For the hell of it, let's speculate 2016

[demwing]

We'll assume Obama wins this year, and that Biden does not run to follow him.

Hillary will probably be near the top of many lists, with the standard DU favs like Kucinich, Sanders, and Grayson added.

Let's assume those names, and stir the pot a bit. Here's my top five (in no particular order):


Deval Patrick - Twice Governor of Massachusetts
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Deval_Patrick.htm
Criticism - Harvard Law Grad raised by a single mom. His personal story may be too reminiscent of Obama's for 2016, but maybe not



Sherrod Brown - Senior Senator from Ohio
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Sherrod_Brown.htm
Criticism - The voice of the people...who smoked too much.



Barbara Boxer - Junior Senator from California
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barbara_Boxer.htm
Criticism - Would really piss off the Republicans. Wait....nvm



Elizabeth Warren - Potential Junior Senator from Massachusetts
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Elizabeth_Warren.htm
Criticism - Let's see how well she does against Brown.


(I borrowed Bernie Sanders' map!)
"The Unknown Grassroots Candidate" - House Rep? Administration hero? Super Mayor? A star about to shine?
Criticism - This person is a currently a wish, and probably doesn't exist. Then again, who would have that that Obama would rise so quickly?


So ok...Who makes your list?

[SheilaT]

1. Hillary won't be at the top of any list to run for President in 2016.

I believe she's said she's leaving government employment at the end of this year, hasn't she?

Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren both are huge favorites of mine, but keep in mind that in 2004 people had just barely heard of Barack Obama, and in 1988 William Clinton was a little-known governor of a small, low-profile southern state.

Republicans tend to have people who are groomed for years to run for President. Not the Democrats.

[demwing]

2. well you know how that is - regardless of what she said

Hillary will still be at the top of many lists here at DU. There are still occasional threads speculating that Obama will swap her and Biden.

And I did keep in mind the unknown factor, which is why I had an "Unknown Candidate"

Other than Warren and Sherrod, who's your dark horse?

[SheilaT]

6. I don't have one.

I know speculating about elections more than one cycle down the road is a favorite past time here, but I keep on pointing out how complete unknowns keep on popping up out of the woodwork for the Democrats, making it quite pointless.

[monmouth]

3. Martin O'Malley and Andrew Cuomo are names I often hear. Good post. K&R..n/t

[KamaAina]

16. O'Malley yes, Cuomo no

He's a corporatist who probably makes his daddy Mario cry.

[hifiguy]

28. I have heard many good things about O'Malley

right here on DU. Clearly he is someone to consider seriously. Cuomo's a Third Way Dem who's liberal on social issues. No thank you. Now his dad . . .

[monmouth]

29. Oh yes....Definitely agree about his dad....LOL...n/t

[demwing]

50. O'Malley is a 3rd way Dem

who has called for the complete transformation of Social Security, using phrases such as "Honor our commitment to seniors" balanced against "enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement."

I don't trust the guy,

[dmallind]

4. wouldn't mind a flutter on Brian Schweitzer in that pool. nt

[wandy]

5. I'de like to go with Grayson....

Allen would be a "hard sell', that's a given. Still consider that he is stright up. You can almost believe that he is not just tossing a line of bullshit.
That's what would make him a "hard sell".
That's what would make him a good choice.

[michreject]

51. I don't think so

He has never won any state wide election.

I believe that the nominee will either come from the ranks of a Governor or Senator.

[onehandle]

7. Elizabeth Warren is where all my 2012 money is going, so that she can run in 2016. nt

[Life Long Dem]

13. Except if Romney wins, kiss 2016 goodbye as well

Romney would have two terms.

[Bake]

8. If your list is all we've got (other than HRC), we've got nobody.

But then, some people thought Obama was a nobody too, back in the day.

Bake

[demwing]

10. I make no claims that this is all we got

where's your additions? Who are your candidates? I guarantee you the Republicans are thinking about 2016. Are we?

