As well as timely.

Thank you!

There are three strong potential candidates - but I don't think any of these have outright declared they are running:

Biden
Clinton
O'Malley - strongly considering as of the last week of October of this year.

Possible -

Sanders


Not sure about Warren as it looks like there is people momentum but not her will.


Me - I'd like to see Howard Dean or Deval Patrick throw their hats in the ring - but that won't happen.

There seems to be a lot of dislike of Hillary being expressed, so if that will be a problem, there's not much time to select a different candidate. Presidential races are long, long things, but seem to settle into just a few candidates quickly. Hillary has a strong edge at this point, so any alternative is going to have to appear soon or have no chance.

Richardson: I'm afraid the GOP permanently damaged him, especially if he has to go up against Hillary

Castro Bro's: Probably too early

Kerry: Too late I'm sure

Clark: Again, possibly too long in the tooth at this point.

Strangely, Hillary should have many of these same problems, too many negatives, too old, limited administrative accomplishments, but she seems to be exempt some how.

I think he's a possibility, but we sure aren't hearing from him. Maybe he's a VP choice already by someone.

I don't see Kerry or Clark in this at all, and Richardson probably isn't going to stick his neck out again, either.

If either were approached with a serious suggestion that they had a chance, they'd be all in. But they won't take that advice from DU. There are people who can deliver that message, and DU doesn't include any of them.

That's pretty much true for every candidate who might possibly run. However, candidates thinking about running have already set up campaign organizations of some kind, or others have set them up in hopes of recruiting the candidates. That's what I mean by DUers supporting candidates for primaries.

On Warren, her "no way" has seemed to moderate recently.

I love the idea because he doesn't have a record of stupidity out there - he won the seat and then got to work . . . he hasn't played political games of sound blurb and one upmanship and inflict pain on the opponent.

But he'd have to want to run. The only place I've seen Franken's name is at blogs and DU.

gathering this year. He said, "No way." I don't think he has any presidential aspirations. He seems to like being one of Minnesota's Senators, though, and he's growing in popularity here, so he'll probably be able to keep that office if he wants to.

But I don't think he'll even consider running for President in 2016.

Booker unequivocally wants to be a Senator from NJ -

Unless the Gov's seat is up. And he would win it.

really happy to be a Senator. He seems to thrive on that job, and it shows. I'd vote for him as President, but I think he's not interested in politics at that level. Senator's a pretty good job, really. It's amazing that he got elected to that position, really, but he's building a great reputation here in his home state. I think he'll stick with it.

than as President.

have needed some Senatorial clout to get the help they needed. He's also working to help Minnesota whenever he can in terms of legislation, etc. He's been a pretty serious guy as Senator Franken. He seems to like the job, too.

The SNL skits hinted at it, the Air America show gave us a peek inside, but man-oh-man, Al is so much more a policy wonk that we ever considered. And - in Minnesota and the country - seriously benefit. There is an intensely serious side to Al Franken and he is thriving as a Senator.

I think the comment upthread about him understanding that he can do more to help people as a Senator is on target and is what really drives him. To hear him talk about Franny's family and the role Social Security played in their lives when her father died young is memorable.

On both a personal and political level, I really admire Franken. I've had several chances to talk briefly with him, and have talked at length to his wife and daughter. He's personable, friendly and always sincere. He's also got his head straight about many things that are very important in this country. It's almost impossible not to like Al Franken if you have a chance to meet him.

I try to get to as many events where he will be in attendance as possible. Often, I've had a chance to exchange a few words with him.

with seniority. When that happens they are often very powerful and can do a lot for their state and the nation. Remember Ted Kennedy.

as a Senator from Minnesota, but I can pretty much guarantee that he can stay in that job as long as he cares to.

That "Got to work" attitude means those of us outside MN don't hear much about his longer-term plans.

He is very sharp and quick witted, And Principled.
Oil and Water.

As B2G pointed out, Jim Webb has indicated some interest. So has Brian Schweitzer. Neither of them is yet even in the "likely to run" category, though.

I agree with Mineral Man that Webb will have trouble appealing to progressives. From what I know of Schweitzer, he's a mixed bag -- to Clinton's left on some issues but to her right on others.

