Who should Progressives be Vetting Now for a 2016 Presidential Run?

[Tom Rinaldo]

Unless Obama loses The 2012 nomination to another Democrat who then goes on to win the Presidency, an extremely unlikely scenario in my opinion, there is no Democrat currently positioned to be a formidable contender for the nomination. Sure Joe Biden has the Vice Presidency going for him as a possible stepping stone, but Biden won't be a young man in 2016 and no one exactly views him as a rising star in the Democratic Party. Hillary isn't getting any younger either and she claims she has no interest in another run.

I don't ask just to engage in idle speculation. Grass roots progressives rarely get seriously engaged in the Presidential selection process before two years out from a Presidential election, and often far later than that. But politicians with national ambitions usually begin working the early stages of a game plan for a possible Presidential run 5 or more years out, especially if they are not exactly household names as things stand currently.

In 2008 the field was functionally narrowed early with Hillary Clinton always assumed to be a candidate, with Barack Obama the hugely publicized face of the new generation of Democratic politics getting non stop buzz, and with John Edwards carrying over his high media profile and grassroots support from the 2004 race. It seems unlikely 2016 will be anything like 2008 for Democratic contenders. It may be much more like 2004 when progressives were fractured 5 different ways in our support for a potential winning candidate, with many of us learning about many of them on the fly during the heat of that competition.

Can we learn some political lessons from the recent past? Some of us were spending significant energy in 2003 trying to draft Wes Clark to run, or spending that type energy in 2007 trying to get Al Gore into the race. What if we spent a year now instead discussing the pros and cons and overall electability of various potential progressive or at least progressive leaning candidates for 2016? Maybe by 2013 we can be in a position to start generating early buzz for someone we can support with real enthusiasm.

That could be the Governor of some less than high profile state. in 2001 who among us were talking about Howard Dean? Or it might be someone outside the well worn arena of electoral politics. In 2001 how many of us could identify a single military officer that any of us would have remotely considered backing? And should we want to take the route of backing an avidly progressive long shot congressman in 2016, won't his or her ultimate chances be much higher if a large cross section of progressives began organizing and coordinating or him or her 3 years before the first primary?

Who to support for President in 2016 is not merely a fun topic to kill some time over now, it is the first stage of laying the groundwork for progressives to unite early behind one or at most two potential presidential candidates who could have a real chance of winning, even if they are as much black horses now as Jimmy Carter or even Bill Clinton were when they started their long trek to the White House. If we can act ahead of the curve for a change regarding 2016 we may be able to draft our own candidate with sufficient time for him or her to assemble the resources necessary for victory.


Any names come to mind?

[Botany]

1. Vetting is very important

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. True. Maybe we should look for a military vet vetinarian :) n/t

[gateley]

2. In addition to our "wishes" we have to be practical and put up somebody who could

actually win, not a Mike Gravel, for example.

Someone here mentioned a "good" Governor the other day, but I don't recall who...

I think it's wise to start considering now -- good thinking! :headbang:

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I'll admit it, I'm woefully unprepared right now

Which is why I saw this need. When someone comes to mind, like the current mayor of Newark NJ, I realize that his name is not on the tip of my tongue and I don't know enough about him to be sure I could even end up feelijng OK voting for him. With someone like him he would need to climb another run on the political ladder beofre 2016, but that can happen. Obama pulled it off.

[karynnj]

28. Cory Booker, the mayor you mention may run for Governor in 2013

I think he would very likely beat Christie. (Christie might even pull a Romney and not run knowing a loss would dim his Presidential hopes.) This was polled earlier this year and even though Booker has far less name recognition, he tied Christie. When you look deeper a far larger share of the undecided were Democrats. Coupled with the lower name recognition, my guess is if the election were next month, Booker would win. So, that "one more rung" might be very likely.

He is extremely charming and very good speaking informally. I have not seen him give a prepared speech, but know people who did who were extremely impressed.

If MA is doing way better than the similar demographics NJ at the end of 2012 (or later if Christie is still in office), Deval Patrick might be a possibility - and the two states would be like an experiment in whether Democratic or Republican state actions work on economics.

