for a moderate Italian candidate. They might if that candidate has good positions on the issues, but they won't vote for a candidate just because that candidate is Italian. NYC is only Democratic when it comes to Presidential and Congressional races. When local races (Mayor, etc.) are concerned, NYC is willing to elect Republican candidates if they have good platforms and run good campaigns. This is similar to how some states are solidly Democratic on the Presidential level but have no problem electing Republican candidates to local office if those candidates appeal to them. And NYC had Italian-American and Jewish-American mayors before Giuliani and Bloomberg came to power. Thus, electing an Italian or Jewish mayor wasn't a new thing and thus I doubt that the main reason Giuliani and Bloomberg won was due to their ethnicity. They won because they were good candidates and ran good campaigns, plus the Democrats might not have nominated the best candidates that they had.

Kerry still won MA in a landslide, though, so those revelations about his ethnicity didn't affect him there. Plus, I doubt the nationwide media covered this story that much, since they had better things to focus on (Iraq, etc.). And I doubt most voters really cared about Kerry downplaying his religion. Many Presidential candidates have downplayed their religion in recent years, including JFK. And Kerry wasn't the only spoiled rich kid running in 2004. Bush was also a spoiled rich kid who had everything handed to him, and unlike Kerry, Bush was also a draft dodger.

I think Bush won because he created this Christian Texan American Military Personality, and played it up to the Evangelical crowd and rallied voters to his identity.  That is basic politics, creating a candidate that is a larger than life personality in a few short Buzz Words for Media and Voter consumption.  Politicians have now become Characters in a 30 second commercial or 1 hour debate.  IMAGE is everything in Politics and how you sell yourself.

Rudy was the first NYC republican since 1973, so while he was a great candidate, he might have won with some voters who chose were biased because of religion or Italian-heritage over the African-American Dinkens. 

Maybe NYC is now more Republican, but from personal and statistical experience it is not republican at any level.  Bloomberg won because he had strong support from Jewish voters who traditionally vote Democratic.  You should do some research as NYC is comprised of almost entirely minorities, Catholics, and Jewish people who traditionally vote Democrat.  It is more likely for the NYC mayor to be a minority religion than a White-Protestant.

I agree that image matters a lot but I just wanted to point out that Bush was also a spoiled rich kid. Also, I just want to repeat my point that I seriously doubt Kerry lost a lot of votes due to his ethnicity. The mainstream media didn't really report the story about his ethnicity since they had better things to focus on.

Actually, Dinkins primarily lost because of his policies as Mayor, rather than due to Giuliani's ethnicity. Also, Bloomberg primarily won due to Giuliani's popularity and due to 9/11. I seriously doubt ethnicity played that much of a role in either Giuliani's or Bloomberg's victories. Maybe many people in NYC were just tired of 20 years of Democratic rule. And again, just because NYC votes Democratic for President and Congress doesn't mean that it is unwilling to elect Republicans to local offices. A lot of other areas are this way as well--some states in new England, some areas in California, etc. Presidential results and results for local offices don't always have to match or be identical.

Why is Tim Kaine on this list?  Do people realize that if Democrats do horribly in 2010, Kaine will likely be banished from Democratic party politics forever?  Who's next?  1993-1994 DNC Chair David Wilhelm for VP?

I doubt that Kaine would be that negatively affected if Dems do poorly in 2010. Most Dems don't know who Kaine is. Even once they would know more about him, they'd cut him some slack since 2010 was bound to be a bad year for the Dems.

You're just making guesses and assumptions.  I'm going on statistical analysis on demographics as an instrument for viewing voting and population trends.  Just because you don't want to believe ethnicity plays a role in politics, doesn't make it not true.  Because we live in a democracy, the person who is able to appeal to the widest number of people will win, and this often involves, personality, religion, race, experience, regionally, etc. 

The reason that I'm making these assumptions is because I didn't see any clear evidence that Giualiani and Bloomberg won due to the Italian/Jewish vote and I also didn't see any evidence that their ethnicity was the main reason that many voters voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg. Unless you give me solid statistical data, then my assumptions aren't necessarily going to be wrong.

I think that the fact that they won proved that Italian voters and Jewish voters crossed party lines to vote for them.  If both were White Protestants, there may be other sets of data available.  There are many powerful political consultants that seek to sway voting groups to party candidates, you may not choose to believe this, but their job is make sure that Democrats hold on to the Union vote, the Jewish vote, the Catholic vote, the Black vote, etc.  There are no longer political machines, but politicans grasp at anything they can get for polling data.  Also, Ronald Reagan won over many Catholic Democratic voters, these were called Reagan Democrats.  "Reagan" had a father who was Irish-Catholic, and Reagan is a very popular Irish name.  It certainly helped him convince Irish voters to trust him and cross over.  For Kerry, perhaps he would have lost more if he had a different last name.

I know that many political consultants try to appeal to different ethnic and religious groups. However, just because Giuliani and Bloomberg won doesn't necessarily mean a lot of Italians and Jews who typically vote Democratic voted for them. Both of them could have won by doing much better among groups other than Italians and Jews than previous Republican candidates did.

Okay, lets say NYC is 40% Catholic and is 15% Jewish and 25% Black.  The White Protestant population is in the minority and the Italian-Catholic and Jewish groups have a lot of influence in the voting outcomes of the election, especially in a close election.  Lets say most White Protestants vote Republican, that still is less than half of the NYC population, so He would need to get votes from Blacks, Jews, Catholics, and Hispanics.  Thus, he wins the mayoral election.

In 2016, I think the field will include Andrew Cuomo, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, and maybe Mark Warner. Brian Schweitzer may run, but despite his popularity with the netroots, he strikes me as an also-ran.

I think it'll come down to Cuomo vs. Klobuchar.

Obviously, it's really far too early to be forecasting any of this. So we can probably dig this thread out in six years and laugh at these predictions, including mine. For all we know, maybe Cuomo will self-destruct a la Spitzer. Maybe Klobuchar will unexpectedly lose reelection in 2012. Who knows?

You mean Cuomo's wife would leave him and cheat on him? 
I think Hillary would run again.  Warner is running, Bayh is running.

I think he means Cuomo could get into any kind of scandal. And I doubt Warner and Bayh would run if Hillary runs. She'd have too much name recognition and fundraising connections for them to bother running if she runs.

Cuomo's wife did leave him and cheat on him, but she was a Kennedy. 
Bayh's a wimp, hopefully he'll grow some stones and run for president, because he badly wants to but no one seems to like him in that way.  He's sucking on Hillarys milk and is her boy toy whipping boy praying for the vp slot.
Warner will run, he's not afraid of Hillary, plus he's rich so it doesn't matter.

I doubt Warner would want to run against Hillary's campaign machine. It would be a futile effort and he would really fail to distunish himself in any way. Besides, I doubt Warner has Presidential ambitions at this point (he might have had some before 2008, but that time is gone now) and I doubt he'd want to subject himself to the stresses of running a very long campaign.

wow, that's a lot of guessing about warner.  Unlike you, most people aren't afraid of Hillary including Obama and Biden and they beat her, so sometimes people get lucky.  Again, Warner's rich so why does he care about wasting time or money, he's got the rest of his life to be a senator but realistically only 1 chance before he gets too old to win the presidency.

