It's looking good, but the GOPers have tons of money and voter suppression schemes, and are going to slam the airwaves with even more vicious ads. I'm not even going to think about 2016 right now. We have to concentrate on this election and do absolutely everything possible to be sure the GOPers don't win.

so easily. If Mittwit should win, I think everyone will know it was stolen and people will revolt. I also read that Mr. Obama has thousands of lawyers lined up in case it seems rigged. Good for him; he's not an idiot.

Watching these pundits, they act like its just about people voting. They don't take into consideration, voter suppression, dirty tricks, and the one that concerns me the most, hacking the vote. Remember fla and Ohio .

We need to continue to fight for this election.

I think we should wait to speculate about 2016 until after November 6th. We have too much work to do now to make sure we get Democrats elected.

As Yogi Beara once said, "It ain't over till its over.."

And the other day on MSNBC they were talking as though Hillary would be a given.

I'd live to see Dean, too, but Joe is my guy since 2008.

He'll be 74 then-- and 4 years in the White House tends to age the average (Democratic) President by 10 years. So I can't really see any way that Biden would make a Presidential run in 2016.

He probably will retire soon after The President wins reelection. So the VP has a head start for 2016, the economy will be better by then and the rethugs will be farther along the way down the toilet. Besides even if Biden was young enough I don't think he could win. He is regarded too much as a joker.

he's accomplished.

Earth quickly. There is much work we still must do.

..............he's going to be over 70 in 2016 (or pretty close to it), as will Biden, Hillary, and John Kerry. I think American voters have a real problem with voting for people who are that old for fear that they'll die in office. I've been an unrepentant Deaniac ever since I jumped aboard his bandwagon in 2003, but I'm afraid he's just going to be too old.

The guy I really want to run for President in 2016 is MY Senator, Sherrod Brown. He's a Democrat who isn't afraid to slug it out for his beliefs. I believe in this guy so much that I'd be willing to work for his campaign should he choose to run.

That's not really too old. But it is the upper limit. Reagan was 69, Bush was 64, Ike 62.

a handsome man.

But he can never be President, IMO. It's his voice. (He's also not moderate, is he? A progressive has never been elected President.)

I will wait.

Every one of them has Obama as the winner of the EV vote, with most of them having him past the 270 needed EV count. Not even one of them has in recent months had Romney even ahead, much less reaching the 270 number.

I'm talking about nonpartisan EV prediction maps, of course.

We will not know until late at night on November 6th at the earliest if Obama will win.

I don't know as much about this guy as I should, but the various news bits I hear about my governor make me very happy with him. He is willing to make tough decisions and he embraces the social issues that are important to me.

However, before I really support him for something like president, I'm going to have to educate myself more on this guy. But based on what I know about him, I like him. A lot.

Hillary Clinton would be my "wet dream". Assuming that she serves as secretary of state until 2016, she'd just be able to roll right in to being president. Stepping into the office of president after already having had built relationships with foreign heads of state for 8 years would make her "ready to roll" in the world of international relations. Not to mention how often former first spouses serve as figure-heads. Bill Clinton would be a great first spouse when it came to going abroud. I'd be proud of them, for sure.

Yup. As awesome as it would be, I just don't think it is going to happen

But tonight seemed like a farewell for him. I can't point to any one thing, but it just seemed so perfect--Beau calling his Dad a hero; Jill admitting that she loved him right from the start even though she didn't say "yes" until Joe's fifth try at asking.

If he does retire in 2017, he'll have had an amazing political life, and will still be young enough to have plenty of time to enjoy his family.

If he wants to run, though, I'd have to put him atop my list.

like Honey Boo Boo.

that is much worse than when they tried back in the 90's and couldn't do it?

How's that?

It was Hillary dangling her feet in the water. This time we had massive majorities in both houses of congress. Obama's greatest weakness is his belief that America can be post partisan. He spent months, and much of his political capital, on passing healthcare, which should've been popular. He gave republicans too many concessions and too much time to pick at it. And they only did it not because they don't like the bill, I suspect they do, but because they didn't want him to get a win. Obama won, and he tried to make it as if it were graceful.

That's bullshit.

A Clinton White House would've passed the bill, told the GOP to fuck right the fuck off at the first sign of trouble, and it would've been a more liberal package. There was NOTHING the GOP could've done to prevent the bill's passage.