[Bake]

15. Personally, I hope Hillary decides to run.

Beyond that, I'd look for a governor, but I don't see anybody at this point (other than perhaps Deval Patrick). Elizabeth Warren appears to be a fighter, but she's never been elected to anything, so let's see how she does against Brown. Biden's really too old (for that matter, so is HRC). Sherrod Brown is a possibility.

So right now, I got nothin'. But you are correct, we'd best start looking for some potential candidates!

Bake

[AsahinaKimi]

9. I just love Barbara Boxer...

But Elizabeth Warren has great potential as a leader.

** Edited to add Alan Grayson as another choice!

[demwing]

11. Both are great, Warren is a superstar in the making

but I'd really love to see Boxer make a run for it...

[Motown_Johnny]

12. I'm all in for Elizabeth Warren

[Honeycombe8]

19. Because she did such a great job winning City Councilperson? Oh, wait. She's never won any

political office.

I hate to be snarky, but it's beginning to be irritating, the posters who don't seem to realize that you don't start out in politics by running for the most difficult election in the world. It's so hard to run for President that even hard nosed, extremely experienced politicians have been unable to hold up under the pressure or win or even do well. Look at Rick Perry, a governor who had never lost any election before, and had won more than a few...sunk horribly. Biden. Hillary. Dole. McCain. Kerry. Kemp. And on and on.

Warren is extremely inexperienced, and may not win her first toe-dip into campaigns, altho it's close. There is no way she can run for President any time soon.

Couple that with the fact that it's extremely difficult for a Congress person to win President, because of all the recorded votes they've made, or not made.

Obama was very experienced, having run and won several elections on a statewide level and national-state level. Plus, he's just a natural, and is unique.

Warren has several more elections to go before she's as experienced as Obama was, when he won. And he was relatively inexperienced as a campaigner running for President.

She might be considered as VP, tho.

[Motown_Johnny]

20. The fact that she will only have a couple years voting to run on/against

is part of the appeal.


Obama's people will be looking for work after his last election is over.


I'm still all in for Elizabeth Warren. This is the same path Hillary Clinton took. I am fairly sure it can be done and that she is the woman to do it.

[Honeycombe8]

24. Hillary had decades of experience in politics, plus had been a partner at a law firm years ago.

She was around 60 years old, full of life experiences, comfortable debating and discussing politics on a global scale, and experienced at dealing with reporters and politicians and world leaders. And don't forget: she lost to someone with more campaign experience.

If you had a Fortune 500 company and were looking for a new CEO, would you hire your cousin Martha, who is trying to set up a gift shop in your city, and that's the extent of her experience with business? Even though you like the way Martha thinks (she thinks like you), and Martha is smart, you'd recognize that Martha isn't experienced at dealing with thousands of locations across the world, dealing with treaties and trade agreements with other countries, dealing with the accountants working on and balancing the books of a billionaire corporation, dealing with all the local state and national and other countries' laws affecting the corporation. No, you wouldn't hire Martha for that position. But you might let her try to handle a department at the corporation, as long as there is oversight of her.

[Motown_Johnny]

25. I have no doubt that the First Lady had tea in over 50 countires

but if you want to swap "cousin" for "friend's wife" in that analogy it will fit one of these women very well.



Mrs. Warren was born in '49, so in '16 she will be 67. So much for your "full of life experiences" argument.



I'll agree that Mrs. Warren has mostly economic experience and far less foreign relations experience than Mrs. Clinton but you will need to admit that Mrs. Warren has far more experience dealing with the economy than Mrs. Clinton.

Once she has a couple of years in the Senate she will be fine.

[Honeycombe8]

33. It won't happen. She's never even won a city council position or has debate experience.

Don't know why people can't see that.

Oh, well. You'll see. It...will...not...happen.

This is not a senate position. It's the most difficult office in the world to campaign for and to win.