I'm not afraid of Hillary. I am a realist, though. Obama only narrowly beat her in 2008, and that was an election where change and Iraq (both of which favored Obama) were huge issues. If Obama is reelected and Hillary decides to run, then things are probably going well in the country and thus Democrats are going to want someone with experience and ties to the current administration. Who's better to fit the bill than Hillary? No one. If the issues and atmosphere in 2016 favor Hillary, then I doubt Warner would run. He sure didn't in 2008, when many Democrats wanted a fresh face (and Warner fit the bill). Warner would have no appealing message like Obama did and unlike Obama, he would be unable to compete with Hillary's massive fundraising. Besides, Hillary would get full support from the Obama administration if she decides to run. I'm not sure Warner even wants to be President and even if one is rich, running for President is still a very stressful job and not many people are up for it. If Hillary doesn't run in 2016, then Warner could definitely run, though. I just doubt he'd want to compete against Hillary.

I agree. even though it is ridiculous to guess this far out, but if the Obama administration is seen as successful in 2016 then Hillary will clearly become the establishment/frontrunner candidate and will command most of the media attention in the leadup to entering the race. Not saying she'll win, but she will be the frontrunner. The only way I could see it going differently is if for some reason Obama makes it privately known that he is actively favoring another candidate for the nomination or something, which is very unlikely.

I'm also a realist and Hillary would be quite old by then, and she will also have to face the same issue of Dynastic rule and Nepotism that is despised by Democrats and embraced by Republicans.  I actually think Obama should nominate her for Supreme Court justice.
Hillary should have won in 2008 given her money, but Obama got higher name recognition and anti-war momentum.  Warner had neither the national name recognition or anti-war stance.  He simply was not ready, but in 2016, Warner would have won 3 elections in Virginia and be the right age to serve as President.  He's also very rich so money and fundraising is not essential and will not scare him off.  All Rich guys want to be president.  I find it hard to believe axelrod, gibbs, etc will jump on hillary's bandwagon of DLC politics.  Warner has wanted to be President all his life, I doubt he'll give up now that he is so close.  I'm really surprised you're so anti-Warner since everyone here considers him a national contender. I doubt stress is going to scare him off, thats a lame excuse for anyone.  If that's the case, he should just retire and live on a tropical island somewhere.  Also, anyone who wants to be considered as VP absolutely needs to run for President, since being VP means having the experience and mental preparation to take over the Presidency.  We've all seen inexperienced VP candidates really tank their ticket like Palin, John Edwards, Quayle.  If Warner wants to be considered Hillary's VP, then he absolutely needs to prove to the American public that he has the experience, knowledge, and presidential readyness to serve as VP.

In 2016, Hillary would be younger than McCain was in 2008. McCain's age wasn't much of an issue in 2008, and considering Hillary has even less health problems than McCain, her age won't be much of an issue as well. Not all Democrats are against nepotism and political dynasties--Hillary did get 18 million votes, after all. If Obama appoints her to the Supreme Court, then obviously she won't be running in 2016, but I don't see him doing that. In 2008, Warner had the advantages of being a fresh face and an electable moderate, two qualities which many Democrats wanted that year. Also, Warner was Virginia Governor for just as long as Obama was in the Senate. Thus, Warner did have the necessary experience to run for President in 2008. In 2016, he will still have low name recognition and would be trailing Hillary in the polls by huge margins. Also, there would be no strong argument that he could use to explain why he would be a better President than Hillary. Not all rich guys and politicians want to be President. It is a very stressful job after all. Besides, what's the point of spending tens of millions of your own money on a losing effort? There is no point. Mario Cuomo sure didn't run for President, and he had great chances to win in 1988 and 1992. Also, thinking about running for President and actually doing it are two totally different things. Not many politicians can handle giving 10-20 speeches a day almost every day for a year or two. Extremely heavy campaigning like that is too much for many politicians, and thus many of them decide to never run for President. Heck, some Congressmen this year retired just because they had competitive races for the first time in a long while. Also, Michelle Obama opposed her husband running in 2008 because of the stress and pressure on their family resulting from a Presidential campaign. Politicians are human too, and many of them don't have the heart or desire to conduct a Presidential campaign. Obama will support Hillary in 2016 unless Biden also runs. At the very worst, he will remain neutral. Obama is simply not going to oppose a member of his Administration, though. Warner will have a very steep hill to climb in 2016, possibly a steeper hill than in 2008. Hillary will have almost 18 million supporters in 2016, most of whom will stick by her no matter what. Even some Obama voters would support Hillary since she is a member of his Administration and due to Bill Clinton's influence. It would be extremely hard for Warner to establish such a huge base of supporters and also to fundraise as much as Hillary would. Also, Warner would have no effective message against Hillary and he is much less charismatic than Obama. It is pretty rare for runner ups to be picked as VP. The only times since 1940 that this occured was in 1960 (for the Dems), 1988 (for the GOP), and 2008 (for the Dems again). Biden's Presidential campaign in 2008 was a completely joke, though, so he doesn't really count. I don't think running for President necessarily increases one's odds of being picked for VP. There are other ways of increasing one's odds at the VP slot, such as personally lobbying the winning candidate. Besides, I'm not really sure if Warner even wants to be VP or President now. He was never close to becoming President and I'm not sure he even wants the job anymore. I doubt he is losing sleep at night due to the fact that he never became President. I'm not anti-Warner. I think he would make a decent President. I just don't think he will run with Hillary in the race. Many people here thought Warner would run in 2008 (which would have been a great year for him)--he didn't. Speculating about Warner running in 2016 on an obscure political forum doesn't mean that he is going to run. Again, if Hillary runs, then the country is doing well and Warner would have absolutely nothing to run on. Democrats are going to want someone from the Obama Administration, and Hillary fits the bill. Thus, if Hillary runs in 2016, I seriously doubt Warner will run as well.

I would like it if Anthony Wiener were president, but he wouldn't win if he ran...

Well, you may be age-blind, but I was worried that McCain would die and leave Palin in charge during his 4 years in office.  I'm sure many people had the same thoughts. In fact, I think you are very wrong that McCain's age was never an issue, even if subliminally or about his senility.  As someone who preferred Obama over Hillary, I would say it will always be a sticking point about nepotism and dynasties, particularly with the disaster of Bush Jr.  While Clinton 2nd would have done better, Democrats wanted a completely New Face.  Only "One Person" can be that New Face and the obvious choice was Obama given his 2004 speech.  Warner would have just been Obama-lite in terms of freshness and changeyness and more experienced than Obama.  Remember, it was Obama's lack of time in Washington that he promoted Grassroots Change.  If it were only Warner vs. Obama, Warner would have still lost because Obama carried the mantle of "Change for the sake of Change."  Warner is simply not as exciting as Obama in 2008.  But in 2016, Warner is a red-state Democrat and well known nationally by all Democrats, he gave a speech at the 2008 DNC convention.  Warner is MY Frontrunner for 2016, with Cuomo in 2nd.  Just because Hillary is famous now, doesn't mean the votes will be there in 2016.  A lot can happen by then to America, the economy, and to her life.  She will be older and I doubt she has the stamina for another tough race.  Biden would run, Kerry might run again, Bayh would run, Cuomo would run.  I just find it comical that the Democrats would all fold and let her run by herself, because as we saw in 2008, a person can come from nowhere and become a dragon-slayer, and Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, etc were not scared of Hillary in 2008 and no one else will be scared of running in 2016.  Obama won because he was the anti-Hillary, someone who was anti-war, liberal grassroots lefty, Howard Dean wing of the party supporter.  Warner can win Iowa and SC.  Cuomo wins NH.  Warner is well-liked, successful, smart, competent, executive, and financially competent. Do you know nothing about Mark Warner?  High school class president, attended GWU in DC, interned with several Democrats, Harvard Law School, ran for Senator, ran for Governor.  Trust me, I guarantee you he wants to someday be President, take it to the Bank. 
As for spending money, Bloomberg spent 100 million on his re-election because no one else could do a better job.  Its about a rich man's ego, but Warner is also a competent and experienced executive.  Do you think that Hillary will be SOS for all 8 years?  I doubt it and I doubt Obama owes her his explicit support.  Hillary's supporters were older and might not be around in 2016, and Warner just has to win Iowa and SC to be in the drivers seat, just like Obama.  WJC will be a very old man in 2016 and no one will care about him as much.  Warner does NOT need to fundraise, he is rich!  Biden, Dodd, and Richardson ran without much fundraising.  Unlike Hillary, Warner has to answer 3 am calls as Governor of Virginia, he is far more of an executive leader than Hillary has been.  Biden, Edwards, Gore, GHWB, Cheney all attempted to run for president and had the quasi-prominence to serve as VP.  You might not be old enough but Biden ran for President twice!  You obviously know nothing about Warner because if he didn't want to be president or VP, he would not be a US Senator.  In my opinion, it is likely that Warner is running, and Hillary IS NOT running in 2016.  I just don't think Hillary wants to be president anymore at 68.  As SOS, Hillary has zero impact of America's economy.  Biden has more influence than Hillary.  She's completely powerless in Obama's administration.  Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have done more than Hillary.  Why would the Democrats want "establishment politicians."  This is the same group of people that voted for Nader instead of Gore in 2000, supported Dean in 2004, and Obama in 2008.  IF Hillary runs in 2016, she will not be the only candidate.  Its foolhardy to think she would be the only candidate.