If I had to bet right now on how I'll vote in 2016, I'd bet on O'Malley. I think it more likely than not that he'll run and that he'll be the progressive alternative to Clinton.

Could be really fun in a primary though . . . He'd shake things up.

He embodies the populist formula.

The bankers will go after him hard.

Obama was already positioned as a strong, potential alternative by the Fall of 2006. That's when his book tour happened (and it was a legitimate bestseller). He also had the '04 keynote in the bank and, most important, a powerful differentiator issue-wise with his stated opposition to the Iraq war back in 2003. IWR is what lost if for Hillary in 2008. Obama shouldn't have even bothered running if she had voted against it.

This time around there are galvanizing issues, but nothing so straightforward as that. Many, many people with energy and some money to contribute wanted to teach anyone who voted for IWR a lesson, myself included.

This time around, we have the economy, but there is no single policy differentiator as powerful as IWR. You need someone with star power, and Warren is the only one who comes to my mind as being able to make a fight of it. She has the smarts and the credibility, but she says she is not running. The not-Hillary's can be excused for feeling a little frustrated imo.

Elizabeth Warren is going to have some trouble with her fairly long period as a Republican. While she's popular for her economic positions, her support for Reagan is going to be a liability for those who remember Reagan for his negative positions on so many things. I suspect that if she actually ran, people would soon find reasons why she shouldn't be elected. On the positive side, she doesn't have a long career as an elected official, so you can't find actual voting records, but that's also a potential negative.

I think she's going to decide not to run. She has an excellent position, currently, that gives her a good deal of political clout, and can probably continue to serve in that capacity for a good long time. Running for President is a tough gig. It looks to me like she is a Hillary supporter for 2016.

Or is it a convenient way to attack Democrats?

Seriously, the DU is filled to the brim with people who hate the Democratic party. I think they've driven off most mainstream Democrats completely at this point.

Mind you, I have no problem with constructive leftists who want to promote their own ideas. But that's largely not what you find here.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

for Hatch in Iowa.. I need to take a closer look at him.. I am thinking he is giving it some consideration about running..

But your point is great.. if you have a candidate that you want to see run.. From Hillary to Biden to OMalley.. and all ships between.. (these are Democrats) you have to get working on the state levels.. and stick your foot in the water and promote them..

I've also learned - the one I want never gets the nomination!

But - O'Malley is very interesting to me if Biden opts not to run. He has the cynicism of my age group that I find appealing.

As a resident of Baltimore (City), Maryland, I would say to pass on O'Malley. He did some OK things as governor, but his economic policies nickel and dimed a lot of the working class by raising fees, tolls, etc over 27 times while in office. He is perceived as so much of a blah candidate in Maryland his second in command (Brown) lost to a no name republican. He did not do a lot for the working class and focused instead on working to cut deals for larger businesses.

The taxes (rental increases), fees and tolls don't seem like a big deal to most, but you have to pay a toll just to get around the harbor. Seeing as I was working on a low hourly wage I essentially spent my first hour at work paying for the ability to get to work, because a lot of people have to go through the tunnel or over the bridge to get to work. Generally policies like this don't affect the middle class, but I think people forget that it sucks a lot when you are part of the working poor.

A lot of this might be a general problem with how government in Maryland is run (from city to state), however O'Malley only seemed to add to the problem rather than working to solve it. I am not sure about else where, but the democratic party in Maryland generally looks out for the middle class and avoids the poor sections of the city. A couple of our city council members even got caught living in upscale suburban homes, while only maintaining a city address so they could continue to hold office.

I would probably vote third party (and so would a lot of people I know in Baltimore), if O'Malley was nominated.

am not excited at all about O'Malley. I know he wants to run, and he's been positioning himself for this for the last two years. However, in Maryland, the O'Malley administration has been totally in the pocket of corporate interests and developers. And I believe O'Malley's tenure was part of the reason that the Democrat Anthony Brown lost the 2014 governor's race.

Did you hear about the proposed mileage tax? A GPS device would be attached to your car and you would be taxed 5 cents per mile that you drove.
He's unelectable. He would be branded as a tax and spender which he is.

