Has Rethugs run the state government when Dems have the majority and sucks related to teachers and education.
He's not his father by any stretch.

He is less hawkish than Clinton. He rightly argued against Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan.

By far the best Dem candidate in the 08 primaries. Unfortunately he has no chance.

Biden is far too much of a drug-warrior. He would have to speak to a serious examination of his previous anti-4th Amendment and other drug war fallacies before I could consider him as a desirable president. 45+ years of expensive, corrosive, failed War on Drugs policies need to end.

Cuomo is far, far worse than Biden, on just about any policy you can name though. So if it came down to just those two...

-app

I certainly would prefer Warren over him though.

It's a huge issue for me, and it does not speak well for Biden.

hospital because he is definitely not Mario's son.

He has shown himself to be a slimy DINO, like Harold Ford. No way he gets the nomination. We would see a rebellion in the party if he did.

He's good on some important issues, but he's still not great compared to where most Dems want to be.

Ferrara's declaration that the only reason Obama was a contender was that he was African American, plus Clinton's identifying her constitutency as "hard-working white people" did not make me a friend of any of them.

From fracking, to education, to gambling, Cuomo leaves a lot to be desired.

the House and Senate races this year is what matters now, the right wing media wants us to take our eyes off the prize and wast our time talking about two years from now instead of working on this years races.

We might get better candidates in 2016 if we expose the flaws in likely candidates now.

We can take back the House and keep the Senate if we FOCUS on this year!

I've been hearing about Hillary in 2016 since 2012 and I never listen to right wing radio or watch right wing TV or read RW blogs (unless somewhere here links to one, for some reason).

I'm talking Democratic pundits and MSNBC, all of which were saying things like "If Hillary runs, she will clear the Democratic field," and "the nomination is Hillary's, if she wants it.

They got a lot of push back from ordinary Democrats on the coronation and some of them have shut up or toned it down. But, it's pretty clear, even from this board, what the party line was and is.

It is more fun to talk about a horse race that has not even started because it is cheaper for MSNBC to have talking head discus Hillary instead of reporting on what is happening this year. I thought this site was about promoting the election of Democrats. It is a distraction to speculate about what anyone will do in 2016 until this years election is over. Now if Hillary or any other "Future Candidate" is stumping for someone in this years race then I am all in, but this parlor game of who will run in Two years from now is a wast of time.

I just think that blaming the right, and the right alone, for everything we don't like doesn't serve Americans well. Politicians, maybe, but not the rest of us.

Funny, I learned from Bill Clinton that you focus on the coming election or there might not be a next one, yet Hillary's been running since forever. How soon did you start seeing on your computer screen, "Tell Hillary you want her to run?" But me, I'm all for focusing on the next election.

Actually, the seats in my state are relatively safe. So, I would like to hear more about who is running now in other states who is considered a really great Dem candidate. Because my state is usually safe, I tend to donate to candidates out of state.

I was addressing the whole who will run in 2016 issue. As far as I am concerned this year will decide the future of America for years to come and is far more important to pay attention to it. Way Way TOO MUCH time is being spent on "2016" instead of the races that with some extra effort we could win this year. Too many people are ready to write off this year as a "Off Year" election that is already lost.

And maybe one of the unluckiest things for us is that the RW seems to get nuttier by the month.

I don't see us winning a lot of votes from the Teabaggers. But, I think we can win a lot of votes from the saner indies. And women's votes. Maybe not Teabagger women, but Republican women who really do believe in small government--not the kind of government that wants to take their contraceptives.

ETA I am going to start a thread asking DUers who the great candidates in their states/districts are.

Cuomo and Romney aren't in the same universe ideologically. I'd take Cuomo over Romney with ease. That doesn't make Cuomo a good choice. It's just an exaggeration to say they are similar.

I can't tell...

--imm

1. Warren2.Biden.Whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination would be a 1000% better than any repug and would get my vote.

and the embodiment of a DINO. I will not vote for him.