I'm not age-blind. I just didn't view McCain's age as that big of a deal. An actuarial firm did a study where they projected McCain would have a 76% chance of surviving until 2017. And there was no guarantee McCain would have been reelected, so that would have decreased his chances of dying in office even more. I was more concerned about McCain's judgment and honesty than his age. Besides, Hillary would probably be in better health than McCain was in 2016 and she wouldn't be foolish enough to pick an incompetent VP. That should remove most concerns about her age. And I doubt most Democrats are that concerned about political dynasties. Hillary could just say that she'll be a different leader and President than her husband was. Having a President who isn't a Bush or a Clinton for 8 years should also allay some fears about political dynasties. You claim that Obama's lack of time in Washington helped him a lot. Well, Warner didn't serve any time in Washington at all before 2008. Thus, not being in Washington would have also helped him. Besides, Warner announced that he wouldn't run in 2008 when everyone thought Obama wouldn't run either. Thus, his decision was completely independent of Obama's decisions. Warner was just scared that Hillary was going to run and beat him. I seriously doubt Warner's name recognition is much higher than it was in 2006. No one remembers his speech from the DNC in 2008 since the media didn't make a big deal out of it and since Obama's, Biden's, Bill's, and Hillary's speeches overshadowed his. I agree that Hillary might not run, but if she does, than that would mean that things are going well in the country and thus I seriously doubt Warner (or many other prominent Democrats) would challenge her. Most of Hillary's opponents (with the exception of Obama and Edwards) were joke opponents who couldn't defeat her no matter how hard they tried. Just because someone has Presidential ambitions and it's their last chance to run doesn't mean that they are going to if the polls don't look well for them. 2008 was Al Gore's last chance to run and he definitely had Presidential ambitions (considering he lost by 500 votes in 2000), yet he chose not to run because the polls showed him losing to Hillary by a larger margin. What makes you think Warner will be any different? After 1924, there have been only two cases in the Democratic Party where the establishment candidate lost the nomination--in 1972 and 2008. And in 2008, Obama was an exceptional candidate and beat Hillary by a very narrow margin. Historically, it is very rare for establishment candidates to lose the nomination and 2008 was an exception to this rule because the issues that year did not favor Hillary. If Hillary runs in 2016, though, she will be the frontrunner and the issues will favor her. I'm not sure if Hillary will be SOS for all 8 years, but I don't think it matters since her close runner-up status in 2008 should be enough to give her the nomination if she wants it. Obama will not oppose her since he would not want to ruin his improving relations with Bill and Hillary and also because opposing a member of your own Administration is unprecedented in U.S. politics. And the overwhelming majority of Hillary's supporters will be around in 2016, considering that most of her support did not come from the very old. Warner will not win SC if Hillary runs since he isn't black like Obama. And most people over 30 (in 2016) will remember Clinton in 2016, at least somewhat, so he will still have a lot of influence among middle-aged and older voters. Being or running for VP doesn't help much in becoming President. Over the last 170 years, only one sitting VP (Bush Sr.) and one losing VP candidate (FDR) successfully became President. News flash: Not all Senators want to become President or VP. I'm not sure if Warner still wants either office. If he wanted to become VP, then he wouldn't have told Obama in 2008 that he was uninterested, since Obama actually seriously considered him for the VP slot. Just because Hillary doesn't have much power doesn't mean that she doesn't still have political ambitions, considering how close she came last time around. Carter and Bill Clinton were Presidents. Hillary wasn't. Thus, the comparisons between them are moot. Democrats would want establishment candidates in 2008 because that's traditionally whom they favored and because they would want someone to continue Obama's policies. Most Democrats did not support Nader and Dean--most Democrats supported Gore and Kerry--the establishment candidates who won the nomination. Hillary probably won't be the only candidate in 2016, but most or all of her opponents will be joke opponents who she would easily defeat if she ran. Also, Hillary won't make the same mistakes that she made in 2008. Again, if Hillary runs in 2016, then Warner will not run because he will not have an effective message against her and because he would be trailing Hillary in the polls by a lot. Obama only managed to defeat Hillary in 2008 by a very narrow margin due to exceptional circumstances and due to being a phenomenal candidate. Those exceptional circumstances will NOT be there in 2016 and Warner is NOT a phenomenal candidate like Obama was.

Spaces are your friend.

Well, McCain's age and senility were certainly an issue.  While I do think Hillary is smarter than McCain, another younger upstart can beat her in Iowa and SC.  Warner did not run because the Senate seat opened up.  There was room for only one Newbie, and that was Obama.  Warner was also scared of Hillary in 2008, but with 2 terms in the Senate he won't be the scared puppy in 2016.  It will be Warner's Time and Hillary's will be in the sunset of her political life.  Again, Warner would have lost to Obama in 2008 if he ran, so he chose to run for the Senate seat, which he was polling far ahead, he knew that he can win the presidency in 2016.  Obama's "Change and Inexperience campaign" was very risky, and frankly, he got lucky that Edwards sucked off 1/3 of the voters in Iowa.  If it was just Hillary vs Obama in Iowa, Obama might have lost.  Frankly, you are foolish to think that Democrats don't know who Warner is, are you even registered in the Democratic primaries?  People in SC know Warner, and people in Iowa will soon know him as well.  Why the heck would the other Senators not run in 2016 because they are scared of Hillary, Come on, they are real men, not wimps.  Hillary is old, she is yesterday's news.  Biden, Dodd, and Richardson were not scared of her, and no one else will be scared of her in 2016.  Maybe you are on Hillary's payroll, but She WILL NOT have a uncontested 2016 Democratic Primary.  Sometimes you get lucky, no one predicted Kerry would beat Dean.  No one thought Obama would beat Hillary.  You naively overestimate Hillary's power.  Al Gore is boring and he should not have lost to Nader, he does not deserve a second chance.  I actually think Warner would be Obama's choice to replace him in 2016 rather than Hillary.  Warner is younger and has more Executive experience.  Warner is from a red-state and can actually win a National Election.  Hillary is from a Blue-state and I question her strength in any Red-state.  Especially if she has a strong Republican rival, she WILL lost the swing states.  Obama cares about winning elections, and Trust me Warner is stronger in a National election than Hillary because Warner can actually win Virginia.  Even if Warner wants to be VP, no one will think he is ready for it unless he has a presidential campaign.  That's a fact, every viable VP candidate ran a presidential campaign.  I would bet Hillary chooses Bayh over Warner if that were the case.  Warner was not ready to be president or VP in 2008, that is why he ran for Senate.  Warner will be ready in 2016, and he IS the FRONTRUNNER IN 2016 and NOT Hillary.  Hillary is SOS, she should be going to North Korea and other hotspots, she has simply done nothing of importance.  Hillary needs to go to Israel and bring peace there like Bill almost did and not let George Mitchell run the show.  Face it, Hillary is a lightweight and has no power or importance.  If Warner is a "joke candidate" in 2016, then so be it, but Warner wants to be president, as I have repeated over and over again.  He will run in 2016, no matter what Hillary decides.  Just accept that Warner will run in 2016 because he wants to.  It doesn't matter if Warner loses, he wants to be president someday and you can't sit out like that wimp Bayh and pray you get chosen as VP.  Warner is a better candidate than Hillary.  Warner has executive experience and he is from a Red state.  He will be the new "Bill Clinton"