I pay taxes on every gallon of gas I buy. You want more money, raise the gas tax, dont track my movements

I have read nothing credible to link Martin O'Malley to a mileage tax.

but has not posted here since 2008.. but he was Biden precinct captain at the caucasus.. and hubby and I were there for Obama.. Biden has a tremendous appeal to millennials.... which I find fascinating..you would think the age difference would impact more..

I just got to talk to Gov. OMalley for a couple of minutes.. I have to do some research of course.. but he interests me...

I have to admit.. I love Joe Biden too..

Were my top picks in 2008. I gave equal amounts of money to their campaigns but joined organizing for Edwards very very early in the process.

Clinton was never on the radar and Obama was 4th.

even before his issues.. and I can't give you a specific reason why he made me squirm.. he just did.. We got to see the President before he became so popular.. in a room with just a couple hundred people .. (we are in Iowa)..and thing about the President.. he is who he was then and is now..after all the craziness and off the chart emotional goofiness of the Bush era.. everyone kept saying they wanted a cool and thoughtful person at the helm.. Well that is what we got.. and the second he was in office.. people were demanding he change and be like Bush in his demeanor.. you never know.. Vice President Biden just might decide to run.. and I think he would do very well..

But in 2004 my very first choice was Clark. Gotta be honest on that one - but by the time the primary got to my state - he was totally out.

Edwards was talking poverty and the housing bubble very very early. He 'got' it.


What drew me to Obama in the summer of 2008? After those meetings with Edwards and Clinton (probably where Edwards told him what was on the horizon) was Obama adopted at least in his campaign - that anti poverty language.

Edwards always talked about ALL of those in poverty and the working poor. He didn't just direct it at the 'urban' poor.

I've never known a hungry, cold, day in my life - but I have a huge empathy chip for those who have. In 2016

I'm going to need to see that empathy chip in the candidate - and it must be sincere - for those who work their fingers to the bone but never get a good night's sleep.

would love to see him in the primaries. I think he would draw a lot of independents and even some conservatives.

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

he hurt himself with women with his belief that women weren't capable of combat military service. He's been out of politics and seems to want to stay in the private sector. I don't see enough to differentiate him from Hillary to make a run have any chance of success.

it's that our nominee needs to be incredibly strong on the economy and national defense. And they need strong appeal with the unaffiliated voters.

If they're not, we'll never win.

It had nothing to do with national defense and very little to do with the economy. We don't need to run a center-right Democrat to win. Many of them lost in this last election.

They worked VERY hard to not be too objectionable to conservatives.

It FAILED. Miserably.

And this election taught me something very, very different than it taught you.

You would push us more to the right. I'd push us much more to the left. Progressive policies have widespread support. Wall Street hates them. A majority of average Americans support them. In poll after poll this is demonstrated, and progressive policies even won when placed on the ballot in THIS election.

Democratic candidates do not push for progressive policies effectively or passionately, and MANY people then don't even bother voting. This would be the unaffiliated voters you were talking about mostly.

unless, by some miracle, Hillary declares she is not running.

Certainly there is nothing we can do at DU about that. Might as well just pray for a miracle.

where I laid out what people need to do to build support for an alternative candidate. I don't remember any such OP. Remind me with some links, please.

to find an alternative candidate with much of a chance of getting the nomination. There's some risk that some factions will sit out the election or vote for some third party candidate. The libertarian-leaning Democrats will probably have a -L candidate on the ballot. That could cost the Democrats maybe 10% of the vote and create a low-turnout election. That's a concern to me, since the Republicans may well put a moderate Republican on the ballot to oppose Hillary Clinton. That's a dangerous situation, IMO.

If Clinton does clear the field of all the more "mainstream" candidates (Biden, O'Malley, etc.), then Sanders will probably run in the Democratic primaries. If he doesn't, someone will come forward, even someone who (like Gravel in 2008 or Sanders this time) doesn't have much chance of being the nominee but wants to raise issues.

who raised the issue of - The "fair" tax. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/55

prefer another candidate can do about it. And you know enough about political reality to know that that's true. Oh, and you've only posted this same op about 15x. It's nonsense.

