Talk Elections

Meaning who will act like a presidential candidate/be pushing themselves into the conversation with  schedule, media activity, or language choices etc.?  The way Romney and Pawlenty did in 2009.  Assume an Obama re-election to open up both sides.

I'd peg Martin O'Malley, Mark Warner, Kirsten Gillibrand, Brian Schweitzer and Joe Biden on the D side.  Andrew Cuomo and Hillary Clinton, who will get plenty of speculation without doing anything, strike me as more likely to bide their time.

On the Republican side, I think Santorum, McDonnell, maybe Jindal.  Christie, if he runs for re-election, will presumably be coy until that happens.

John Hickenlooper and Amy Klobuchar will be mentioned in a few places. Who amazingly popular politicians in their states.

Oh, and Scott Walker as the mandatory 'controversial' candidate for the GOP.

A huge part of the tea leaf reading will be about whether Christie does in fact run for reelection.  If he runs for reelection, does he have to try position himself more to the center in order to win, in a way that would preclude a 2016 race for the GOP presidential nomination?  If he doesn't run for reelection, does that mean he's running for president, a la Romney's retirement after one term as MA governor?

If Christie doesn't run, I don't think there's any serious way to interpret it besides a presidential run.  Unless I guess his approval plummets to an unlikely place.  And even if he does run in NJ, yeah, I'd say anything other than straight ahead playing for the center tips interest in a run for president.  Because of the difficult balancing act of a Republican trying to get elected in a Blue State (and maybe against the impressive Cory Booker) while also trying to preserve acceptability to the GOP base for a pres. run, I half-expect Christie won't run again unless he finds himself with strong approvals.  But I also think after the media crush on him this cycle, Christie is probably confident enough in the media and donor interest in him, that he won't feel the need to go to New Hampshire every month of 2013 or similar moves early.  As opposed to someone like Bob McDonnell (unless he's Romney's running mate), who may feel a need to play catch-up or remind people about him.

I also could see if they intend to run, Santorum and Biden, despite have the specific status that on paper or historically would position them as a 2016 frontrunner, making more aggressive hints of a run out of insecurity about the media writing them off, in favor of a trendier alternative.  Biden already has actually.

Jindal, McDonnell, O'Malley, and Schweitzer are all term-limited, aren't they?  I guess that means they'll probably run for president, since they'll have nothing else to do.

Just found this from last summer.  Schweitzer doesn't sound like he genuinely lacks interest in running but might be scared off a run by his own gun.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_89fe08a0-5e1b-5624-916a-f8f7eda57535.html (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_89fe08a0-5e1b-5624-916a-f8f7eda57535.html)

If Obama wins, McDonnell has his eye on Warner's Senate seat--not the White House.

I imagine that Sarah Palin would jump back into the picture...when was the last time we heard anything about her?

Tim Pawlenty wasn't relevent in 2012, he'll be even more irrelevent in 2016.  Doubt he runs.

Even though he won't actually be doing anything presidential-like, the press will be obsessed with Marco Rubio.

Mitt Romney will finally give-up and go from "millionare running for President" to "millionaire with nothing to do".

Since the Paultards will not have someone to drool over, they will move on to Gary Johnson or (less likely) Rand Paul.

Bobby Jindal has ceased to be a national-player ever since the BP spill.  Doubt he's able to recapture the spotlight.

It won't take long for the talking heads at RedState or Rush Limbaugh to discover that Christie is a RINO-in-disguise.  He'll get torn apart.  He's the Mitt Romney of 2016.  

The Bush name will still be toxic enough to guarantee that Jeb stays out.

And Rick Perry will still be reeling from his embaressing loss in the 2014 Texas gubernatorial GOP primary.


So...we're basically at square one.  With a bunch of no-names:  Kelly Ayotte, Mary Fallin and Paul Ryan trying to get some attention...

I doubt Biden will run, he's too old, although some people do keep mentioning him.

Deval Patrick?

Dems: Schweitzer if he can be convinced, O'Malley is all but certain.

GOP: Christie and Jindal- McDonnell will be running against Warner if Obama wins. Dunno who else, probably not a member of the Class of 2010.

McDonnell could very well run if he's Romney's losing VP; if he runs in 2016 he'd probably stay away from Warner in 2014, guaranteeing his reelection.