She won't be a member of his administration when she runs.  She would surely resign as SoS before starting a presidential campaign.  Campaigning for president as a sitting SoS is simply impractical.

Obama will remain neutral in the 2016 primaries no matter who runs.  That's simply the way these things work nowadays.  Even Bill Clinton was officially neutral in the Gore v. Bradley race of 2000, and that was his own vice president.


I'm not sure what you mean by that.  First, before 1972, the nominee was more or less directly picked by the establishment, as most states didn't have primaries.  You can't compare pre-1972 nomination fights to modern primary contests, because the system was completely different back then.

But even if you're only talking about post-1968 contests, are you suggesting that Carter was the establishment candidate in 1976?  And who were the establishment candidates in 1988, 1992, and 2004?  In 1988, for example, it wasn't that the establishment backed Dukakis, and that caused him to win.  It was more the other way around.  The establishment thought he was going to win, so they backed him.  Same with Clinton in 1992.  In 2004, they first thought Kerry was going to win.  Then it looked like Dean was going to win, and the establishment started getting behind him.  Then Kerry came back, and the establishment got behind him.  If Gephardt had won Iowa and NH, then *he* would have gotten the establishment backing.

Also, you and Milhouse need to start using paragraphs.  :)

I said that Obama could remain neutral. He surely won't oppose Hillary. And for all we know Hillary could be Obama's VP after 2012. Unlikely but certainly possible. And Obama remaining neutral will certainly help Hillary, since she will have the large war chest and name recognition, as well as a lot of backing from other prominent Democrats. After 1968, I meant that in every election which had an establishment candidate (thus 1976, 1988, and 1992 don't count since there was no establishment candidate those years), the establishment candidate won in all the elections except 1972 and 2008. And I got the impression that Kerry was the establishment pick in 2004 due to his experience and Vietnam War service.

P.S. I'll take your advice about the paragraphs.

Rochambeau's word count on his reply post was 900+. Amazing.

The Senate seat only opened up in 2007 (when John Warner announced he was retiring). Warner announced he wouldn't run for President in 2006, before it was known that there would be an open Senate seat in VA in 2008. Also, Warner announced he wouldn't run in 2008 when everyone thought Obama wouldn't run either, and thus Obama's actions did not influence Warner's decision not to run. Why would Warner be less scared of Hillary in 2016 than in 2008? He'll have more experience, but so will Hillary, and Hillary will still handily beat him in name recognition and potential supporters. Did you ever look at polls lately? I seriously doubt even one-third of all Democrats nationwide know who Mark Warner is. I mean, he's just a typical Senator out of 100, and he didn't do anything special to distinguish himself. In contrast, I'm pretty sure 99-100% of Democrats know who Hillary Clinton is. If Warner wants to run in 2016, he'll need to quickly increase his name recognition.

I'm not so sure Hillary will be old news in 2016 and even though some politicians might run against her in 2016 if she chooses to run, she should have no problem defeating them. Biden, Richardson, and Dodd were joke candidates. They failed to even win 1% of the vote. Those kind of joke candidates should be no problem for Hillary to beat. Actually, a lot of people thought Kerry would beat Dean and a lot of people thought Obama would beat Hillary, especially after Iowa. Besides, 2008 was a year with exceptional circumstances. My point was that sometimes if a politician wants to be President, he doesn't run because he is afraid of losing. Gore in 2004 and 2008 and Cuomo in 1988 and 1992 would be good examples of this. How do you know Warner won't be scared of losing in 2016? What makes you so sure he won't chicken out like Gore and Cuomo did before him?

I seriously doubt Obama would oppose a member of his Administration. He might certainly remain neutral, but he won't oppose Hillary. Hillary is as electable as Warner is and if Obama is relatively popular in 2016, she won't have any problem winning. Age and executive experience don't really matter that much anymore, especially if a candidate is in good health. Hillary was perceived as the more electable candidate in 2008, yet the Democrats picked Obama. And Obama is also from a very blue state--that didn't stop him from winning a lot of red states in 2008. Not to mention that he was black and that he went to a racist church for 20+ years (which might have turned some voters off).

Actually, there have been numerous VPs and VP candidates who have never ran for President before being selected as VP. Examples include Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Walter Mondale, Quayle, and Cheney. Other examples include Jack Kemp, Geraldine Ferraro, Lloyd Bentsen, Sarah Palin, Joe Lieberman, and Bob Dole. I'm sure there are many examples that I did not include here. If Warner runs in 2016 and loses the nomination in a landslide to Hillary, that probably won't increase his odds of being picked as VP much.

Nixon, Humphrey, Bush Sr., and Gore also did nothing of importance as VPs before being nominated for President. That didn't stop them from easily winning their party's nomination for President. Why would Hillary be different? (As a side note, I think Obama will achieve Mideast Peace and that Hillary would get some credit for it.) Also, tell Hillary's 18 million supporters that she isn't important. I'd like to see how they would react. Hillary might not have much real power right now, but neither did those VPs that I just mentioned and that didn't stop them. Hillary might still have a lot of Presidential ambitions and if she runs again, she will run a better campaign than she did in 2008.

Again, I seriously doubt Warner will run in 2016 if Hillary runs. He will have no effective message against her like Obama did. What's Warner going to say? "I'm more experienced and electable"? That argument fell flat on its face for Hillary in 2008. If Hillary runs, than this would mean that Obama is pretty popular in 2016 (if he's unpopular, then Hillary won't run) and that most Democrats would want someone with ties to the Obama administration to continue his policies. And again, Warner is going to have a huge hill to climb in terms of name recognition, fundraising, and potential supporters. The overwhelming majority of Hillary's 2008 supporters will still be around in 2016, and many Obama supporters (especially females) and young voters would probably support Hillary as well. How is Warner going to compete with that? How can he get 20 million supporters? Warner will also need to quickly introduce himself to most Democratic voters and I know he's rich, but a Presidential campaign in 2016 will probably cost a billion dollars and I'm not sure Warner can fundraise that much. Hillary could fundraise that much due to her large amount of supporters and political connections, though. Warner strikes me as a very cautious politician and thus I doubt he'd run in 2016 if Hillary runs. Also, I doubt even more that he would beat Hillary if he actually does decide to run (which I find unlikely).