Does it ever cross your mind to pick a candidate you like and post positive things about them?

Liberal/Progressives are more positive and care for their fellow man/women, ya'know, what Jesus Christ tried to teach. GOPers are the total opposite, they are the devil.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing a plan coming from you. Yes, I keep posting about what people need to do if they want an alternative candidate to run as a Democrat. I will probably continue to do that as long as people only discuss the negatives about the person who is the most likely to be the Democratic candidate. This is DU. You've posted way more than 15 posts that are negative about Hillary Clinton. What's the difference? This is a political forum. My goal is to elect Democrats, so I'll be trying to do that for the next two years. What would you expect me to do?

That kind.

Like, for example Al Franken, my Senator. Like Betty McCollum, my congressional representative. That kind. They won their primaries and ran against Republicans.

Like Barack Obama, for the same reason.

I vote for Democrats in general elections. Every freaking time. In primaries, I vote for the most progressive candidate.

Any Democrat is better than every Republican. That's why.

That kind?

I've seen. I live in Minnesota. Before that, I lived for over 50 years in California. I can only vote for candidates on my own ballots.

Al Franken. Betty McCollum. They were just on the ballot I just voted on. Do you like them OK?

"They've never been on my ballot".

But you avoided the point of the question quite well. Embarrassed buy something?

If you're talking about this:

"Any Democrat is better than every Republican."

I stand by that statement. In any case, Specter changed parties like I change underwear - frequently. Which version of him are you talking about?

I asked "like Arlen Spector", which was a simile. It was in reference to the questions "what kind". It was intended as a expansion of that question.

Is this the kind you'll work for in the general?
Is this the kind you'll back?
When you said "Any democrat" was this what you meant?

On my ballot this year was Al Franken, Betty McCollum, Mark Dayton, and my local state representatives. Dayton's a moderate Democrat. All the others are progressives. Those are who were on my ballot. I helped them get there. I campaigned for them. They were elected.

Arlen Specter is, as I said, not on my ballot and has never been on my ballot. He's not my problem.

I understand, you made a broad generic sweeping statement about "any" that you don't want to have to explain now.

Is Blanch Lincoln still alive? Would that simile help you?

with Democrats. I didn't vote for him, though.

Didn't vote for Blanche Lincoln, either.

Did you vote for either of them? The thing is that I choose the place I live. As a self-employed writer, I can live wherever I want. When my wife and I moved to Minnesota to help care for her aging parents, I researched the political leanings of various places in Minnesota. I chose a house in St. Paul, because the area consistently elected progressives to office. I could have lived in other places, equally near my in-laws where that wasn't the case. I made my choice.

Would I have voted for Arlen Specter if I lived in Pennsylvania? Not when he was a Republican. Maybe when he was a Democrat. But, I don't live in Pennsylvania and would not live in Pennsylvania. It's not my idea of where I want to live. Neither is Minnesota, frankly, but family comes first with me. My father-in-law died a couple of years after we moved here and my mother-in-law is now 86 years old. We moved here for them. I'm a Californian. My parents are both 90 years old and live in my old home town. I'm not there because my two siblings live in that town and nobody but my wife and I live here. Family. I expect to die in Minnesota. I can't afford to move back to California and my wife's mother is very likely to live to 100, since pretty much everyone in her family has. So, here I am. I chose where I live here.

I can't see him winning, somehow.

It's a superficial world out there! And in the MSM. I fall victim to it myself. Clinton is just too damned old. If she demonstrated the verbal alacrity of Sanders, I wouldn't have a problem with her. But she doesn't. Now that Obama has shown what it's like to have a fresh, energetic face at the helm, I want more of the same.

Not everyone ages the same but Clinton crosses the threshhold for me of someone who is too old for this job.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Hillary is old. She's almost the same age I am, in fact. I know that I wouldn't have the energy to run for President or to do the job, for that matter. But I'm not in the race. Frankly, I'd prefer someone who is younger, more progressive, and who has an abundance of energy and charisma. Obama was perfect on those counts in 2008.

