Biden aides say he may run for prez in 2016

[Mr. Morden]

Not overly newsworthy, as VPs almost always run for president, but since some folks around here expressed doubts that someone as old as Biden would be in 2016 would actually run for prez, I figured I'd post this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-biden18-2009aug18,0,2588210.story?page=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

If Biden runs again in '16 and manages to get elected, I think he would decide not to run for reelection in 2020 and let whoever he'd pick as VP to have the honor.

More than that, I think he'd state flat out in 2016 he plans to seek only one term.  (And I think there's a better than even chance he'd pick a woman for a running mate, maybe Hillary.)

A 73 year old presidential candidate is going to pick a 69 year old running mate?

[Mr. Morden]

You mean a vice president of a popular (possibly in Obama's case) president might run for president after said presidents presidency.  No way, that hasn't happened anytime recently except Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, and Richard Nixon.

Right, I'm just mentioning it because so many other people here seem to dismiss Biden's chances of running, because of his age.

[Mr. Morden]

You mean a vice president of a popular (possibly in Obama's case) president might run for president after said presidents presidency.  No way, that hasn't happened anytime recently except Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, and Richard Nixon.

Right, I'm just mentioning it because so many other people here seem to dismiss Biden's chances of running, because of his age

And of those 3 VPs, the one in his 40s against the same generation almost won the popular vote, the one in his 50s against the same generation won the popular and almost the electoral, the one in his 60s against a guy 10 years younger won big.

Still, one of the advantages a VP has, in a primary anyway, is recognition and trust to be in charge.  I think Hillary has those as much as Biden, is 5 years younger and being female may be an advantage by then.

I'm with you on that as well.  I think Clinton would be more likely to win the nomination in 2016 than Biden.  Clinton has a wider base of support than Biden, and there will still be a large "it's time for a woman" contingent among Democratic primary voters then.

In fact, I think it's all but inevitable that, come 2013, people are going to be talking up Clinton as the frontrunner for the 2016 nomination.  (This happens regardless of whether Obama is reelected.)  She'll be nearly as much of a frontrunner as she was in 2005 for the 2008 nomination.....even if she publicly claims not to be interested.

[Mr. Morden]

Biden does have some advantages.  As VP, he can raise money, campaign for other Democrats and collect political chits.  Hillary cannot due to her position as Secretary of State.  But Bill can fill in for Hillary on the political circuit as she attends to the business of governance, which undercuts that advantage.  Biden also has closer proximity to President Obama, which is an advantage Hillary cannot replicate. 

If Clinton is running for president in 2016, she resigns as SoS by January 2015 at the latest.  When it gets to the point at which one has to start raising $, she will already have left office.

But unlike for the 2008 election, her age will be an issue of course.  Whether Biden being a prospect would heighten that issue for Hillary (two older front runners) or distract it from her is unclear.  I assume the polls will begin in November 2012 actually and that Hillary will lead early ones by a comfortable margin with Biden generally second.  The only other people to register might be speakers who did well at the 2012 convention (like Obama used in 2004 to launch himself to stardom).  Schweitzer's a good bet here.  Also, maybe surrogates who gave strong performances in the months up to the election.

If you're talking about 2016 polls taken in 2013, no one else will register besides Biden and Clinton.  Having a good speech at the convention and being a campaign surrogate doesn't make you nationally famous.  (Obama, for example, was *not* that well known nationally until early 2007.  The 2004 convention speech only made him famous among political junkies.)  I don't see how any new faces on the Democratic side become famous in the next four years, aside from Cabinet secretaries.  So I see the earliest 2016 Democratic primary polls being dominated by Biden and Clinton, with everyone else being in low-mid single digits, like Haley Barbour and Tim Pawlenty are now re: 2012.

EDIT: The only possible exception would be if some kind of crisis catapults some other politician to national fame, a la Rudy Giuliani on Sept. 11, 2001.

It IS an interesting question, what would Obama do if both Biden and Clinton jumped into the 2016 Dem primary?  Probably stay neutral is my guess, although one never knows what is going on behind the scenes. 

If Obama wins reelection in 2012, he will certainly remain neutral in the 2016 Democratic primary, regardless of who runs....just like Reagan in 1988, Clinton in 2000, and Bush in 2008.