So if you're excluding 1976, 1988, and 1992, then you're only counting '72, '80, '84, '96, '00, '04, and '08?  Two of those included incumbent Democratic presidents, so of course they were going to win.  That only leaves '72, '84, '00, '04 and '08, so you're saying that there's some big trend because the establishment candidate won three out of those five times???

Warner did not think being a 1 term governor made him ready to run for president (unlike Romney) and he wisely declined to run after fishing around NH and Iowa.  I'm sure he knew John warner was leaning towards retiring, they are friends.  Warner is running because he will be a 2 term Senator, Governor and he is the RIGHT AGE to be president.  Hillary will be a very old lady and very vulnerable.  Warner does not need to attack Hillary to be successful or be a VP candidate, he just needs to make his own case.  Warner IS NOT SCARED OF HILLARY, so please stop thinking he is.  Warner is rich and does not need to Fund-raise a ton of money.
You are looking at polls in 2010?  Come on, in 2015, Hillary will be old, and every Democrat in the South, Mid-Atlantic, and Iowa know about Mark Warner.  In 2004, no one knew about Obama and he won in 2008.  Warner is far ahead from where Obama was in 2004 pre-DNC.

Warner WILL RUN in 2016 even thought you think he is wasting his time and money and is a "Joke Candidate."  He'll win because he will be a better president than Hillary ever would be.
So you are saying even though Hillary should have won in 2008, Obama should have beat her in Iowa according to polls.  By your logic, Obama should have folded his campaign because he was behind in national polls.  That is simply crazy talk.  Warner will be competitive in Iowa and will likely beat Hillary in Iowa, and SC.  I'm not sure why you doubt a politicians balls, but Mark Warner IS NOT SCARED OF HILLARY OR ANYONE ELSE.  He will run for President because he is the Right Age, the most qualified, and has the most Executive Leadership Experience.  It doesn't matter what Hillary does or does not do.  Hillary can bring peace to Israel, Afghanistan, and North/South Korea, and Mark Warner will still be running for president in 2016.  He will not chicken out, he is not AFRAID of losing like wimps like Gore, Bayh, and Mario Cuomo.  This is Real Life, and elections only happen every 4 years.  There is a tiny window for anyone to be electable.  In fact, Hillary should have run and won the Presidency in 2004.  She waited too long and the anti-Iraq voters over came her.  Hillary is NOT Electable, but Mark Warner is from a Red-state and will turn Virginia.  Hillary will lost Virginia, Florida, and possibly Ohio.  Obama won Ohio and Indiana, Hillary would have certainly lost Indiana.
Cheney and Kemp both had exploratorty committees, so they at least thought about being a presidential candidate.  A VP candidate is much stronger in the public perception if he has gone through the vigors and debated national and foreign issues with the public.  Gore, Biden, and Edwards got on tickets because they were Vetted by the Public.  It Simply is the sure-fire way to be seen as a serious VP candidate.  Bayh would be Hillary's VP choice, so basically Warner has nothing to lose in going head-to-head against Hillary in 2016.
Hillary is powerless right now, she has done nothing!  You may support Hillary, but I just think Warner is a better qualified candidate and will win a national election.  Warner will win the Red states unlike Hillary.  You are over-stating Hillary position in the Obama administration, should Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, or Madeline Albright run for president?  How about Tom Vilsack, Salazaar?  Being a Democrat would be enought to support Warner.
Warner is simply not concerned about Fundraising, name recognition, or supporters.  He will run because IT IS HIS TIME TO RUN. 
HE IS NOT SCARED OF HILLARY OR ANY OTHER CRAZY FACTORS.  HE IS HIS OWN MAN!
Warner may not beat Hillary, but HE WILL RUN BECAUSE HE IS NOT SCARED OF HER.  He will not wait until 2024 for "His Turn at the presidency"

Obama was more well known in 2004-2006 than Warner is now since the media made a much bigger deal about him. If you think Warner will run, go ahead. However, the best candidate doesn't always win and there is no guarantee that Warner isn't a wimp. If Hillary runs in 2016, we'll see in six years which one of us was right.

In the last 50 years, the Democrats have nominated a VP, incumbent or former, when one has run.  If  Biden doesn't run and Hillary does, she'll basically fill that role.  Since Obama kicked up anti-establishment energy then gave reform-minded progressive blue state balls, I bet that energy will be a strong one waiting to be tapped into.  But I don't see why Warner is especially well-suited to play that role, as opposed to a Scheitzer or Feingold.  That said, the force of identity politics may be stronger than huffposty drum beating for a progressive fighter.  And of course it's always possible there will be another Obama who merges those forces.  And of course if Obama loses re-election, the entire dynamic of 2016 changes for the Democrats.

This whole conversion could well look ridiculous in two years time. 

Warner will run basically because he will be the right age to run, and he won't wait until he is ready to collect social security.  Again, it has nothing to do with Hillarity's decision. 
If you are judging HIllary's chances based on her national polling numbers, you're in for a rude awakening.  Many candidates had leading polls nationally only to lose handily in Iowa, NH, or SC, such as Rudy, Dean, Hillary, while others have come from behind in Iowa like Kerry, Obama, Edwards.  Warner is well positioned because he is from a Swing state who can speak to socially conservative Iowa voters.  Hillary finished 3rd in Iowa behind Edwards, so how could she been ahead in all the national polls and lose to John Edwards???
You've obviously never worked for a campaign, so I'll tell you that GOTV is the reason people win in Iowa, NH, and elsewhere despite what the polling says.  As SOS, Hillary no longer runs a political campaign staff, while Warner still has a campaign staff ready and volunteers ready to canvas for him in Virginia and move with him to Iowa and SC.  Hillary cannot expect to be anointed to the presidency because she is more celebrity than substance.  Warner has the substance and executive experience.

Warner will be powered to the Democratic nomination by social conservatives while Hillary will be deemed too inexperienced and shallow/not have a big enough campaign machine to win?

Just because someone is the right age to run for President doesn't mean they are going to run. That is an overly simplistic view. Many Presidential candidates do collapse nationally over time. However, that is typically when their opponents have good arguments to use against them and what good arguments will Warner use against Hillary? And Warner is no more socially conservative than Hillary, so I'm not sure why he would appeal to social conservatives better than Hillary would. Hillary might not have a campaign operation right now, but she could easily restart one when she runs considering that she has 18 million supporters and large fundraising connections. Many voters don't care for substance--it they did, then Biden, Dodd, or Richardson would have won in 2008. Even with her losses in IA and SC in 2008, Hillary won 18 million votes and almost beat Obama (and that was with her making many campaign mistakes). Hillary will definitely be able to count on the support of most of her '08 supporters as well as on many black and female voters that supported Obama in 2008. Unless Warner can somehow get 20 million supporters on his side, I find it very unlikely that he will beat Hillary if he decides to run. For all I know, Warner could be another wimp just like Gore and Cuomo were.