I think Biden will hint and that's it. I'm pretty sure he knows that he's too old.

For the Dems: Biden, Warner, Kaine, Cuomo, Patrick, and the current Montana governor.

The GOP: Christie (the Rockefeller/Establishment moderate favorite), Huntsman (insurgent populist moderates),Mike Pence (a favorite amongst Social Conservatives and some Tea Party groups), Cain (yes I think Herman Cain may jump in), Haley (likely) or Palin (a shot in the dark),

RE: the class of 2010,

Rubio and Paul are probable running mates for Romney (though I pray we have a floor fight)

So I just read that Cuomo is divorced and never remarried, but has a live-in girlfriend in his NYC-area house (though Cuomo obviously spends more time in Albany these days).  Not sure how that'll impact his presidential hopes.  Obviously, if he's interested in the White House, he should get married.  :P

Also, 2016 Iowa watch is already starting, with Rand Paul and Ken Cuccinelli making the trip there next month:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/watch-rand-cuccinelli-to-iowa-119044.html

I still think 2016 is looking fantastic for GOP prospects. Remember too, you can't look at 2016 the same way you look at 2012. Obama won't be running again, and the Democratic field is remarkably weaker than possibly any Democratic field since 1984.

Vice President Biden - He's all but said he'll probably run, and I think he will. The problem is, unlike the Republicans who score a string of victories over the course of decades without refreshing (Eisenhower in the 50s had VP Nixon who was Pres in the 70s, George Bush was a G-Man in the 70s, President in the 90s which lead to his son being President from 2001-2009, ect) Democrats tend to constantly jump from one to another. VP = Gov of Mass = Gov of Arkansas = VP = Senator from Mass = Senator from Illinois, ect. My guess is Biden will have difficulty. Plus, incumbent Vice Presidents tend to lose elections. Nixon, Humphrey, Gore, ect or never make it there themselves, IE Barkley, Quayle.

Secretary of State Clinton - The worst fear of mine would be eight years of Obama followed by eight years of Hillary Clinton. Luckily, the likelihood of this occurring is very slim as the Democrats are reluctant to nominate older nominees.

To be honest...I think that Martin O'Malley or Andrew Cuomo look like safe bets.

I wouldn't call Schweitzer, O'Malley, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Warner, and others that weak. Especially if the GOP blame a Romney loss because he was too "moderate" (lol), and nominate an unelectable social conservative like Thune or some Tea Bagger. Of course a lot can happen in four years, so who the hell knows.

I wouldn't be so sure. Andrew Cuomo, Brian Schweitzer, and possibly Hillary Clinton will make for a stronger field than 1988, 2004, and quite possibly 2012. And looking at how so many of the governors of the GOP's class of 2010 are crashing and burning, their field may end up being more limited and weaker than is obvious now. Remember that by 2016, Jeb Bush won't have held office in almost a decade, and the Bush name will probably still be toxic. Chris Christie has trouble holding his abrasive manner in check (such as when he recently called a Navy SEAL an "idiot"), and while it may be endearing in small doses, it will really grate on the nerves of Southern and Midwestern voters once they're exposed to it at length.

Yeah, I was trying to explain that what is considered cool among Newjerseyites and Newyorkers might rub people the wrong way in Iowa or New Hampshire, where they expect to be treated with utmost respect by candidates, and Phil went apoplectic.

I don't know if Schweitzer intends to run in 2016 or not, but the fact that he's willing to go there on Romney's religion suggests that a Schweitzer 2016 campaign could be, uh, interesting if Romney is the incumbent:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/19/brian-schweitzer-mitt-romney-s-family-came-from-a-polygamy-commune-in-mexico.html

Hickenlooper is going to be interesting. He is very popular, but the state GOP is a mess and can't get their act together. If he's on the national stage, things are going to come out the GOP here has not eventually successfully tried to nail him on. Like two dozen houses burning down on a Sunday because the firefighters didn't want to work and his administration says "lesson learned". And that's it, everyone ignored it because the GOP didn't say what the h*ll! So he's popular, but also untested, and he was given the election to him because of Tancredo and Maes both being in the race.

I think Biden will wait and see if someone good gets in before making a final decision on whether or not to run. If the field looks too weak by 2014, he'll toss his hat in the ring, if not, he'll retire. In any case, I look for a real battle on the Democratic side to inherit Obama's massive campaign machine. While Obama may prefer not to endorse until the Democrats have a nominee, it won't prevent candidates from trying to woo his contributors.