So, how can you even ASK that question? I am dumbfounded by it.

you seem to think gets everything you want is beyond foolish.

I see you are new here and probably don't know that most of what you said about Obama having everything he needed to pass the Health Care Act any way he wanted but for some evil reason known only to him, he decided not to do it and settled for the ACA as it stands now - it's been talked about here many times and proven to not be true, many times.

I think that's all for now.

Just because I don't post on this forum as often as you doesn't mean that I haven't been involved in democratic politics my entire life, and it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

I didn't say there was some "evil reason known only to him." I said exactly what the reason was.

It is one thing when those idiot republicans speak of these "super majorities," but I shake my head at a dem using those BS talking points. There was NO super majority because of the blue dogs and fillibusters.

Facts are facts. Speculation and dreams are just that.

The meme that the “Democrats had control of the House and Senate” is a myth and here’s why: people keep forgetting that you need 60 to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

January 20, 2009 – Edward Kennedy suffered a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, and his health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts. Also, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman challenged the election results. So on his inauguration Obama had 57 elected Democratic Senators… 55 Democrats and 2 Independents.

April 28, 2009 – Arlan Specter switches parties from Republican to Democratic. This gives the Democrats 58… 56 seated Democrats, 2 Independents. Al Franken still hasn’t been sworn in and Kennedy is sick. Still no 60 member majority.

May 15, 2009 – Senator Robert Byrd is admitted to the hospital reducing the number of Democratic votes to 57… 55 Democrats, 2 Independents.

July 7, 2009 – Senator Al Franken is sworn in bringing the Democratic votes back up to 58… 56 sitting Democrats, 2 Independents. No Senator Kennedy or Byrd due to illness.

July 21, 2009 – Senator Byrd Returns to the Senate making the count 59 seats – Still no Kennedy.

August 25, 2009 – Senator Kennedy dies and the seat remains vacant until…

September 24, 2009 – Interim Senator Paul Kirk is sworn in to fill Kennedy’s seat bringing the total Democratic votes to a filibuster proof majority of 60.

So really the Democrats only had 4 months of a majority in the Senate – not 2 years (even less when you consider that Senator Lieberman sided with the Republicans most of the time). Because they didn’t have a majority, nothing could be automatically pushed through the Senate and concessions had to be made on the healthcare legislation in order for the bill to pass.

I forgot to add those.

And if we get him, we are in trouble.
He changed the state slogan from "I Love NY," to "NY is now open for business."
He's abandoning the people for the companies that want to destroy our water with their hydrofracking.

Else we'll get lazy and wonder how we ended up with President Romney.

Then we can all vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2016.

There were a few minor races with choices that most voters didn't recognize, but the Big Players were running unopposed in the primary.

"Big Picture"--if I didn't bother to do this, it wouldn't have mattered for Elizabeth Warren or the Dem State Senate candidates on the ballots in my community. Those races were not contested on the Dem side. A few local candidates were helped by my ferry service, I'm sure. November will be the showdown, not this primary.

Thing is, though, I did it anyway because we just can't assume anything and we should never rest on any laurels.

We have to fight this like we're behind by twenty and we will be shot at sunrise if we don't succeed. It's never to early to motivate a voter. Do it early and often.

fuck these "we got it in the bag" posts!
I say we pretend the DNC convention was a flop and we have to work even harder now!

and Cuomo would be a waste


Get out and work for 2012 and figure out 2016 in about the end of 2015

So...they may not really know how to get something done when Republicans in Congress don't want it done. Bill got things done because he was a centrist and went along with the Republicans a lot (NAFTA...which started the outsourcing problem, remember?), and the Repubicans weren't as far right as they are now.

Andrew Cuomo would be interesting, but most people in the country don't know him.

Dean - he's been a pundit on TV and he's far left. He's not a possibility.

Biden - I think he knows he will never be President, which is why he accepted teh VP slot, I thought.

Kerry? -- Hmmmm. Hadn't thought of that. He got pretty beaten up. I wonder if he'd want to. I was pretty angry at him after he failed to fight back, so I imagine others are, too.

I think Hillary is a possibility. But I don't know if she'd make another run. It's a pretty rough process. I don't see her doing that, personally.

