Democrats who really don't want Biden, Clinton or Cuomo to be the nominee.

[12th_Angry_Medley]

I guess no one here like O'Malley or what?

[Mr. Morden]

Hillary Clinton is my #1 choice (I'm not sure there are any other viable female possibilities), but I would kill myself if Biden or Cuomo won the nomination.

Elizabeth Warren
Amy Klobuchar
Kirsten Gillibrand

Yeah, I like all three of them a lot and know they're listed as possibilities. I just don't think they'd have the support to mount a successful national campaign yet.

Well, let's assume that Clinton doesn't run, and one of those three women ends up running in the Democratic primaries against an otherwise all male field?  Don't you think that the one female candidate would get an awful lot of media attention just by virtue of being the only candidate with two X chromosomes.....enough to make her competitive both in polling and fundraising?  I just get the feeling that there's a sense of unfinished business among many female Democratic voters from 2008, about wanting to elect the first female president.  If Clinton doesn't run, then that feeling will be transferred onto whoever else looks remotely viable.

[exopolitician]

I guess no one here like O'Malley or what?

O'Malley is my first choice.

Schweitzer
Klobuchar
Hickenlooper
Gillibrand
Warner
Brown

They are all good choices that I would be okay with. O'Malley/Klobuchar or O'Malley/Gillibrand would be great tickets imo.

[tmthforu94]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume Clinton would walk away with the nomination - Similar to 2008, there will be a huge target on her back from the very beginning, and even if she makes it to the General Election, she'll have a lot of battle wounds from the primary. Her best bet at the White House was Romney winning this time.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Come on Eraserhead, it's not 2008 anymore. We're allowed to like Clinton again! She'd win a huge landslide as well. It would be political malpractice for the Democratic party not to run her as its candidate.

Anybody who's confident about their candidate winning in landslide with four years to go is a fool.

[Mr. Morden]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume Clinton would walk away with the nomination - Similar to 2008, there will be a huge target on her back from the very beginning, and even if she makes it to the General Election, she'll have a lot of battle wounds from the primary. Her best bet at the White House was Romney winning this time.

I agree that the general election is unpredictable, and it depends on what things look like in 2016.  But for the primary.......Clinton's standing with Democratic voters is much better now than it was in 2005/2006, when she was preparing her first run.  To the point where I think she'd be as strongly favored to win the nomination as Gore was in 2000, and might receive only token opposition.  I lay out the case here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=152668.msg3277351#msg3277351

[Tender Branson]

Currently I'm undecided between Klobuchar, Hickenlooper and Beebe (just for the lolz-like-swings in AR, MO, WV etc.)

[Unimog]

Schweitzer / Manchin of course.

[Ogre Mage]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume Clinton would walk away with the nomination - Similar to 2008, there will be a huge target on her back from the very beginning, and even if she makes it to the General Election, she'll have a lot of battle wounds from the primary. Her best bet at the White House was Romney winning this time.

Ed Rendell and Howard Dean, two former DNC chairmen, said that if Hillary wants the 2016 nomination the Democratic Primary field "goes away."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxHJvD3udOs

[Blue3]

Yeah, Schweitzer has already said that he won't run if Hillary runs.

[Ogre Mage]

Hillary Clinton is my #1 choice (I'm not sure there are any other viable female possibilities), but I would kill myself if Biden or Cuomo won the nomination.

Elizabeth Warren
Amy Klobuchar
Kirsten Gillibrand

Yeah, I like all three of them a lot and know they're listed as possibilities. I just don't think they'd have the support to mount a successful national campaign yet.

Well, let's assume that Clinton doesn't run, and one of those three women ends up running in the Democratic primaries against an otherwise all male field?  Don't you think that the one female candidate would get an awful lot of media attention just by virtue of being the only candidate with two X chromosomes.....enough to make her competitive both in polling and fundraising?  I just get the feeling that there's a sense of unfinished business among many female Democratic voters from 2008, about wanting to elect the first female president.  If Clinton doesn't run, then that feeling will be transferred onto whoever else looks remotely viable.

I was a huge fan of Elizabeth Warren running for Senate but I am very skeptical about her as a Presidential candidate, in spite of her high name recognition and massive fundraising ability.  She has a mastery of domestic economic policy, but there were several times during the campaign when it was clear she was political neophyte.  Most notably in her poor handling of the admittedly ridiculous controversy about her heritage.   Perhaps she will rapidly transform into a political virtuoso over the next four years but I doubt it.  It remains to be seen what her Senate committee assignments will be but right now she could not pass the Commander-In-Chief test, a particularly difficult hurdle for a female presidential candidate.  