Right now, the Republican field looks pretty weak, so weak that Santorum might end up running as a sacrificial lamb in 2016 unless someone emerges from left field that's truly impressive.

...are you kidding? The Republican field will be just as good as a the Democrat field. With people like Rubio, Christie, Martinez, Jeb, and Huckabee kicking around, it'll be an interesting election.

After eight years of Obama, I think the only Democrats who'd stand a chance would be Hillary and Schweitzer.   

Looks like Vilsack might run again (his 2008 campaign lasted like two weeks or so):

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120508/NEWS09/120507028/Vilsack-would-consider-another-White-House-run

He says the only offices he'd consider running for in the future would be president or vice president.

I doubt Hillary or Biden will run, but if either of them jumps into the race they could probably clear the field (Hillary more so than Biden). They will probably wait to see how the 2016 field takes shape, and if it looks weak either could become a savoir candidate. They can afford to wait until later in the campaign season to jump in, for no other reason than their near universal name rec.

However, a number of candidates will need to enter the field early if they are to ward off Hillary or Biden. O'Malley, Kaine, Cuomo or Warner will need to get out early, and try to claim "front-runner" status. Others, like Hickenlooper, Gillibrand, or Patrick will need to enter fairly early to build up campaign infrastructure and national name recognition. Schweitzer, Feingold, and Warren could conceivably wait until later in the season to jump in, and try to pick off a faltering front runner and claim momentum.

You're right but Billary is smart enough to game it out and, if she wants to run, not wait as long as she can so as to try and clear the field.  On the other hand, she may want to wait longer to see if it's a favorable year for Dems.

He'd have to move to the right to get closer to the center.

People who call Christie a conservative sometimes remind me of this scene in The Sopranos.  There are four New York mobsters sitting around a table, talking about Tony Soprano.  When one of them disparages Tony, another defends him by say, "Hey, he's a boss!"  A third mobster, apparently the leader of the crew, sniffs, "A boss?  In Jersey he's a boss."

Christie's a conservative?  Yeah, in Jersey.

Right now, Sec. Clinton is getting tired and you can see it.  I think she'll retire from politics after her term as Sec of State is over whether that's January 2013 or January 2017.  I'm leaning more toward her being replaced in a potential Obama second term, not because she isn't a good SoS, but because she's incredibly tired and worn out.  30+ years in politics is a long time.  If she runs, she'll obviously be an instant favorite, but I put the chances of her running again at <20%.

She's already announced her retirement as SoS at the end of Obama's first term.

Whether that means she's also not going to run for prez in 2016 is open to debate.  She says she's not going to run for prez, but others have said the same before and then changed their minds.  Her time in politics is nothing compared to some of the others who've run for president in the past.  Look at Bob Dole in 1996, for goodness sake.  He was older and in politics longer without the kind of break that HRC will have from 2013-2015.  People said he wouldn't run because he was too old.  Same for McCain.  Same for Reagan, for that matter.

I...I'm sorry, are you suggesting that you think that Chris Christie is by some standard a liberal? Is that actually what you're suggesting?

I've found a grand total of one (1) famous person who called Chris Christie a liberal. That person is a Mr.  Herman Cain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/02/herman-cain-chris-christie-2012_n_991026.html).

Mitt Romney.

Fwiw, Rendell says he thinks HRC will run:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/ed-rendell-i-believe-hillary-will-run


And on the same day, Pelosi encourages her as well:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/03/MNH01ORI6T.DTL&ao=all

Speculation that Rand Paul might actually be more likely to run in 2016 if it's against incumbent President Romney than if Obama's reelected and there's an open contest on the GOP side:

http://www.nhpr.org/post/mitt-romney-vs-rand-paul-2016

that would be despicable.

Rand providing a primary challenge to Obama would be despicable? If Romney's awful (which he will most likely be), then a primary challenger, especially a convincing one like Rand, would be a great thing for a 21st century Republican party.

Christie on 2016: "If there's an opportunity for me to serve in another capacity and I think I have something to add to the mix, I don't think I'd back away from it."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/christie-says-hes-open-2016-presidential-bid

Mary Fallin? I hope not!