This talk about the Clinton package being soooo much more liberal and easy to pass is crazy considering the political climate and the fact that President Clinton had to compromise on A LOT in order to get things done back then.

until we all vote (sorry to repeat what everyone else is saying).

To your question. I'd like to see our ticket be Michelle / Jill or Jill / Michelle.

and I would have no problem backing her at all.

I'll skip the observation that thinking it is in the bag is the best way to lose it, and move on to this:

I think 2016 is wide open, and that it is possible that most of us are hardly even aware of the person who will be eventual nominee, right now.

It sounds silly when I say it to myself, but I swear it's the truth: there is a new path to the White House, and that path relies on doing one's fucking job well. Imagine that!

But seriously, the last nomination process, in 2008, came down to two people who did short but unusually effective stints in the Senate, which is where Presidential aspirations used to go to die. The commonality between them is that they both did their jobs exceptionally well, and then got out.

The next nominee may still be a state legislator, or thanklessly toiling elsewhere, with an eye to the 2014 mid-term elections as a short cut to the White House. Since this awesome President (and Hillary Clinton) knocked down the last of the old racial and gender prejudices, our side gets to pick from a much broader and deeper talent pool, as well.

So I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the nominee will be my sister.

Now can we have fun speculating on 2016?

It's not like talking about 2016 is going to take effort away from Obama. We're all on the internet right now. It's not like we're supposed to be out canvasing. Sheesh.

And work damned hard to make sure we win in 2012. 2016 will take care of itself ONCE we take care of the task at hand.

It is NOT in the bag. And your insistence that it is does not make it so.

There were a couple of paragraphs up there other than the one where I said thinking it is in the bag is the best way to lose it. Follow these dots:
.
.

I'll say it again: there is a really good chance that most of us here are not familiar with the person who is going to be the nominee in 2016. The dark horse route is suddenly viable again for Democrats, and that means younger candidates with high competence but low current visibility are out their right now making their plans.

It's not going to be Hillary, or Kerry or Gore. It is going to be someone new who doesn't have George Bush's shit all over him (or her), someone who didn't participate at all in the disastrous politics of the first decade of this millennium.

That is the candidate who is going to stand out distinctly from the corruption and deceit of Jeb Bush.

Oh, and while you're not asking, it will be Jeb Bush on the other side. There are no statutes of limitations on murder, treason, and conspiring against the government. Once President Obama's next term ends, the records of the Bush Administration can be released, and just like the Fool had to hide the records of his father's evil tenure, Jeb has to get in there and hide George's.

Or they're all going to jail.

We're being vastly outspent while battling a highly organized vote suppression effort. This election is not in the bag.

After four years of BushCo, how could anyone vote him back in office for a second term?

and, well, you know the rest

Kerry did win Ohio

said he might not. I went back and looked at some of hte predictions, and it was all there. Kerry on top, then Bush on top, and all the while, a slight but consistent decline in Kerry's numbers, indicating a loss, if the trajectory continued. It was very slight, and only in some polls and EV predictions, but it was there.

Different from now.

I didn't recall that Kerry won Ohio. I thought Bush stole Ohio. There was that incident with the Republican Sec of State. Interesting. And kudos for Kerry. That was such a bummer, I can hardly bear to think of it.

Then, suddenly, the numbers flipped and people were wondering what the deal was.
Republican operative Mike Connell was busy changing the numbers.

http://archive.truthout.org/article/robert-f-kennedy-jr-was-2004-election-stolen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Connell

I really believed that Kerry was going to win it. That's why even now with as good as things look for Obama, I'm hopeful, but won't be convinced until election night and it's called for him.

very convincing.

upthread...

It's not in the bag.

It should be, but it's not.


aA

There is no way to speculate about 2016 until at least after this election is over.

If you are in a "safe" blue state, work on down-ticket races to secure nominations to the SC via the Senate and the budge via the House.

The only question will be who gets to be her VP. I'm thinking either O'Malley or Schwitzer.

As much as it pains some of you, we need to break cleanly with the past. New, fresh faces. New, fresh ideas.

Julian Castro and Jennifer Granholm would appeal to a lot more people than tired politicians who weren't able to pass muster the last time around.

however, I'd like to see her......birth certificate....

But apparently she claims dual citizenship so maybe there is a way to finesse that. And could there be a loophole if she ran as vice-president?