It would be the first time I leave that ballot square un-checked.

I'd wait until potential candidates, other than HRC, of course, start talking up the possibilities. There may be better choices there. As for the 4 you've mentioned?

None of them.

He's getting elected in some hard territory. Undoubtedly pragmatism dictates he take a few less than ideal positions, but overall how does he compare?

He has some good positions, but he just can't seem to keep himself under control enough to be 'presidential'.

There's still time to turn that perception around and unlike most easterners he knows how to talk to the west.

That said, I think the voters are going to want an outsider again in 2016.

I know I would feel better about you if you could see past skin color.

Baltimore in the 90s had one murder every 36 hours. That's a rate 9X the national average. He reduced the crime rate and the backlog of un-investigated cases. He also banned the death penalty.

As governor he has defended his "sweeps" and encouraged more of the same. Not interested in anyone who has no respect for the Bill of Rights. If he would at least admit that he messed up, that would be a start. But as governor he simply attacked his critics as left-wing ideologues.

The Republicans yell and scream "Rain Tax" to the other 49 states and Governor O'Malley is dead to the Presidency. There is no way that Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and some other states we need would vote for him over the "rain tax". Not sure how the electorate would welcome his casino on every street corner in America either.

mid-Atlantic states) usually appearing on personal property taxes (less than $25 on my last bill) and as a tax on water bills (under $3.00 a quarter).

You are joking. Maryland is very close to 100 percent Democrat and they are the ones calling it a "Rain Tax".....sorry but that is how everyone around here calls it. Right wing????? You must be thinking of some other state.

by RW comments pushing the meme of all the ridiculous new taxes that O'Malley supposedly created. No one is taxing rain, they are taxing storm water. No different than the storm water taxes in any other developed area.


* Not speaking of DU

and by the way they spoke of the rain tax during the Democratic Governor debates like it was the most normal thing to say...rain tax....did not follow up with "RW framing" or anything. They just spoke about it. Anyway, I would agree with you that it would be right win talk if the Democrats didn't call it that and the Governor himself says it all the time. Oh well. Maybe he will get the nominee and everything will be fine.

75% of the time following a multi-term President, the opposite party wins the next election**
The 25% of the time the same party won, it was the prior VP running and winning -
Therefore, Joe Biden is our best hope for President in 2016!

66% of the time following single or multi-term President where there is a different person running (i.e. President Obama is not running again), the opposite party wins the next election.
Of the 33% of these times when the same party won, 80% of those were won by the previous VP.

Again, statistically, Joe Biden is overwhelmingly our best hope for winning in 2016 and is therefore practically guaranteed the nomination.

source: Wikipedia


**this includes Kennedy/Johnson as a "multi-term" President due to the circumstances of Johnson assuming the Presidency. Removing them from the first equation still results in a 72% chance the opposite party wins the next election

I find it hard to believe that even a ham sandwich couldn't beat whomever the Repugnants offer up, but Biden might prove me wrong.

but I'll just be happy if any Dem wins in 2016, and unfortunately it just isn't a very likely scenario.

McCain was just an honorary candidate because of the statistics I mentioned earlier and they knew they wouldn't win, Romney was similar - you don't put your strongest candidates up on years they probably won't win, they were just throwing him a bone. They'll run someone in 2016 who appeals heavily to many Dem voters, so we'll need to rely on President Obama's record in order to have any kind of a chance and the only way to do that is with Biden. Then, after the Repubes win in 2016, Hillary will run in 2020 and will have a much better chance, though I still think she'll lose. This is all Political Science 101. After 2 wins with someone as unnecessarily polarizing as President Obama, they aren't going to double down and run someone equally or MORE polarizing in Clinton...they'll go with the statistical choice (current 2 term VP) and the safe old white guy vs the Repube old white guy.

Oh, and btw Hillary Clinton has been much more visibly a part of the Obama administration than Biden. Few hear about or take Biden seriously (as a presidential candidate). He's practically invisible.