I'm not sure why you think Hillary has accomplished more than Warner.  Seriously, she served just 1 1/2 terms as a Senator and now SoS.  Warner will be a governor and a 2 term Senator. Just because Hillary is a "Big Name Celebrity" does not mean she has any accomplishments or leadership skills.  The recent Presidents have all been under the age of 60, and I think that trend will continue.  Anyone over 62 will be ready for Social Security and retirement and no one will think they have the health capacity to survive the stress of 8 years in office.  McCain and Dole lost big time because they were seen as too old.  Warner will be the spry youngster taking on the elderly Hillary.  Hillary is from NYC and basically the rest of the country thinks NYC is a liberal bastion and atheist.  Again, she may have had 18 million supporters, but Edwards and Obama had a lot of supporters as well, and they voted against Hillary for a reason.  Even, with 18 million voters, Hillary still LOST!  So there is no guarantee she will win in 2016.  People like change and they want a better future.  They don't want a retread who is wrong on the important issues (iraq).  I can easily say the Obama and Edwards voters will go to Warner and he will defeat Hillary, that's simple math, because 18 million voters still meant she LOST.  How do you even know Hillary will run in 2016?  It will be more likely that she will NOT RUN!  As for wimps, Hillary should have run in 2004 because after all, she had 8 years of White House internship as first Lady.  I'm not sure why you are so anti-Warner or you call him a "wimp."  That is a slanderous statement because he has made no indications he is scared of Hillary in 2016.  He has the resume, Senator, Governor, and wealth to mount a serious and credible Presidential campaign in 2016.  You are just scared of Warner because he is the best candidate to defeat Hillary.  He is running whether you like it or not, and especially whether Hillary likes it or not.

You say you think the trend of presidents under 60 will continue but Warner will be 61 going on 62 in 2016.  Why not say Cuomo would win?  I also like how you contrast Warner's senate experience (2 term senator) with Hillary's (1 and 1/2 terms) when they'd both have served the same length of time in senate.

Both Hillary and Warner will be very experienced in 2016. Warner doesn't have much achievements either and many Democrats vote due to name recognition and celebrity status than due to experience or achievements. Obama won partially due to being a celebrity, despite having a lack of experience. Just because we have had three young Presidents recently does not mean we will always elect young Presidents. Reagan was elected at ages 69 and 73 and Bush Sr. was elected at age 64 (both in landslides), and that was relatively recently. This shows that we are willing to elect old people as President. Besides, Warner will be over 60 in 2016 as well and I don't really see what he will do in the next 6 years to really distinguish himself from all the other Senators. McCain and Dole lost primarily due to the ECONOMY, NOT due to their age. McCain was actually leading Obama in some polls before the financial crisis hit. You say Hillary being from New York will hurt her, but Obama was from Chicago (a very liberal, corrupt, and crime-infested city) and that didn't hurt him. Why would it hurt Hillary if it didn't hurt Obama?

There is no guarantee that Hillary will win in 2016, but I think that it is pretty likely that she will at least win the Democratic nomination if she chooses to run. Just because Democrats wanted change in 2008 doesn't mean that they will want change in every election. Democrats sure didn't want change in 2000, because otherwise Bill Bradley would have beaten Al Gore. Besides, electing Hillary would represent change by electing our first female President. I don't see Hillary being wrong on any issues in 2016 and it's foolish to assume that every single Obama and Edwards voter in 2008 would oppose Hillary in 2016, since Obama and Edwards won't be running that year. Warner sure wouldn't get over 90% of the black vote like Obama did, and a lot of women who supported Obama and Edwards in '08 will support Hillary in 2016 if she chooses to run. Hillary will only need to win a small amount of the Obama and Edwards voters in 2008 to win in 2016, and that should be no problem for her to do. I'm not sure if either Warner or Hillary will run in 2016, but I seriously doubt Warner will run if Hillary does. What will he have to run upon? What argument is he going to use?

Hillary didn't run in 2004 because Bush was still relatively popular that year. She didn't want to ruin her political future with a loss in 2004. I said Warner might be a wimp because he chickened out in 2008 when everyone thought he was going to run. I'm not so sure he won't chicken out in 2016. Just because someone has the credentials and experience to run for President doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is actually going to run. I'm not sure that Warner is the best candidate to beat Hillary (there are a lot of other possible candidates) and I'm not sure that he will run in 2016.

I think Warner served as Governor and has more executive experience because of that, than Hillary, but you can choose to ignore that part if it doesn't suit your goals.  If you want a celebrity candidate with a thinner resume, then pick Hillary.  I'm just saying that I personally believe that Warner has a better resume and experience and is ready to be president in 2016.
It is more likely that Hillary WILL NOT RUN in 2016.
It is more likely that Warner WILL RUN in 2016.
Obama won because he was not tainted by the Iraq War.  He was an anti-govt "democrat tea party" against big govt foreign policy.
The govt says you can retire at 62, so I'm going to let Hillary retire when she is 68.  I trust the govt.  Reagan was the oldest president ever, but he looked younger, and was very image conscious as an actor.
You obviously don't know anything about Iowa.  Obama is from Illinois and bused in far more volunteers into Iowa than Hillary did.  He won Iowa because of geography.  Hillary won NH because of geography.  Its GOTV, politics 101.  Guess what, Hillary will probably lose Iowa again in 2016.
A lot of left-wing democrats want change, that is why they voted for Nader.  I think Hillary is taking the easy road, she should run for governor and be her own woman.  She's content with being an administrator, but that's her passion.  I personally think its easier for governors to win the presidency.
I think Warner can win Iowa and at least pull even in SC.  I've said why I think Warner is ready for the Presidency because he's been a governor and a senator and is the right age.  If voters don't buy it then so be it, but he's not going to wait because of Hillary.  He IS RUNNING in 2016 no matter what Hillary does.  Hillary certainly isn't scared of Warner and Warner shouldn't be scared of Hillary, it simply does not matter what Hillary decides.
Obviously in 2004, Hillary was a coward and did not want to challenge Bush because she feared losing.  After all, a majority of the country voted against Bush, so half the country disliked Bush and would have voted for Hillary.  Hillary would have done better than John Kerry in 2004.
As I've said before, why would Warner as a 1 term governor feel that he can make a case to be president?  He saw a better option in the Senate.  If he was not term-limited, he would have won a 2nd term as Virginia's governor.  
You are making slanderous statements because you are afraid of Warner and that he will beat Hillary in 2016.
In my opinion, Warner is simply the best candidate in 2016, he has the credentials and he is simply not in awe or afraid of Hillary like you or others may be.
Again, if I were to wager, Hillary will likely not run in 2016 and Warner will definitely run in 2016.  Its really not that difficult to comprehend.

You're a smart guy.  Of course Warner served as a Governor and Hillary was selected as First Lady.  Cuomo could win, but as a New Yorker, he faces antagonism in Iowa and SC.

Again, I just want to clarify that I don't support Hillary or oppose Warner. I am just pointing out from a neutral point of view that unless something unexpected happens in the next 6 years, Hillary will probably be the favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2016 due to her massive amounts of supporters and how close she came last time. Few voters actually care that much about executive experience--Palin's executive experience sure didn't help McCain much. If you personally support Warner, that's great, but there is a difference between personally supporting someone and thinking that your candidate will win.

Hillary also looks pretty well for her age and unlike Reagan, she is smarter and probably wouldn't get dementia as early as Reagan did. There are a lot of politicians (especially in Congress) over 70, so having another President over 70 isn't really that unusual. Don't tell me what I know and don't know about Iowa. I know a lot. What source did you get your info about Obama busing in a lot of voters from Illinois? I never heard that before and are Illinois voters even allowed to vote in a different state? I seriously doubt geography was a large reason why Obama won Iowa or Hillary won New Hampshire. It had more to do with their campaign strategies than with geography.

Hillary did manage to distinguish herself from Bill during the campaign and as Secretary of State. Just because Democrats wanted change in 2008 DOES NOT mean that they will want change in 2016. Also, just because 4 out of the last 6 Presidents were Governors doesn't necessarily mean that Governors are particularly favored for the Presidency. I'm not sure Warner will win IA and SC because 2016 will have different circumstances than 2008 and if Hillary runs, she will run a better campaign than in 2008.