If the economy is significantly better and healthy or near healthy, foreign policy might again be the lead issue if the world is still in turmoil. That might mean that we will want someone with foreign policy experience (No I do not mean the then 72 year old Kerry. That could be a Senator or it may be someone who as you said (of Clark) is someone not typically considered. If Susan Rice becomes Secretary of State, she might be a possibility. On the foreign relations committee, of the younger Democrats, Gillibrand is a possibility - and NY people here have said she campaigns well. The party seems to have pushed Menedez, but I wasn't impressed with his NJ race.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. The way our media culture works, if Booker were to beat Christie in 2013

...he would immediately be touted by pundits as being presidential material. Even if Booker wins without Christie running that is possible - because NJ is now more of a media marker state since the media embraced Chrisite.

What I am hoping for is that over the next year we get beyond merely predicting who might be a promising Democrat who could run - but to know enough about the potential field to begin offering focused support to those we feel best about. Put in shorthand, they could mean getting behind a Booker, a Patrick, a Rice or a Gillibrand, but not all four, just one or two. Progressives will better be able to push someone into the top tier of candidates if we come together around a select one or two of them early.

[craigmatic]

4. Either Hillary or one of the western governors who won in '06.

[BlueJac]

6. WTF

[movonne]

19. I give two WTFs....

[craigmatic]

31. what's with the wtfs?

It makes sense we need to win western states and the Kerry states. If not Hillary then we should nominate a dem from the west. Either Tester, Salizar, Napolitano, or somebody like that. Biden would be great too.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. OK, so going with that premise...

Who here knows enough about those western governors for example, to make the case for WHICH one to support? Who has sufficient drive to seek the Presidency? What should make one stand out to progressives out of them to support instead of another?

[craigmatic]

32. Well Tester seems likeable and progressive enough for the job.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. Hillary's retiring from politics, thankfully. Besides, neocons need not apply.

[NorthCarolina]

46. Hillary???

You would eagerly vote to elect yet another hard-core DLC Neocon to the WH??? :banghead:

Ferkrissakes....

ENOUGH

already.

[ProSense]

8. Who are progressives vetting

for the 2012 Congressional races?

The Senators elected in 2012 (33 of them) will have two years remaining in their term in 2016.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Good question

In the past I simply have not tuned in at this stage, and until now I haven't this time either, with the possible exception of my own state but which has two solid Democratic incumbents.

I don't have an answer for you, do you have any for me, lol?

[dsc]

9. Martin O'Malley has done pretty well in Maryland

great on social issues, good on economic ones. Good numbers in Maryland. Former Senator Feingold could be a good candidate. Current Senator Franken who would be in his second term by then. Senator Gillibrand could be very interesting.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. What I hope more of us do this time starts with the type list you threw out

In a best case scenario I hope to find myself actively engaged supporting the possible presidential campaign of a specific potential candidate starting in 2013 this time, and I hope to be doing that alongside a whole lot of other activists. That means starting to give serious consideration to whether Al Franken OR Russ Feingold would make a better overall candidate. It means learning a lot more about a Martin O'nalley or other Governor who someone who knows something speaks well of. It means at some point having someone enter into dialog on behalf o progressives with a Senator Gillrand to see, among other things, how deep her progressive instincts really go...

[NorthCarolina]

11. Why wait till 2016. The 2012 Primaries come well before that., and I don't think America

can afford to wait that long.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. I know opinions differ on this

Whether or not Obama should lose the Democratic nomination, I don't think there is any realistic chance that he will.

[RBInMaine]

14. Please keep your feet on this planet. NO ultra leftie will EVER win. Obama will. Soundly.

[jefferson_dem]

23. Why wait?

Because reality requires we do that.

[polichick]

25. I agree - with the union busting and general over-reach of Republicans, NOW is the time...

...for a strong progressive populist.

Perhaps the grassroots could draft one.

[JoePhilly]

27. There will be no serious primary challange of Obama.

Those on the left who don't like Obama should take the OPs advice, and start figuring out who you want in 2016, and build that candidate, from the ground up if necessary.