Kirsten Gillibrand is one of the most effective political messengers in the Democratic party and is also a great fundraiser.  She won reelection with an overwhelming 72%.  Her background in Asian studies and service on the Senate Armed Services Committee suggest she could pass the Commander-In-Chief test.  Furthermore, Gillibrand is a Hillary protege and occupies Clinton's old Senate seat, so there is certain logic in her picking up the mantle if Hillary decides to not run.  The biggest roadblock for Gillibrand's ambitions is Andrew Cuomo's probable interest in 2016.  If he got in that would seriously complicate her chances.

Amy Klobuchar won reelection with an impressive 65%.  The Midwest is a critical swing region and I could see Klobuchar appealing to those voters.  She is funny and personable in public appearances ("I can see Iowa from my front porch.") and her carefully crafted political persona has steered a middle ground between the centrist and liberal wings of the Democratic Party.  Problems:  her speaking style is unexciting (hard to imagine Klobuchar throwing “red meat” to the base) and her national profile is very low.  Lower than Gillibrand’s and way lower than Warren’s.

[DemPGH]

Four years out (and that's a LONG time), my heart says Biden, my brain says Hillary.

Now, let's have some historical perspective. Politically, four years is an eternity plus a few millennia. Rewind to late 1990. Who in the world thought the little known, seldom heard of Arkansas governor would come along and save the party in a little over a year? In the pre-Internet age, probably nobody.

In 2015-16 a viable alternative could emerge. But until then Hillary is the best bet, I think. 

[Mr. Morden]

Problems:  her speaking style is unexciting (hard to imagine Klobuchar throwing “red meat” to the base) and her national profile is very low.  Lower than Gillibrand’s and way lower than Warren’s.

My point in that last post of mine that you quoted was that it doesn't matter how low her profile currently is, or how low the profile of any potential 2016 female Democratic presidential candidate is.  As long as they're not in the unelectable fringe of the party a la Dennis Kucinich, the mere fact of having two X chromosomes running in a Democratic primary against a field of men will make them high profile.  They'll get a surge of media interest, boost in polling and fundraising and the like just for that.  (Whether that'll be a big enough boost to win the nomination is another story.)

There isn't going to be a female version of Chris Dodd 2008, because the media simply isn't going to ignore a female candidate like that.

[nolesfan2011]

This would be me, we can't afford another nominee from the corporate Dem, DLC appeasing crowd. They are wrecking the party and hurting the country.

In regards to Biden, he's old and will be sure to gaffe it up by 2016 too risky, Clinton is wayyy too corporate (couldn't stand her in 08 either) and now I dislike her foreign policy record.  Cuomo is way too corporate, and comes off as a bit pandering and sleazy, though I really liked his dad.  Also no O'Malley, people I know in Maryland dislike him, and he has no charisma and isn't a very good speaker.  

Also no Warren, I view her as a bit of a fake and far too AIPAC tied and no Klobuchar (SOPA sponsor), also no Kaine because I never liked him at all.

In terms of who I DO want in 2016, Schweitzer, Sherrod Brown top 2, maybe Al Franken, Pete Defazio for an outsider, and for a real outsider Rocky Anderson if he comes back to the Dems (ran as 3rd party in 2012 supported him then).

Cory Booker, Gillibrand and Deval Patrick I'm both on the fence about, and though I don't see it happening, Ted Strickland would be cool too. Also Bob Kerrey is awesome, but I don't see that happening either.

[Ogre Mage]

Another problem with Klobuchar I forgot to mention:  her position on internet censorship will probably be unpopular with the base.

Gillibrand has a sharper-elbowed style than Klobuchar.  Klobuchar is, in her own words, not a "spear thrower."  I imagine Klobuchar would play better in Iowa, whose voters prefer their politicians "Iowa nice."  N.H. or especially S.C. would be a different matter.

[Mr. Morden]

Another problem with Klobuchar I forgot to mention:  her position on internet censorship will probably be unpopular with the base.

