Team Dean!

The media worked hard to destroy Dean in 2004, and would do so again if he were to run.

I don't think he will.

But I had to go with Hillary, because she's paid her dues and has really earned it.

in fact, as far as I have been able to tell, she has never been elected to anything, AND, she is having a tough fight with a Republican to win a senate seat in Massachussetts. She might have the best views and policy positions in the history of politics, but right now there is nothing to indicate she would be a strong candidate in a national campaign or that she has the requisite experience.

This would need to be somewhat reevaluated if she wins in November, of course, but she would only have 2 years of elected office experience of any kind at the start of the 2016 campaign. People howled at Barack Obama's experience level and he had eight years of experience in the Illinois state senate before being elected to the US Senate in 2004.

elected office. But, neither was Hillary Clinton until she was elected to the Senate. She hadn't held any other government positiion, which is not the case with Warren.

I'm not against Hillary at all, just defending Warren as an outsider if she only has 2 years of Senate experience when/if she runs for Prez.

Though I think she will be up there in age if she ran. I am interested in O'Malley, Cuomo, and anyone else that chooses to run.

I don't think Elizabeth Warren will run either.

How come people keep bringing up her age? Who's mentioning the age of Gingrich (68), Romney (65) and Paul (76)? I've heard plenty of attacks over these men's politics, but not a peep about their age.

If she wins 2 terms she will leave office at the age of 76. The presidency is an intense job. Hillary is reported to be tired from being Secretary of State. Being president is less travel, but it's a big job.

Ultimately the age issue is about something no one (including me) wants to talk about. We want the president to serve their entire term.

I've heard people bring up Romney's and Paul's age. Paul has no chance, so no one cares. Romney looks a little younger than his age, so people don't realize how old he is. But Romney would be the third or 4th oldest president at inauguration. Hillary would be the 2nd or 3rd oldest.

nt

Paul is obviously too old to serve one term, but nobody ever thought he had a chance to be nominated. Nobody ever mentioned that Mike Gravel was too old in 2008 ither, because nobody cared, because everybody knew he couldn't win the nomination. Romney is four years younger than Clinton will be in 2016. He'as near the upper limit as far as the age of a candidate I would support. Gingrich is really too old, but then they are Republicans. They're so incompetent already, so they're not likely to get worse with age.

Hi,
Salutation to one of the the majority forum site
Here we get much awareness in it from some
Experts.
Thank you………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………
[url=http://www.ezdia.com/epad/tutorial-jquery-struts-2-framework/319/] struts2 jQuery [/url]

Western Populism will be more successful than another East Coast liberal.

I like her style.

If Andrew Cuomo gets in, do you think she would also or sit it out?

PEACE!

it out.

Howard Dean still has a lot of attraction to me also.

Isn't Cuomo too connected with New York? Wouldn't he likely be seen as just another New York liberal Democrat by the rest of the country?

He's also not very well-known in the rest of the country.

Things are not likely to follow the same pattern again.

Not sure what 'five years out' means. It's only about 2 and a half years before the next set of candidates will have to declare themselves.

Obama didn't win a Reagan-style landslide election.

In most cases, the candidate was virtually unknown to the American people at large five years out of a presidential election.

I swear to a God I don't even believe in I will leave Democratic Party if the nominee is Andy Cuomo. The guy is everything wrong with Democratic politics today. I dislike Hillary Clinton and hate Rahm Emanuel but I'm at a loss for a sufficient descriptor for how much I loathe the mere continued existence of Andy Cuomo.

But she isn't going to run

She hasn't won her senate race yet and there is serious concern whether she can pull that off.

Deval Patrick should be Included.I think he Is very likely to run.And could have some of people who worked for Obama working for him.

Aside for signing Gay Marrage Into law Cuomo has governed as a very centist democrat.And If people think Obama has been too
centrist do you really think Hillary would be more liberal than Obama?

Also I think Sherrod Brown and Brian Schweitzer may run.And I think would be good candiates.

If Biden runs I will be supporting him.If he doesn't I am leaning towards Patrick although I am starting to warm to Idea of Schweizer.

Warren needs to remain in the Senate, and be a strong senator (which is why she is running, isn't it???)

If she left to start running for President after just a couple of years, why bother?

This is how the Dems depleted the numbers in the Senate, and its wrong.

Hillary 2016.She earned it.

O'Malley is impressive. Like to see Russ Feingold too

And he could have saved Wisconsin in the process...

If he had plans to run for POTUS, I believe he would have stepped up in Wisconsin, first.

.

he's a bit less liberal some issues than I would like but he's a real populist and a good governor. I also think he might have a shot at finally bringing the white working class back to the party.

If not him Gillibrand, she's my senator and she's done a truly great job and has led on quite a few important issues, far more than most first term senators do at least.

For MONTHS we had DU members screaming about a primary against Obama.

It was never going to happen. Obama was going to be the Dem nominee in 2012.

And he will be.

And so ... those who wanted a more progressive candidate than Obama in 2012, now need to turn their attention to 2016.

Who is this more progressive candidate that the Dems should run in 2016 ... and ... why doesn't DU have a group set up on exactly that topic?

The folks who have regularly complained that Obama is not progressive enough need to get started drafting more progressive candidates for 2016 now, not in 2015.

You are not asking this question too early.

And maybe serve a term or two?