But let Joe run one.more.time, will this be number 4 or 5?, in the Democratic primary. Maybe after losing yet again he will finally get a clue.

Even if we wait until the primary, the momentum for certain candidates might be too great to stop.

to be any better than Clinton.

Cuomo because he got rid of the millionaires tax and then cut education.
Biden because he helped facilitate making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Schweitzer because he is one of those "fiscal conservatives"

Not sure what your complaint is about O'Malley. I was hoping he was better, that we had somebody better who could be a contender.

Warren says some very good things, but having been elected to the Senate, why was she AWOL when the Bush tax cuts were being made permanent? I find that to be a disconcerting lapse.

He consistently favored the interests of big money in Baltimore over communities. He is a complete third way democrat. He lacks expertise in almost everything except making speeches and winning elections.

People being picked up for bullshit reasons and then not even charged, people being arrested for trespassing because they were sitting on someone else's row house steps, people holding a beer asked to leave their property and talk to the cops and then being arrested for having a beer in a public street, 100,000 arrests per year in a city of 600,000. Yeah he showed great respect for the rights of his citizens.

police and more arrests? Are 1.5 murders per day acceptable?

ridiculous level of bogus arrests. And rights are meaningless if they are disregarded whenever some good might come from violating them. Consider this from a 2013 article:

"Honest minds can differ, but this honest mind is also fact-dependent, and the data show that more arrests didn't lead to a safer city," Rawlings-Blake countered Wednesday.

The mayor's office produced a chart showing a steady decline in violent crime since 2006 -- the year O'Malley left City Hall -- and arrests reached their peak. It was to counter a chart produced by the governor to argue otherwise.

In some communities, the tactic was known as "the bad old days" when so many people got locked up that the line at Central Booking was long.

Crime reduction is a main feature of O'Malley's portfolio. As mayor, he claimed the steepest reductions in the country, but it was based on stats he had audited of his predecessor and, as a result, declared inflated by some criminologists.

In 2006, O'Malley's police commissioner, Leonard Hamm, admitted during an 11 News I-Team investigation that his officers wrote off certain incidents that didn't count in crime stats. Hospital data that year showed his gun crime reduction claim wasn't supported by the count of gunshot injuries in hospital emergency rooms.

Hawkish and corporatist? He makes Hillary look like a socialist dove by comparison. I have real doubts that he'd be a Democrat if his father wasn't the liberal hero of NY.

Honestly, having met all four...Biden and O'Malley are the best of that lot. You don't like O'Malley...so it's down to Biden.

I'd prefer Warren but I don't think she runs. If I had to rank my preferences.

1.) Warren
2.) O'Malley
3.) Biden
4.) Clinton
5.) Schweitzer
****
100.) Cuomo

I'm no Clinton fan, but one virtue of her candidacy would be that it would keep Cuomo out. If Clinton opts out, Cuomo will probably run and will be a strong contender for the nomination.

Of the people who've gotten any mention for the nomination, Cuomo is absolutely at the bottom of my list. I'll vote for him if he's the nominee. Nevertheless, that scenario would be the toughest foreseeable test for my normal lesser-of-two-evils philosophy.

I guess Biden is the best of the four.

I cant imagine a more significant factor in your decision.
certainly helps me.

I don't like him at all; he's an asshat. But I love all humans without exception.

because I know people who know people. some of whom who wouldnt appreciate being named in the
FACTUAL anecdote that the owners of some WDC Porn Shop (chain?) proclaimed Thomas, with no
exaggeration whatsoever to be their number one customer.
So, maybe if you wait in one of those booths for a short while?
You can paypal me your gratitude at your convenience.
Im just glad his civil rights and moral rectitude have done very well.
As opposed to what Joe Biden accomplished with Anita Hill.
All the other scum on the planet wishes another term be used for that
fellow JB.