Regardless, my point remains. We need newcomers, not re-runs, to galvanize the country.

Obama proved that we are hungry for new.

On edit: I take back what I said about Granholm's dual citizenship. It does not make her eligible.

I agree with all the others who already chimed in to say so.

Plus I want to add that the media here in Sweden is also saying "it is a close race". So it is not a matter of the American media drumming up a horse race scenario... it seems like it actually is fairly close, at this time.

had Obama as the winner. Without exception. Even the couple that has Obama as not reaching the needed 270 EV count still has him as having more EVs than Romney.

It's not an absolute, I guess, but barring something earth shaking happening (like no early voting in Ohio, and voter suppression), Obama will almost certainly win.

An earth shattering thing CAN happen. Anything can happen.

Acknowledging that Obama will be the likely winner is not the same as complacency.

Don't think about 2016--do something to help win in 2012.

is seriously out of fucking touch.

Posts like this are so dumb they make me see red.

because unless Obama wins, four years from now will be a disaster

Echoing that it's all about November 2012. But....2016 will be time for our first female President.

Never, ever, post anything like that before the votes are counted, and the election is certified. You do NOT want to know what it looked like here after those elections...

Ever.

I'm thinking you meant 2002 and 2004 instead of 2000 and 2004.

DU wasn't here in 2000.

Unless you're talking strictly about the aftermath.

It's not in the bag.it's your way of thinking that leads to defeats.obama it's up only by a couple of points, maybe.we need to have the mindset that it's gonna take up to the last vote to win this.

1968, Nixon made a secret deal with the North Vietnamese so that they wouldn't negotiate with the LBJ Administration to an end to the war, harming Humphrey's chances and leading to Nixon's win. If LBJ were able to end the war, it's very likely that Humphrey would have won.

1980, Reagan made a secret deal with Iran to not let the hostages out until after the election. Carter was harmed by the Iran Hostage Crisis as a result and lost the election. Reagan fulfilled his part in the deal by selling Iran weapons secretly. Before the Iran Hostage Crisis' affects on Carter, Reagan was seen as a fringe candidate without much of a chance of winning.

2000: The massive voter purge that Katherine Harris did in Florida, as well as the Republican Majority Supreme Court basically stopping the recount and handing the election over to Bush. The election was too close.

2004: you all know what happened, the election fraud that happened in Ohio with electronic voting machines that handed Bush a second term, as well as the Osama Bin Laden tape surprise a few days before election day. The election was too close, so the Republicans got away with stealing it.


Remember everyone how active Karl Rove is during this election, and how active so many billionaires are, and how already they are trying to steal this election by making sure the economy is weak and by disenfranchising Democratic voters in many states. Do NOT underestimate the Republicans, they are like a lion ready to pounce on any opportunity they can get. Don't ever get overconfident, there's TOO MUCH at stake during this election!!! And a close election gives them a chance to steal it!

Now go outside, turn around three times, spit, and throw salt over your shoulder.

Hillary may be as well. Dean? g
Great choice but it will never happen.

look for someone younger like Andrew Cuomo.

There is massive voter suppression happening. Some we know about and some we won't learn about until after the election.

I know you mean well, but don't think for a moment that the GOP and the uber-rich won't steal this election. They are already trying to do it.

But I strongly suspect you know that.

will get my support.

was even in serious contention for the Democratic nomination - I'm not sure if they ever nominated a non-corporate Democrat, perhaps McGovern in 72 would come the closest. It would be an incredible turn of events if they did nominate such a candidate in 2016. Perhaps a modified-centrist, modified-neoliberl and modified-corporate Democrat who is marginally more progressive than the more recent ones is the best we can expect .I've learned not to expect such things so as to avoid crushing disappointment. I would not expect it to happen by 2016. If events started to develop that it actually became possible - I would be shouting from the mountain tops with joy and working every waking hour for such a candidate.

that's who can get my support.

Who I want, who I will support, work for, donate to, is not the same as who I can expect.

whoever they nominate will get my support

The consensus of expert opinion suggest that President Obama does hold a modest advantage at this point. But it could very well go the other way. This is reality.

Not after Florida and Ohio and the voter suppression efforts going on right now. We look good right now, but I take nothing for granted, When you are 5 points ahead you campaign like you are 10 points behind (or something like that)

and really mess with the Freepers heads