Opposing party: Who's nomination do you fear the most?

[California8429]

Who do you fear the most being nomination out of the other party?

For me obviously Hillary Clinton is a threat though we won't really know until the campaign takes off to see how far her approvals drop (will she go back to 08 Hillary, a little lower, keep 5-10 points higher being SoS?)

I also fear Cuomo can bring over independents and perhaps republicans, especially if they are unsatisfied with the nominee (particularly if the nominee is a boring far rightist). Same with Schweitzer (though could he raise the money and how good is he on TV? If both those are positives I fear him more).

[Frodo]

Chris Christie would be quite formidable -if he can get through the primaries with a Tea-Party electorate clamoring for one of their own. 

[Comrade Funk]

Christie. Maybe Bush if his brother didn't destroy the family name.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

No idea.  I really don't care this early in the game, and PLEASE believe me when I say that Hillary Clinton will NOT run in 2016.  I guess she could be my answer, because I would never want the spouse of a former president to become president himself/herself.

[Donerail]

I really fear Hillary, both for her ability to win and what she'd do in office. I'd probably fear President Warren too, if she wasn't unelectable.

[The Constable]

Electability-wise: Christie
Ideology-wise: Rubio

[paul718]

Electability:  Cuomo
Ideology:  Warren

[Skill and Chance]

Worst for Democrats:

1. Martinez (particularly vs. a white male D)
2. Christie
3. Jindal (he seems to have the temperature of the country right now)
4. Ryan (FDR ran for VP in 1928...)
5. Rubio (can probably be linked to the Tea Party enough to offset demographic appeal)

Worst for Republicans:

1. H. Clinton
2. Schweitzer
3. Warner (right positioning, needs to work on exciting people)

I'd love to see a Martinez vs. Clinton election.

[DC Al Fine]

Electability: Cuomo/Clinton
Ideology: Warren

[Paul Kemp]

Get back to me in spring 2016.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Warner or Cuomo are going to be really hard to beat. They own the center, and Warner has a ton of demographic advantages.

Clinton's going to be tough, but it all depends on the last few years of Obama. She could easily meet the same fate as McCain.

I pray for a Biden or Warren nomination.

[Maxwell]

Electabilty: Cuomo and Clinton
Ideology: Warren and O'Malley

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I fear Warren, because I think she could actually pull it off. I don't fear Hillary, because I could probably be supportive of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Honestly, I don't think the Democrat bench is as formidable as people believe. I'm not scared of the Democrats, I'm scared that the Republicans will be stupid.

[Vote UKIP!]

Ask me in a year or two...

well, I wouldn't tell you at all. You might nominate him/her.

[Blue3]

Electabilty: Cuomo and Clinton
Ideology: Warren and O'Malley

I'm curious... what is it about O'Malley's ideology (but isn't associated with Clinton or Cuomo) that scares you?

[Maxwell]

Electabilty: Cuomo and Clinton
Ideology: Warren and O'Malley

I'm curious... what is it about O'Malley's ideology (but isn't associated with Clinton or Cuomo) that scares you?

It isn't necessarily the same as Warren, its kind of opposite reasons. Warren is representitive of someone who I wholeheartedly disagree with on economic policy, and someone who doesn't seem really concerned about the major infraction on our civil liberties and would probably continue in that direction. On the other hand, O'Mally doesn't scare me, he's kind of in the Biden league of being wrong on most issues and willing to go along with bi-partisanship no matter what, especially when it leads to devastating things.

[osideguy92]

If I were still a Democrat, just in terms of sheer electability, I'd have to say Jon Huntsman. In terms of ideology, I'd say Paul Ryan.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Electability: Christie, Bush, maybe Rubio, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe Martinez
Ideology: Rubio, Ryan, Paul

[Mechaman]

4. Ryan (FDR ran for VP in 1920...)

First of all, fixedlol.

Secondly, I think this is a really good point that has been brought up.  FDR did lose, in a huge popular vote landslide, as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket in 1920.  Some people argue that it actually BENEFITTED him to have been on the ticket of 1920, that it gave him a huge boost for the future due to his campaigning.  Something that I find, especially looking at the results, quite hilarious.  FDR in the early 1920's was deader than Disco, what with his landslide loss, the Newport Sex Scandal, and finally his paralytic illness.  It was only after he mended some of his ways with Tammany in the 1920's, building a key relationship with New York Governor Al Smith that included campaigning for Smith against his own cousin Theodore Roosevelt Jr. in 1924, that FDR had a shot at even returning to politics.  Surely, his victory in the 1928 Gubernatorial, in a good year for Republicans, was seen as a Godsend.  It was on this record as governor that he eventually built up the momentum, given the Great Depression, to go onto become one of the most consistently highest rated presidents by historians (though whether or not he deserves it is up to debate by many, including myself.  But let's leave that discussion for another time).

So yes, Paul Ryan may very well be a threat, though I doubt it since he doesn't really have what I call "teh people skills."

[heatmaster]

Huntsman is the dark horse for the GOP; Jeb Bush might be the sleeper in the pack, then it is Ryan, followed by Rubio, Christie, Jindal and Martinez in that order.
On the Democrats side, it has to be Hillary, my feeling is, that she won't run, mostly due to concerns over Bill's health; her decision will cost Cuomo, who will be playing catch up with Biden and O'Malley, who will have advantages in fund-raising and organization, but you can't discount Warner, Patrick (if he's not Attorney General) or even Rahm Emanuel.
It's early days yet

[Mister Mets]

Mark Warner.

He turns a near-essential swing state into a likely Democratic victory. He's also rather competitive in North Carolina, where demographics are increasingly favorable to Democrats.

And he was born in Indiana, so he could do well in the Midwest.

He's a centrist, so he's more appealing to issues-oriented swing voters than Kerry and Gore (both of whom had narrow losses) and Obama.

He was by all accounts a good Governor of Virginia, and has amassed an understanding of Washington as Senator, so he would have a good chance of being reelected. And I think the New Republic folks would go nuts at the implications of Democrats holding the White House for four terms.

[Maxwell]

Huntsman is the dark horse for the GOP; Jeb Bush might be the sleeper in the pack, then it is Ryan, followed by Rubio, Christie, Jindal and Martinez in that order.
On the Democrats side, it has to be Hillary, my feeling is, that she won't run, mostly due to concerns over Bill's health; her decision will cost Cuomo, who will be playing catch up with Biden and O'Malley, who will have advantages in fund-raising and organization, but you can't discount Warner, Patrick (if he's not Attorney General) or even Rahm Emanuel.
It's early days yet

Rahm Emanuel?

A lot of liberals I know would DESTROY Emanuel. I would be shocked if Rahm Emanuel were even competitive, much less the nominee.

[Mister Mets]

While Warner's the most electable, Warren would likely do the most damage. Gilibrand and O'Malley would also be likely to have the worst political ideologies.

The worst candidates to lose to could be Clinton or Gilibrand because there are likely to be long-term advantages to Democrats being the first major party to nominate a woman for President.

[morgieb]

Christie.

Although if we're talking ideology, Paul or Ryan.

[ReelectCarterMondale!]

I really fear Hillary, both for her ability to win and what she'd do in office. I'd probably fear President Warren too, if she wasn't unelectable.

How are you an independent? You sound like a right-wing extremist...or worse, a Libertarian...