Too many progressives expected Obama to walk in a sweep out over 30 years of GOP policy in less than 2 years. Can't be done.

Now, some progressives see a primary of Obama is their new "quick fix", ignoring the fact that they have no serious candidate.

You want some one to be President that is to the left of Obama ... you better get busy now, and target 2016.

[RBInMaine]

13. WAY too far out to be thinking like this, and no far-lefter will win the Presidency. So stay real.

[dsc]

17. not really

Carter thought of running for President very early as did Reagan and for that matter Clinton. If you look at the people who have been President in my lifetime they have run for at least 4 if not 8 years. Nixon and Reagan planned for decades. Carter and Clinton for 8 years. Only Bush 2 and Obama have been the result of less than 4 years of planning.

[Hawkowl]

39. Actually Obama has been planning since early 90's

Everyone in Chicago joked in the 90's that Obama was running for president even back then. You can't win unless you start running decades out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. Feingold has a real chance to follow in Obama's footsteps. Would make a fine president.

[dflprincess]

38. I'd like to think Feingold would blaze his own trail

If the best we can do in 2016 is nominate someone who'd follow Obama's right leaning "centrist" policies I'll be through with the Democrats forever.

[Skink]

15. Obama has got to tap a succesor the way FDR did.

hopefully he or she is more progressive.

[Pab Sungenis]

21. The problem is that the successor FDR tapped

was Henry Wallace, and the hardliners in the party who knew FDR wouldn't survive the war forced him off the ticket in 1944. Then when he tapped Jimmy Byrnes as his desired successor, they revolted a second time. That's how we got Truman: the "Bourbon Democrats" (as opposed to the Progressive faction) forced Truman on FDR.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Then there is the question of whether Obama would even consider tapping someone progressive

but that history was well worth mentioning. The earlier we start organizing a progressive base backing a small list of acceptable candidates, the better our chances will be that Obama would either lean left, or have his centrist pick rejected in favor of someone more progressive.

[bornskeptic]

40. Not quite correct. Byrnes was rejected primarily for being too conservative.

Truman was a compromise candidate.

[polichick]

24. I wouldn't trust him to tap a progressive - his personnel choices mostly stink.

[pmorlan1]

56. Hopefully?

Really?

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. There was a time when I was interested in Montana's Governor

Gov. Brian Schweitzer. He is kind of a maverick who potentially could win broad support across the electoral spectrum, in other words win. But while he has pleased me with his refreshing take on a number of issues, other times I wince if he leans right. Then again he is in a very Red State and that has to be taken into account. Gillbrand has acted a whole lot more progressive once she was freed from her conservative NY Congressional district.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. Someone who has impressed me for his progressive values, guts and smarts

Rep. Anthony Weiner of NY. He has the added ability to capture media attention. I have no idea what if any interest he has in a higher office. I know that being a Congressional Representative has not shown itself to be a good platform from which to run in the past. But in todays media buzz driven world if the left were to unite to make him more of a national celebrity, I can at least imagine that changing.

[JoePhilly]

26. I think you ask the right question, but Progressives don't seem to be willing

to put in the kind of long term effort you are thinking about.

Obama excited many progressives because he appeared to them to be a quick fix. Consider, many Progressives turned on Obama in less than 2 years. With the disaster he walks into, he gets LESS than 2 years. Seems fair.

This is why Nader pops up like a groundhog every 4 years, but seems to hibernate most of the rest of the time. Many of the Progressives seem to live in the moment.

Currently there is this small undercurrent of Progressives who want a primary for Obama, yet that lack any serious candidate. Why? Because they have the attention span of the average house fly.

If Progressives want some one to the left of Obama, they need to get busy NOW, start building candidates, and target 2016. I'd love to see it.

But I don't see that happening ... because it is far easier to bash Obama NOW, than it is to go build an effective and serious Progressive candidate to their liking over the next few years.

I hope they prove me wrong and take your advice.

