Which of these 2016 Democratic Candidates do you support?

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

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.

[milhouse24]

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'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.

[Bo]

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'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.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

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

[milhouse24]

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.

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.

[Bo]

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.

[President Mitt]

Spaces are your friend.

[milhouse24]

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.

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"

[Mr. Morden]

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.

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.

After 1924, there have been only two cases in the Democratic Party where the establishment candidate lost the nomination--in 1972 and 2008.

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. 

[Bo]

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.

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.

After 1924, there have been only two cases in the Democratic Party where the establishment candidate lost the nomination--in 1972 and 2008.

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.

[Psychic Octopus]

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

[Bo]

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"

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).

[Mr. Morden]

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.

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???

[milhouse24]

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"

[Bo]

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.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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

[milhouse24]

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.

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.

[Bull Moose Base]

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?

[Bo]

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.

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.

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.

[milhouse24]

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.

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.

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.

[Bull Moose Base]

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.

[Bo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[milhouse24]

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.

[milhouse24]

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.

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.