Bake

Elizabeth Warren will only have 4 years in the Senate (if she wins), and I'm not going through the special election bullshit again just so another upjumped wingnut can steal her seat. Cuomo is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I can't in good conscience cast a vote for Rahm Emanuel, mostly because I think he'd be an awful candidate.

I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, but I think the Presidency requires young hands, and hers won't be by 2016. I wouldn't vote for her for the same reason I wouldn't vote for Biden if he ran (he won't).

I like O'Malley--he's bright, he's well-spoken, he's relatively young, and he signed gay marriage into law in Maryland--but he's not a douche like Cuomo.

to Senator. If not, then Hillary...

And I think she'll win.

My vote went to O'Malley. He has a good record, and all the times I've seen him speak, he's been very witty.

The others are unfortunate choices, and not worth knocking on doors for.

now this would be a nice ticket if Hillary doesn't run

I wouldn't kick a Warren/Franken ticket out of bed either.

Are you kidding? Warren won't have enough experience to run in 2016 (and that's IF she gets elected to the Senate this year).

And Booker does not deserve to be anywhere near the Democratic ticket after his vile comments defending Bain.

Why the fuck on Earth would Elizabeth Warren ever run on a ticket with an avowed fiscal conservative like Cory Booker? Booker may be a Democrat but he's not a very good one...why not replace him with his identical twin Harold Ford? Then you have a Southern Democrat and a persecuted (in his own mind) minority on the ticket instead of two North-easterners.

but she won't be anywhere near ready to run a presidential campaign in 2016. Besides, for all those who bring up Hillary's age, Warren is only 2 years younger.

Grecian Formula notwithstanding....

from 2008, and bad blood on the board back then, she is tied in the poll with Elizabeth Warner and 31%.

Will she go on to win the presidency, idk. But I do think she will run, and she will win the democratic nomination in 2016.

I also think she would make a good president, just as she has made a good Secretary of State.

No one else comes to mind.

That's what Nancy Pelosi said too.

She said Hillary was "our shot" in 2016.

As of now, he'd be my choice.

That list in the OP, some of them I'd just not support, at anytime, at all. Kaine? He's from the wrong Century, and so dull that he makes Romney look like Mr Excitement....easier to elect a sea slug, although no sea slug is that far to the right....

But I'm biased. I'm from maryland. Warren isn't guaranteed to win, Cuomo's what I call a Red D. Hillary would be great, but I don't think she'll run for the same Reason Joe won't. Warner and Kaine are to far right to win a national primary. O'Malley is witty, a southerner, progressive, and he'll definitely capitalize on the conservative aspects of his opponents to win the primary.[link:www.keystonepolitics.com/2012/05/martin-omalley-president-2016/|

But I also like Warren and Hillary, as a Marylander I may have a touch of bias.

Don't get me wrong, I like Joe Biden, but I think he would be much better as Secretary of State than as VP and that he's just too old to run in 2016. My own hope is that President Obama is waiting to see who Romney picks, and then he will pick a younger Democrat as his VP for this race. It could possibly be Hillary, but she's not much younger than Biden...

However, I think this topic is an entertaining distraction and we should be focused on WMA (Weapons of Mass Advertising) against Romney, per this other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=37926

Look I LOVE Elizabeth Warren, but what about the obvious? After Romney loses in November, there'll be a long line of presidential losers from Massachusetts. I don't think we need to nominate someone from Massachusetts for a while. Outside of JFK, it's just not good for the party.

Let's get Elizabeth Warren elected to the Senate before assuming she will be a candidate in 2016.

And if she does get elected, I don't think she will run before even completing one term. Except in rare cases (eg. Obama), you're usually expected to pay your dues and wait your turn before running.

I expect the people who run for the nomination will have been in office for longer.

So many people around DU complain about Obama not being liberal enough for their tastes, yet Hillary has so much support, even though she is more conservative than Obama.

depending on who actually runs and how the previous four years go.

After Obama, America will lurch to the safest palest person they can trust. It's just how this country works. The pendulum swing. And it will definitely be a woman (love O'Malley though) as women are now a dominating force economically and electorally. But no Hillary please! Past is the past. Clinton fatigue will set in *hard*. My vote goes to Gillibrand, because ultimately pres. elections are popularity contests and a young fresh-faced blonde with the political skills to take the stage is a strong bet. Sounds superficial, but the masses are, well, superficial.

Simply because it's too soon to talk about it. If the next election starts the day after this one how the hell are things going to get done? Yes, Obama will be able to do things because he doesn't have to run for reelection, but the sooner the 2016 election starts the sooner he looks like a lame duck. Personally I despise the fact that people are speculating that far ahead.

lots of foreign policy experience. I come from a military family and am somewhat hawkish.

other than that she represents power, so to me this appears to be "HC because we say HC and for no other reason". It appears to be HC because it's her turn, or it was her turn in '08, so we must "fix" that as soon as possible.

Hey, I'm trying, but I just don't get her. I know her resume, SOS is great, but I don't think she's really Left enough. Yeah, she wrote about Saul Alinsky for her master's, but it was a put-down, wasn't it? She's all window-dressing that will disappear when it becomes "necessary" to go to war AGAIN.

Eliot Spitzer

Democratic populist with an impressive record as governor and charisma to spare. He'd be an awesome candidate. Schweitzer/Gillibrand 2016!