No one will offer her the run in the primary, and even if she'd make it happen herself (which is unlikely), she wouldn't win a primary. No one will offer her the run in the primary, though. She's green. She's not a politician. Yet. And it takes more than one campaign to be ready to run for the Presidency.

You'll see.

[Motown_Johnny]

36. I'm still supporting her. The OP asked for speculation

so I am speculating, not predicting.

[Honeycombe8]

38. Then I'm supporting my cousin Martha. She's a great thinker and understands economics. nt

[demwing]

55. Your pro Martha agenda is revealed

Listen, do you think politicians are the only political animals that live?

Do you not think it take a political sense to work your way up to become a Law Professor at Harvard?

Do you think a brilliant academic is unable to debate?

Ultimately (and I said something similar about Gillibrand down-thread) maybe we are stuck in a rut, and we have to change the way we understand what it is that makes a great leader.

This desire to only elect politicians might be causing us to miss out on the the realization of the promise of the American experiment - a government that is REALLY made up and powered by ordinary citizens. Maybe we shouldn't resist some fundamental challenges to our perceptions, because as I look around at the state of our union, I have to believe that our perceptions are driven by some very powerful misconceptions.

If the system as it is works so damned well, then why does it also work so damned poorly?

[Motown_Johnny]

59. good luck with that

[Life Long Dem]

14. Elizabeth Warren has potential

[Honeycombe8]

34. In 8 years she'll be 75. Too old for anything other than what she's running for. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

35. In 8 years she will be 71

[annabanana]

17. Russ Feingold? Al Franken? . . . .n/t

[Honeycombe8]

18. None of those. A progressive cannot win. Is Cuomo more moderate?

I hear Cuomo's name a lot.

Hillary is a strong possibility, IF she decides to run.

[boxman15]

21. Martin O'Malley

He is a solid Democrat, a successful governor, and will be able to win over swing voters in a similar way that Obama did in 2008, in my opinion.

[PragmaticLiberal]

32. Folks are sleeping on O'Malley....

but I'm fairly confident that he WILL be the nominee.

[boxman15]

41. Same here.

I consider him the favorite. He just has presidential material, in my opinion, and would do a great job winning over voters. That's not to say others won't, it's just that I think he's the strongest possible candidate for 2016 as of now.

Cuomo, once his stances are out in the open, won't be able to energize liberals enough to vote for him in the primaries.

Hillary could win it, but I don't think she'll want to run. Plus, I think swing voters are sick of her (Though I think she'd make a great president)

With Warren, let's see if she even wins her Senate seat before we start speculating about her.

Almost everyone else that DU is speculating about, in my opinion, are just pipe dreams. We'll see, though. We have an election in a few months to worry about first.

[demwing]

60. Don't see the attraction to Martin O'Malley

he's a 3rd Way "New Dem," wants to change the basic structure of Social Security.

[AJTheMan]

22. I'll have to wait to see who actually runs before I decide.

I love Democratic primaries.

[GarroHorus]

23. Kirsten Gillibrand

She could actually win a national election.

[RandySF]

26. I would advise top tier Dems to skip 2016.

It's very rare for parties to get three terms. The Republicans will probably get their shit together and keep the crazies out of serious contention. Their own top tier (Jeb!, Pawlnety, Sandoval, etc) will be running and people, for whatever reason, will want a change.

[demwing]

31. That relies on what Obama does with his 2nd term

and whether Hillary runs

[boxman15]

42. If Obama leaves and is popular (which I think he would be at the end of a second term)

then I think it's very possible we could win in 2016 if we get the right candidate on the ticket (for me, that's Martin O'Malley). It'll be very tough, no doubt (the only party to win 3 presidential elections in a row since FDR-Truman was the GOP with Reagan-Bush Sr.), but it's still possible.

[GarroHorus]

47. I think Kirsten Gillibrand could defeat any top tier Repub.

She will be ripe for a national election in 2016.

[On the Road]

27. If He Runs,

my choice would be Howard Dean again.