What slanderous statements am I making? That I don't think Warner will run in 2016 if Hillary runs? That's my opinion--there's nothing slanderous about it. Maybe I'll be right, or maybe I'll be wrong. Also, there might be more than one anti-Hillary candidate in 2016, and thus theoretically several candidates could split the anti-Hillary vote in 2016 and allow Hillary to win. (And as a side note, Hillary was smart not to run in 2004. Bush could have just raised the terror alert right before the election and beat her, damaging her future Presidential chances.)

Hillary is the anti-Obama in every political way.  She is the safe, conservative politician.  She is the female equivalent of Al Gore's personality.  Hillary may be the favorite if she does not consider herself too old to run, which is a strong possibility.  But there will be another grassroots candidate like Obama, Dean, etc who will have the support of the "people" and not the establishment.  Warner is a very popular guy and a likeable guy, he can be a spokesman for the people.  He's a southerner, just like Bill Clinton.  Warner simply has a better resume than Hillary in my opinion.  Hillary may be a good first lady, but she has never had to get her political hands dirty and make tough 3 am calls.  She's nothing more than a sidekick, poser who is trying to escape Bill's shadow.  She's had her time in the sun with Bill in the 1990's but she's had 8 years as First Lady and 8 years is enough for anyone to spend in the white house according to some laws.  I think her time should be over.
As for Iowa, everyone I know from Chicago goes to Iowa for the primaries, there is a much stronger GOTV presence from Chicago than any other major metropolitan area.  If you don't think geography helps a candidate that is your decision, but you don't work as a campaign strategist so continue living in your fantasy land.
If you don't want change in 2016, that is fine, but I'm sure most people will want change.  Change is good as someone famous once said.
In 2004, if Hillary wanted to do what was good for the country and help Democrats, she would have challenged Bush.  But she selfishly thought of her own personal ambitions for her own political future.  How many soldiers had to die in Iraq because Hillary was a coward in 2004, and didn't take the mantle of power that was given to her.  She's a selfish person, and if she really cared about the country and Americans, she would have ran and won in 2004.  She certainly had the name recognition to do it.  She's scared and she's always taken the safe route, that is why she'll never be president.  If you're with Hillary, you're a pro-war and pro-Iraq advocate who doesn't deserve to be a democrat.

Hillary is definitely more charismatic than Gore. If Warner runs (which is a big if), I'm not so sure he'll automatically become the grassroots candidate. He might have some competitors in that field, and I'm not sure he'll really be able to stand out. And again, just because many Democrats wanted change in 2008 doesn't mean that they will want change in every election. Most (not all) Democrats did not want change in 2000, 1996, 1984, or 1980, and they probably won't want change in 2012. And Hillary could have just as easily lost to Bush in 2004. She was a good candidate, but Bush could have raised the terror alert right before the election and scared the heck out of many voters, thus allowing him to win reelection. He actually considered doing this in RL, but decided against it because his lead over Kerry was too large to risk losing. And if Hillary would have won in 2004, a lot of American soldiers would have still died in Iraq and also we might have lost that war instead of winning it (and this is coming from someone who opposes the Iraq War). And no one will care about Iraq in 2016.

Hillary is running just as safe as Gore ran.  Obama risked it all in 2008 and challenged Americans to be better.  Hillary is going to play it safe and be the boring candidate who won't rock the boat or bring America to Greatness.  You can decide whatever you want, but I want America to be the Best it can be, and I want a candidate who is scared of looking bad, but is willing to challenge the status quo and bring a progressive vision for America's future.
Again, Hillary was too scared to go against Bush, she was a chicken scared of a real winner who defeated Gore.  Bush was a great political candidate and campaigner and Hillary knew she had no chance.  Now, her husband, Bill Clinton had the cajones to challenge and beat GHWB.  He put it all on the line and said America is heading in the wrong direction and Bill led us to Greatness.  I don't see Hillary doing that or willing to do that when its a tough situation.
You may not care about the Iraq War, but tell that to the Iraq and Afganistan war veterans and their families.  You don't represent them and unlike cowards who sided with Bush, they had the conviction and bravery to risk their lives.  The only way I see her winning in 2016 is if no one cares about anything, she can win by default if the issues don't matter. 

@milhouse24

You have a very simplistic view of presidential politics.

Assuming both Warner and Clinton run in 2016...

First, age has nothing to do with running and winning. If that's the case Reagan would have never been President. If a candidate can show they have the health to run a 2-year campaign, the voters will believe they can be President. Voters did not oppose McCain because of his age (he got 46% of the vote), they opposed him because of his views on the economy, his choice for Vice President, his move to the right and his inability to shake Bush's legacy. BTW, Warner will be 62 upon Inauguration Day, January 20, 2017. He ain't exactly a young chap and I don't think voters will be able to tell the difference between a 62 year-old candidates and 69 year-old candidate.

Winning Iowa I would say is not essential to winning the primary. Clinton came in third and ended her primary in June with 18 million votes. She didn't win, but it did not put her out of the campaign. Bill Clinton got 3% in 1992. Is winning helpful? Absolutely, if you have a candidate with a large base, a massive campaign operation and a star name, winning the caucus isn't exactly needed. Remember, Clinton never led in a single poll in Iowa if memory serves me right. She lost that caucus because of her position on Iraq. You say that Warner is likely to win SC, I would tend to agree he has a good chance of winning there, but you forget black voters are tremendously loyal to Hillary Clinton. Clinton led among black voters in a majority of the polls in SC but lost the state because Obama won Iowa and Bill Clinton's poor choice of words. I'll be willing to bet black voters will stick with Clinton even if some other candidate won Iowa in 2016.

If any candidate can restart a campaign machine, it is Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton is campaigning for candidates that supported her. That's going to go a long way. If she leaves Foggy Bottom January 20, 2013, all she has to do is restart her PAC and start raising money for the 2014 midterms. Her contacts list is the largest sans Obama's. I can't ignore that Warner has $1.5 million on hand, but I'm willing to bet Clinton can easily make up a deficit. Last I checked, Warner had some pretty good favorable ratings, but is your hope for him to run in 2016 contingent on him winning reelection in 2014?

Regarding experience, you're making the mistake of reading someone's curriculum vitae at face value. It's nice to say Warner was Governor for 4 years, Senator for 8 years (by 2016), served on this committee, served on that committee. Bill Richardson tried that in Iowa. I think Obama (4 years in Senate), Bush (6 years as Governor), Carter (4 years as Governor), Lincoln (2 years as Congressman) and a host of other President's proved it does not matter what you can show on paper. Personality matters, likability matters, your political machine matters, fundraising matters. I could easily make the argument that six of our forty-four Presidents were once Secretary of State, therefore Clinton is more likely to be President, but that is too simplistic. You say it is easier for Governor's to win the Presidency and I will tend to agree, but Warner would be a 2-term entrenched Senator by 2016. Clinton would likely have been out of office for 4 years working on a campaign.

Now I don't understand your argument regarding Clinton in 2004. You call her a coward for not running in 2004 because she was looking out for her own political ambitions (running for reelection in 2006 and president in 2008), but give Warner props for not running for President in 2008 because he was looking out for his own political future? This right here reveals a deep bias and your inability to judge these two potential candidates.

Okay, Reagan was the exception, not the rule.  He dyed his hair and he looked at least 10 years younger.  But Hillary also dyes her hair blonde to be more appealing.  There was a lot of talk about whether McCain would survive 2 terms, given his age and it was a talking point among democrats, but not the main reason.