[Democratic Purist]

30. Democratic 2016 candidate

Elizabeth Warren would be my choice

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. Elizabeth Warren is an extremely interesting choice

She is the type of candidate who I would strongly support getting into the race even if I though it was unrealistic to think she had a chance of winning. I say that because what she has to say and the way that she is capable of saying it can break through to "ordinary" Americans if she is given a podium to reach them from. Presidential debates and coverage would provide her that type of access to the public, and I think in her common sense practical way she could shift the entire discussion toward the left. If we can raise her public profile enough with good luck and hard work she could end up as our VP candidate even if President were too far a stretch.

[MadBadger]

33. Russ

He wouldnt win, but still

[femmocrat]

34. He is my choice as well.

I would even support him in 2012.

[Pirate Smile]

35. Brian Switzer, Martin O'Malley, Andrew Cuomo. Those are the first Dems I can think of that may be

running in 2016.

[Keith Bee]

41. A pointed unrec

"Progressive" is the new soma for us.

[cheri010353]

42. Alan Grayson

[midnight armadillo]

43. How about someone from labor

Enough fucking around with Democrats who've got their lips wrapped 'round Wall St's cock.

Who are the big time labor leaders these days? The only one that comes to mind is Andy Stern, but people seem to have mixed opinions on him.

[OhioBlue]

44. Sherrod Brown. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

53. Sherrod would be my choice too.

[jaxx]

45. Very interesting question and thread. Thanks.

Reading through I see no one who is a possible favorite at this time.

[treestar]

47. Progressives should quit worrying about this and get to work on

the state houses, the school boards, the city councils.

Quit dreaming that you can get a puppet at the top to make it all trickle down. Does not work that way. The reason the right has so much more power is that they patiently spent the last 30 years going from the bottom up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. Largely I agree with you

I honestly don't think it is an either/or proposition. Most of us, no matter how deeply involved we may get at the local and state level, also direct some of our attention to national issues and politicians. To twist your words somewhat I agree that "the revolution will not be top down", so failing to do what you suggest is a long term losing strategy. Howeverthe Presidency is a hugely importaqnt istitutuion. I am not looking for a progressive President to usher in a new progressive era in American politics, but I am looking for a President who is open to cooperating with such a movement as it emerges.

In my opinion Obama falls short in that respect of the type of Deocrat who we need to elect in 2016. By putting a little more energy and focus into the front end of the nomination process for 2016 (which essentially means now or within the next year) I think we may help a Democrat who is acceptable to us in the manner I described become a top tier candidate.

[Lisa D]

51. +1

Build it from the ground up!

[Ter]

50. Obama will win in 2012 handedly, but 2016 is probably a lost cause

The people don't seem to like one party for more than 8 years these days.

[thelordofhell]

52. Wes Clark

After Hillary bows out of the SOS job, Obama should make Wes the new SOS, then he'll run for President in 2016.

[Auntie Bush]

54. I think Clark might be too old to consider the job in 2016 plus maybe 8 more.

He seems really fit...so maybe........

[ecstatic]

59. I like him as a person

but I personally would like to see us move in another direction as far as "wars" are concerned. Nice man, but he has always struck me a bit trigger happy. I feel the same way about Clinton, but I'm hoping she might be winding down in that department after the Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya stuff.

[JoePhilly]

55. I can't help but notice that many of the most vocal anti-Obama folks ...

had nothing to contribute to this OP.

In a post above, I suggested that they wanted a "quick fix". Which is why some of them scream about a primary against Obama.

After all, they game him a year or so to clean it all up, he couldn't do it in that time frame, so we need a NEW person NOW.

Your OP suggests a longer term strategy.

And where are the "primary Obama" folks"??

Not here.

[ecstatic]

58. Most of those people are not truly on our side

They are trolls. They probably don't even vote. They couldn't care less about the real issues that we have to confront.

[ecstatic]

57. For 2016, I like Dean, Clinton (as long as she is still mentally

alert), and maybe Grayson--but I would need to know more about him. I like Grayson's fire, but he would have to prove that he's not too much of a loose canon. I think Dean embodies all of what we want the best, but I would love to see a female president too.