Right, but there are also many many Democratic primary voters who don't care a lick about issues like that.  Many of whom are the type who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and almost won her the nomination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, Gillibrand would probably be the stronger candidate of the two, if they were to both run.  But we probably won't see both of them running, and Klobuchar's probably the more likely of the two to run.  Neither will run if HRC does, and if HRC doesn't run, Klobuchar is still maybe only ~50/50 to run, with Gillibrand less than that.  The question for Gillibrand is, does she run if Cuomo does?  It would be highly unusual for the junior senator in a state to run for president against the incumbent governor, when the incumbent governor has effective control of the state's political machine and fundraising base.  And Gillibrand's young, so she might see it as less risky to wait until 2020 or 2024.

OTOH, if it really looks like no other women are going to run, then Gillibrand might see her opening as "heir to the Hillary Clinton mantle".  She would try to build a national fundraising base based on that, and rely less on New York.  I'll grant that both Cuomo and Gillibrand running in the same primary strikes me as more plausible than both Bush and Rubio running or both Ryan and Walker running.

[King]

If Arne Duncan didn't have such a weird lisp in his voice, he would be a good candidate.

Nobody mentioned outside of Biden or Clinton feels like a winner at this point.  Look, sound, and act are the three keys to a good candidate.  All of the rest miss the mark in some way.  

Cuomo has the look and the sound, but it is not clear that he is in line with the Democratic platform--he's basically the Democratic Mitt Romney.  He'll get attacked from the left in the primaries and there's little hope he can recover his image to win.  

O'Malley has the look and the act, but sounds like a boring dork.

I cannot picture Schweitzer or Hickenlooper as a President of the United States.

Michael Bennet? Maybe.

Cory Booker surging to the national forefront and staying there is probably the Democrats best chance at a "new face" winning, but I don't think he's ready.  Kirsten Gillibrand is also interesting.  So are Kamala Harris and Julian Castro, but both are 2020/24 material more than 2016.

[Ogre Mage]

I guess no one here like O'Malley or what?

I have a vaguely favorable impression of him.  I think the problem is not dislike but rather a lack of buzz, excitement and interest.  And he certainly did himself no favors on that front with his DNC speech.  Right now Martin O'Malley 2016 feels like a buildup to ... Chris Dodd 2008.

[Statesman]

I'd vote for Hillary if she were the nominee but I might consider someone else first in the primary. I preferred Obama over Clinton in 2008 due to Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq War and Obama's early opposition to the invasion, as well as well as the fact that Obama seemed to do slightly better in polls against McCain than Clinton.

I have to say I was impressed by the U.S.-Egypt brokered Gaza ceasefire today, and if it holds I'll be even more impressed. I would be less skeptical of a Clinton run this time. But I still am a bit more liberal than the center of the Democratic Party, and would weight my options in who to support.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cuomo would be crappy. Clinton would be meh. Biden would be the best of the three, but I doubt he'll run.

[m4567]

If Arne Duncan didn't have such a weird lisp in his voice, he would be a good candidate.

Nobody mentioned outside of Biden or Clinton feels like a winner at this point.  Look, sound, and act are the three keys to a good candidate.  All of the rest miss the mark in some way.  

Cuomo has the look and the sound, but it is not clear that he is in line with the Democratic platform--he's basically the Democratic Mitt Romney.  He'll get attacked from the left in the primaries and there's little hope he can recover his image to win.  

O'Malley has the look and the act, but sounds like a boring dork.

I cannot picture Schweitzer or Hickenlooper as a President of the United States.

Michael Bennet? Maybe.

Cory Booker surging to the national forefront and staying there is probably the Democrats best chance at a "new face" winning, but I don't think he's ready.  Kirsten Gillibrand is also interesting.  So are Kamala Harris and Julian Castro, but both are 2020/24 material more than 2016.

I agree with you about Clinton and Biden. They're the only democratic candidates I can see winning in 2016.

[sentinel]

Not Warren, please not Warren. We'd lose the general if she ever made it out of the primaries.

[Chaddyr23]

No to Clinton or Biden.

[Cryptic]

Although I'd vote for them, I agre with the OP that I don't want Biden, Clinton, or Cuomo. 

Personally, I'm hoping Gillibrand decides to run.  As other have mentioned, there's the issue of Cuomo running and him having more control over the state party, but if she can win some of the early primaries that would offset a potential lose of her home state to Cuomo. 

[exopolitician]

]b]Personally, I'm hoping Gillibrand decides to run.[/b]  As other have mentioned, there's the issue of Cuomo running and him having more control over the state party, but if she can win some of the early primaries that would offset a potential lose of her home state to Cuomo. 

Id love for Gillibrand to run instead of Hillary.