I'm not a huge Hillary Clinton fan at all. If she's the nominee, of course, I'll work to get her elected, but I'd like to see some alternatives in the primaries. As I said much earlier, if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are on the primary ballot here in Minnesota, I'll vote for one of them. I'll caucus for either of them, too, at the precinct caucuses and conventions.

There's no mistake, whoever gets the nomination will have my full support. But we could use some choices for 2016.

that has ever been made here on DU.

Our only hope Is others oppose Hillary In primarys

Hillary as nominee In 2016 will be the most hawkish right wing ticket ever on democratic side.

There won't be any room for liberals In Democratic party any more.Just 2 partys for top 1%

It won't matter who wins General.the 99% lose.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

But I haven't heard anything about him since.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

Perhaps he's still in the wings, or he could even be a pick for VP by Hillary. If she has talked to him about that, it might be the reason for his general silence on the matter. I don't know, and don't know anyone to ask. I'm completely unconnected in DC circles.

Seriously- I could see him as a VP candidate.

He's a solid liberal who communicates effectively and who puts out a tremendous amount of energy.

I've seen 'age' as an issue for some - this could be a counter balance to that. And in light of a pretty rough thread by a Millenial here yesterday -

I think we need to pay attention and listen to them. A younger X'er would appeal to them on the ticket.

hearing from him right now. Just a guess, though. He's positioned pretty well right now, with that cabinet position. It's interesting that he got confirmed. Maybe he's just keeping his head down.

donate to any Presidential campaign. I will work my ass off for him.

switch parties yesterday. If he's on the primary ballot in Minnesota, he'll have my vote, too.

I think that could be his biggest stumbling block in getting the nomination. The Democratic Party has a lot of history and might not be as accepting of Bernie Sanders as you think on the national delegate level.

isn't that great. Bernie is speaking of the things that are of concern to a lot of people. If he keeps it up and can get his message out I think him being an Independent will only help draw people in, he can switch to a Democrat later. I post a lot of his stuff on FB and it gets a lot of likes from republican people I know and I think it's because he's an Independent.

His reasons for running or not running and whether to run as a Democrat are not are his own. I'll leave him to decide how he wants to proceed.

He's smart, well educated, strong progressive Dem., young and has good ideas on how things should go.
I said before, if Clinton wins the nom. I'll vote for her, but enough of Clinton and Bush. This country is bigger than that.
Just because someone can run, they not necessarily should run.

I haven't seen anything about that.

would be trustworthy.

Ha, just kidding. That's just to stick it to Hillary.

How about Webb? He's got senior-statesman status, has proven he can win contested elections on unfavorable terrain, and isn't likely to use the military as his own personal play-toy.

I haven't though much about him. Do you think he's interested in a run at all?

which is one of the things that makes him attractive as a recruit candidate - he's not power-hungry and actually makes decisions that take into account more than "what's in it for me?"

to be President. So, pretty much anyone who gets elected has put him or herself forward as a candidate. Reluctant candidates are rare in presidential races, I think, in modern times.

One who is not afraid of getting in there and kicking the GOP in the nads.

Has Hillary said a word since the troubling election results?

Have we heard anything from her?

Bernie Sanders is an important element in keeping the D's on track but I thought this post was about finding a Presidential candidate who is NOT HRC who can WIN....
Mr Castro is young and inexperienced....so was Obama and sadly that got him into a world of hurt...I cannot imagine going down that highway so soon again
Joe B and John K would not even consider the madness of the campaign
Al Franken is an excellent Senator and although older than Castro would also not have the broad based experience
Which is the same thing we have to say about Ms Warren....
Sadly....the bench is very shallow....

And the staff and consultants?

This business of pretending that anyone working three jobs and barely making rent can do what the DLC does is tiresome.

campaign organization or someone has set up such an organization for them. Supporting a candidate means getting involved with those organizations. It also means talking up the candidate on forums like this one and on social media. That's free.

Grassroots support is the most important thing any of us can do for a candidate, frankly, as individuals.

You'll find things like this:

http://ready4warren.com/

or this:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/US-Senator-Bernie-Sanders-for-President-2016/253576231398947

There are websites for all of the potential candidates. All you have to do is Google.