Brian Schweitzer carries water for the coal and oil industries, not on our side, either. He is great for a Democratic Party candidate at the state level in Montana, but will not help nationally. His recent comments indicate he may not be ready for prime time.

Working on getting out the vote in 2014 and electing Democratic Party candidates at the local, state and national levels is far more productive this year. We need to see who is going to run for president after November 2014, before we waste a lot of time on it. The GOP is spending a lot of time and money trying to divide and conquer the Democratic Party before the election this fall. The anti-HRC hysteria is just part of the divide and conquer GOP strategy. We should not be fooled by this tactic, as it has been in use by the GOP dirty tricksters since 1968. We have certainly seen it enough to recognize it when we see it by now.

Of course, there is no "perfect" Democratic Party presidential candidate. The Democratic Party will have to settle on a good candidate and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

But only because you're ruling out Warren.

In a big swing state with that record. I really don't get why he isn't the go to here, I guess not a shiny enough object.

There is no indication that he is thinking of running for the presidency. We need him too much in the Senate. If Kasich is re-elected as Ohio governor, he would appoint Brown's replacement to the Senate and that would be one less Democratic Senator.

in many of the qualities that define the good in humanity. He and Chris Christie are buds. Last week, he called disgraced NYS senator Thomas Libous (R-Binghamton) his "mentor," after Libous was indicted in federal court.

Everyone thinks all the big guns have already been fired on her, but that's not correct. They were fired on Bill and she was only collateral damage.

The only ones who have fired on her directly so far: The idiot who disrespectfully got in her in face (and her personal space) during a debate when she ran for Senator and Obama, who pulled his punches more than she pulled hers.

If someone goes at her directly, no holds barred, there's still plenty of stuff from the Clinton years, the 2008 campaign and whatever rabbits they pull out of a hat about her years in the Obama administration, like Benghazi.


ETA: Of course, a lot also depends on who the Republican nominee is. Thank heaven for LOTE voting.

Or not.

Even as late as 2012, polls said that each and every one of the Republican contenders would beat Obama.

Polls this far out are useless. And, Jeb is closing the gap in the polls already.

I believe that, as of today, Ms. Clinton is the "most likely politician to win in 2016."

There are, of course, numerous factors that come into play, including unpredictable events and circumstances on the national and international stage. These include -- but obviously are not limited to -- violence in the Middle East. Would increased US involvement help or hurt her? Or, if the US stays out of a visible role, would that help or hurt her? And what impact will these events have on our economy? Or policies on domestic energy? One can only speculate.

In any election, there are three groups: those who will always support you; those who will always oppose you; and the undecided. National elections are won or lost by appealing primarily to that third group, in key states. Clinton has the ability to do that. Likewise, having her as the candidate does run the risk of losing those key states. But that risk is there for any and every candidate.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I respect it.

" in key states. Clinton has the ability to do that" That is your opinion. Whether it is also reality remains to be seen.

She has the ability to draw the support of what has become an unpopular faction of the republican party -- the neoconservatives. Hawkish on the Middle East, and "liberal" on domestic policy, is their philosophy.

She also has the potential to excite and unite the mainstream republicans and the rabid right-wing.

She could win, she could lose. Historically, the choice of a VP isn't that significant. I think that Clinton would have to make an unusual choice for VP, to create excitement among the undecided.

on all sides because of (1) her advocacy for the Iraq war and (2) calling her war vote a mistake.

Neocons are not liberal on domestic policy, IMO. Social policy, maybe. And I don't think many Republicans will cross party lines to vote for her.

But, that is how I see it. You see it a different way.

I love Warren and hope she continues to be the conscience of the party. Personally I think she'd be great on the Supreme Court.

Clinton because she has the money to do it - Castro because he is the face of the youth (and can bring a lot of votes from Tejas).

I'm not convinced, either, that Cuomo or Biden would promote more progressive policy, or have more success in promoting any policy.

Warren would be an easy choice for me, too.