[Zen Democrat]

30. Dr. Dean or Elizabeth Warren for me.

[Chisox08]

37. Elizabeth Warren would be a dream candidate

[TheKentuckian]

39. The who no longer has any meaning to me.

What they stand for and when do they go to the firewall is what I'm concerned about and I'll be looking for the who to fit that.

Too damn many are too fixated on personality and packaging and too disinterested in content.

Cult of personality loyalist are killing the party.

[demwing]

40. Agreed, which is why I added their "stats"

so you could see the WHY behind the WHO.

So which pols do you think best represent the policies and "content" that you find important?

[sadbear]

43. Everyone tell me why Brian Schweitzer would be the wrong candidate

Is he not progressive enough?

[demwing]

44. Maybe you could also make the case why you think he's the right candidate?

That's only fair...

Without judgement, here's his VoteMatch map:



and a record of where he's come down of various positions:

http://senate.ontheissues.org/Brian_Schweitzer.htm

Just from a cursory glance, I see he's a center left Dem, big on Gun rights, favors domestic partnerships over marriage equality.

That's understandable for a Dem in Montana, but is it where we'd like to see the country go?

[sadbear]

45. I never had the intention of making the case for him.

I was just surprised to not see his name and wanted to know why no one mentioned him yet. I mean, there are our dream candidates and then there are the candidate who could actually win. Maybe that person is O'Malley. (We'll talk about Elizabeth Warren after November.)

[demwing]

46. "the candidate who could actually win"

Maybe you could describe that candidate?

[GarroHorus]

48. "the candidate who could actually win"

Kirsten Gillibrand

[demwing]

53. Gillibrand is truly a great progressive

And seems so bright and energetic.

But there's something about her demeanor that I don't associate with being the President.
It's not gender based. Hillary doesn't hit me that way, nor even a non politician like our first lady. I could see either sitting across a table from any world leader and representing our country in the greatest light.

But not Gillibrand. I think Gillibrand just doesn't have sufficient gravitas

Maybe I'm just fucking jaded. Maybe I have a faulty perception of what it takes to lead, and I need to work on changing that bit about myself. Maybe Gillibrand is exactly what this country needs.

[sadbear]

52. In a post-Citizens United America

I suspect a Democratic candidate who could win could be only slightly more liberal than President Obama. But a lot could happen between now and 2016. I'm only speculating on 2016 as if the election were being held tomorrow.

[Godhumor]

49. If he runs, I'll proudly support my governor, Andrew Cuomo

If he does not, then Hillary. If she does not, then I will wait and see who steps up.

[Kalidurga]

54. Haven't seen this guy mentioned...

I don't know a lot about him to be sure, but a bit of cursory reading about him looks promising. He is very well liked by the people that know him(unlike Robme) and has had a very good political career. He has youthful looks, but was born in 1952, and is Governor of a state that goes red for presidential elections. So with out further ado I present: Gov. John Lynch (NH).

Probably be best to not recruit him until in late 2014 though in order to avoid candidate fatigue, but then on the other hand, people seem to like him more the better they know him.

[Pab Sungenis]

56. If he wins the New Jersey governorship next year (which could be likely)

Cory Booker is going to top a lot of people's lists. Although he's a little too corporatist for me and somehow I doubt we'll see two African Americans in a row. It's probably the right time for a woman.

[sadbear]

57. DU has soured on Cory Booker

At least the last time I checked. Maybe enough time has pasted. Maybe not.

[Greggers]

58. My top 5

1. Elizabeth Warren: she has a great message
2. Alan Grayson: he speaks the truth about what the Rethuglicans want
3. Al Frankin: fearless progressive warrior
4. Debbie Wasserman Schultz: she's hot
5. Jesse Jackson Jr: great progressive and fighter of racism. Plus you know how much the racist Rethuglicans would hate to have another African-American as president.

[Boxcar Willie]

61. What about Cory Booker?

[BlueIris]

62. I can't agree to your parameters, but I predict

we'll nominate the same guy we're nominating this time around.