Bernie has said he will run if he gets support and I have indicated my support for his running in several ways. Will I back him for the actual nomination? It depends.

Several DUers have campaign graphics for her in their signature lines.

mean she's running in the real world?

When I think of my support for a candidate, I think of donations and working, not my DU sig line or my DU posts. I don't know if I want to start that for anyone who says he or she is not definitely not unning.

I try to choose my candidates analytically. Sure, after I have made that choice, I have become emotional about it, and that's useful, too. However, I affirmatively try not to base the initial decision on emotion.

I don't know that I even want to research and analyze a bunch of hypothetical candidates because someone or other is excited about them. I'll encourage almost anyone who seems interested in running to run. But, someone has to at least commit before I sit down and make hard choices, then take out the credit card or checkbook and start working.

And that is one of many ways in which Hillary's coyness is hurting others. This is not a prom date she's stringing along and thinking it's funny.

I certainly have a hard time believing he fit #3, I hadn't even heard of him til he ran, so I find it hard to believe anyone outside of Illinois and Dems who sit around watching conventions had heard of him then.

I'm obviously exaggerating (engaging in a tad bit of hyperbole) but he was the keynote speaker in '04 at the DNC. You don't get that because no one has heard of you. That said, it was a leap to believe he could go from a good speech, to the White House. However, certain power brokers connected to the Kennedy clan saw it differently and convinced him to run.

The silliness of serious discussion about potential 2016 democratic candidates is that none of us are that kind of power broker and until they decide who can and will run, we don't have much of a say. All of the "draft [fill in candidate name]" efforts are pointless if the brokers never show up to promise money and support. It's not that the candidate can't initiate the effort, but their primary efforts will be to find that kind of backing.

There is a developing political class euphemistically called the "political industrial complex". It's the class of pundits, pollsters, consultants, and former administration officials, as well as party leaders and such, that are where these efforts get started. Without them you'll go no where. No one will talk about you on the Sunday shows, there'll be no op-ed columns about you, no Late Night appearances, no real "buzz" without their cooperation. Not all of them by any stretch. You'll need a core set that basically sees that you have a chance, one that can either immediately line their pockets, or give them credibility in the long run (to land the next candidate job). And it is a minority core set. But you'll need them, and they don't read DU.

I don't think many in the general public had heard of Obama before 2004. The PTB in the Party, yes. The Illinois people, yes. The kind of people to whom the OP is addressed, no.


Who the hell heard of Palin before McCain picked her as VP? Well, I had, but only because I happened to be watching Craig Ferguson the night she invited him to visit Alaska.

The GOP knew who he was. The press knew who he was. But yeah, the OP is addressing all the wrong people.

presented with 2 or 3 preselected options. We will vote for the one that makes us the least. And that will be that for the primaries.

A lot of things suggest to me that he was the choice for 2008 before he was chosen to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

that's a good point you bring up.

The buzz about him started in 2004 when he spoke at the convention. He was visiting Iowa (the Harkin fish-fry, which is a big deal) in September 2006. He was on Oprah (big exposure) in 2006. He consistently polled as the number two choice for the nomination after Hillary starting in the fall of 2006 and caught her in some polls as early as April 2007.

Number 3 matters and Obama did fit it. Who among the potential candidates, at a comparable point in time, had established themselves as a contender?

People rarely announce this early. I think anytime within the first half of next year is sufficient.
The speculation of him running, in the meantime, will give him a platform to discuss issues (which may actually be the only reason he runs anyway.)

He certainly shouldn't switch parties before he runs, that would be showing his hand too soon. Also, announcing too soon would give everyone "not yet running" someone to run against, from both sides. In fact, I'm sure that's why Hillary has not announced yet, and probably won't until next year.

A few months is forever in political terms. Nobody knows what the dynamic will be between the president and the new congress. I think it will help the candidates to have a better idea what the climate will be.

For the politically aware, I also think there is probably some midterm burnout. I think all the candidates can and should wait until next year before making anything official.

Meanwhile, it doesn't hurt to have fun with a little speculation...