Clinton lost Iowa because the Senator from Iowa was in the primaries.  Granted Vilsack also ran in 2008, but I think he dropped out before the caucus.  Clinton, being the Big Star, should have won Iowa and swept everywhere else, but there was a very strong reason that Democratic voters were anti-Hillary in the primaries.  She should have won all the primaries, but she didn't and she became a sore loser after Iowa.

We've had Hillary and Bill from 1992 to 2000, does anyone really really want them again in 2016?  I'm sure there is nostalgia for the past, but I think people want new blood, and Warner's a decent 2nd choice, amongst others.  But since Warner is a Senator, it will be difficult for him to claim accomplishments, he needs to emphasize his governorship successes.

I think Hillary was a great First Lady or co-president, but do we really need her to be co-president again?  Do we really want a 3rd and 4th Hillary and Bill term?  She's just trying to win by Nepotism because she is the wife of a former president.  She can be a Senator or Governor, but there are other Female politicians who have succeeded on their own, without the political hand-holding of their husbands. 

I don't think Warner was ready to be president in 2008 or ready to run for president.  He had only served one term as Governor.  Maybe you thought he was ready, but I didn't.  I don't think it was cowardly of him to say he needed more experience.  But if you think that Hillary had 8 years of First Lady experience, then she should have been plenty ready to run in 2004.  She was a Coward and you can admit she was a Coward, and she let a lot of soldiers die in war, when she had a decent chance of defeating Dubya in 2004.  Where were you and the other Democrats in 2004 that thought she should have run.  She missed her chance to make a difference, and now she's a sore loser grasping at anything to make herself look like a real leader, but she's not a leader by any present-day standards.

I feel like Feingold could be strong in 2016  Although the Tea Party sending waves through the GOP has been getting more headlines, the progressive base has been frustrated with Obama too on several issues.  Historically the party looking for a third White House term has generally nominated establishment candidates- the VP in every recent case except for Cheney.  But it's possible, that since Obama tapped into a strong appetite for fundamental reform, it could be difficult to put back in the bottle.  That energy could be re-focused on someone like Feingold who Democrats would trust more to deliver on it.  Even if Feingold lost now and Obama lost in 2012, I still think he'd be a prospect.

If there is a candidates the Democrats coalesce around, it should be Hillary Clinton. My scenario goes like this, Joe Biden will be persuaded by Barack Obama sometime in early 2012, I believe it could be February to swap positions with Hillary Clinton. He will resign the Vice Presidency, be quickly confirmed by the Senate for his new position at the State Department. Obama will invoke the 25th amendment, nominate Clinton for Vice President. Her confirmation prospects are problematic, especially if as current polls predict the House is controlled by Republicans. But I think she should get it, therefore as they enter the election sweep stakes they do so as Incumbents. The Democrats will give Obama and Clinton a coronation at there convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. I think it will be a tough race, but in the end Obama will prevail by a bigger than expected margin of victory (Possibly on the scale of LBJ's 1964 triumph) Clinton will be in the envious position of being free enough to go on extended fund-raiser tours for her expected campaign for the 2016 campaign and like Dick Nixon in '60, Humphrey in '68, Bush in '88 and Gore in 2000 she will be the quaisi incumbent and will encounter as many advantages as disadvantages. I think the Republicans will turn to Jeb Bush as there savior on the basis of his strong convention speech in Tampa in 2012, but also in retrospect after eight years of Obama, George W. Bush will be seen in a more kinder light and Bush is a brand name and therefore not the curse it was years before, Republicans see Jeb Bush as his own man and Hillary Clinton will be under pressure to perform in a way she never expected. Clinton will pick Mark Warner of Virginia to be her ticket mate, while Bush will go with Governor John Kasich of Ohio. The election will hinge on a handful of states and could be a repeat of 2000 for its closeness.

Clinton/Warner vs. Bush/Kasich would be a major landslide for Hillary.

I disagree!, there would be fatigue from eight years of Obama, as there would have been after George W. Bush, and likewise after Bill Clinton. I can't say who would likely emerge as the winner on Nov. 8, 2016 but it won't be a landslide for either candidate. Both would have appeal and drawbacks in equal proportion. The outcome will hinge on who has a better ground game, but my hunch is Bush will pull it out, on the basis of (i) he would be a challenger, albeit with a brand name (ii) Clinton being a woman, she can come across as shrill (iii) Voters going for a New York Democrat and (iv) Her husband and the Obama approval ratings (v) Economy

Pretty sure the president will be discussing this one on Mythbusters.

Russ Feingold.

"Which 2016 Dem candidate do you support?"

Frankly, I'm stunned that Momma Grizzly Bear Clinton's name is not on the list. Even if the election is as late as 2016. You've got to know that her eye hasn't left that prize just because she was narrowly defeated by a better organized campaign in 2008. She wants that post baa-aahd. And she'll stop at nothing to attain it. Her arrogant ego can't handle not being the first elected female president in history.

Barry got his prize. Now it's her turn. For whatever it's worth, that is.

I like Feingold, but he won't run. At best, he's eying a comeback if Kohl retires in 2012.

Anyway, what about Bob Casey?

Cross off Feingold, Artur Davis, and most likely Alexi Giannoulias and Evan Bayh. Add John Hickenlooper to the list, provided he can be a successful governor of Colorado.

Wow, most of these candidates end up flopping.

Cory Booker won't be able to run in 2016, but I'd love to see him President.

Booker can't beat Christie, so there's no way for him to get his foot in the dorr enough to make a Presidential bid until he's old ntil 2024. At this point we are looking way too far into the future.

Cuomo might be a good bet but he's not my favorite by any means.

Warner, he was a great governor.  There is also no way Virginia wouldn't vote for him in the general. 

Id be very happy over a Warner/Bennett ticket in 2016.

THIS THREAD IS HILARIOUS LOOKING BACK

Indeed; let's look at where the people listed are now, six years on:


Tim Kaine - Probably the least absurd as he may or may not be placed on the ticket later this year.

Cory Booker - Star has waned a bit since he entered the Senate. He seems like the type to run for national office though.

Brian Schweitzer - Missed a big opportunity by sitting 2016 out. Could have easily been an effective compromise candidate between Bernie and Hillary. As it is his career is probably over.

Russ Feingold - Leading hero of the left-wing of the Democratic Party for a number of years. Could well return to the Senate in the near future and if so they'd be speculation for 2020 if a Republican wins in November. Can't see him being ambitious enough to go for it though.

Mark Warner - What, is it 2005 again? Of course he nearly threw away his Senate seat just over a year ago.

Artur Davis - LULZ. Do I need to say anything here?

David Hoffman - Not entirely sure who this is but Wikipedia suggests that he lost to Giannoulias in the 2010 IL senate primary. Lol.

Andrew Cuomo - He wasn't the devil-like figure back in 2010 that he is now. But now he is despised by even most Clintonites.

Alexi Giannoulias - Pissed away Obama's senate seat. Whatever.
   
Evan Bayh - Like Warner he was one of those annoying centrist figures hyped up in the aftermath of Dubya's re-election by people who fought that a Blue Dog/DLC-type was required for the Democrats to win the WH again. He could have easily remained in the Senate for the rest of his life though but chose not to do so.

And Hillary wasn't even mentioned, except in extremely long walls of text that I'm not going to read on the penultimate page. lol

Not that I thought she'd run in 2010 either, but it's interesting how very few people saw it as plausible enough to even mention.