Making predictions four years early

[Mister Mets]

Elsewhere, I saw an interesting argument on the perils of trying to predict the Democratic nominee four years early.

Eight years ago, there wasn't a lot of speculation about Obama as a candidate in 2008.
24 years ago, who saw Clinton coming in 1992?

With Republicans, the obvious frontrunner has consistently won the nomination since 1980. The only reason it didn't happen in 1976 was the unusual way Gerald Ford became President despite never being elected on a national ticket. And Ford was hardly more surprising than Carter. So there's precedent in GOP speculation.

In some cases, the Democratic nominee is likely to be the source of speculation four years before the election. Gore was the obvious 2000 candidate after Clinton's reelection. The 2004 primary was essentially a race between Gore's running mate and several veepstakes runner-ups.

But the obvious frontrunners don't fare very well. In December 1968, Ted Kennedy looked like a future nominee in waiting. Then came Chappaquiddick. In December 1984, Gary Hart was the clear favorite. Then came the Monkey Business. Finally, Hillary Clinton lost to a guy who seemed tailor made to defeat her in a democratic primary: A young African-American professor/ community activist from that big state next to Iowa.

Is there something about the Democratic party's nominating process which results in the selection of lesser known candidates? If so, is there even a point to speculation? Aside from bragging rights if you totally called Howard Dean four years in advance.

[TNF]

The Democratic Party likes dark-horse, maverick-y candidates. The Republicans, in true conservative fashion, don't like to rock the boat too much, and usually just nominate last time's runner-up.

I don't think that will be the case in 2016, though. I think that Hillary Clinton is heir apparent and will win the Democratic nomination without so much as a fight if she decides to run. There's literally no one in the Democratic Party apparatus that can defeat her at this point. For the Republicans, I seriously doubt that this election's runner-up (Santorum) will be the nominee. I doubt he'll run, but if he does, odds are he won't win the nomination.

[Skill and Chance]

The problem with this is that Huckabee, not Romney was the true 2nd place finisher in 2008.  After endorsing Akin, I'm pretty sure he is done with politics.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Was there really that much doubt that Romney would be the 2012 nominee though? I mean, you can call Huckabee the second place candidate from 2008 all you want, but to everyone who paid attention, he was just the joke who stayed in the race long after it was obvious he had no chance. His second place standing came from longevity rather than competitiveness. I realized people liked him, but there was never any doubt in my mind that Romney would be the nominee. People on this forum often call him the least-weak of a field of weak candidates, but I was absolutely anticipating a race between Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Daniels, Thune back in 2008. I still think Romney would've won.

This time, I have no idea who the nominee will be. Gun to my head, I'd say Christie, but anyone could up and steal it.

[RogueBeaver]

Hillary won't run. If Cuomo got the nomination then Dems would fall in line but there might be an enthusiasm gap like there was with Romney.

On the GOP side, I don't think Jeb will run. I do think either Ryan or Jindal will run, but not both. Christie would run as the center-right candidate. Rubio won't run either.

[tmthforu94]

There's literally no one in the Democratic Party apparatus that can defeat her at this point.

Weren't people says the same thing eight years ago, though?

Should Clinton run, every other candidate will be focused on bringing her down. Her favorable ratings are destined to drop, and she will face many of the same attacks that led to her defeat in 2008. She's certainly in a good position, but I think it's foolish to say she's unbeatable this far out.

[Mister Mets]

The problem with this is that Huckabee, not Romney was the true 2nd place finisher in 2008.  After endorsing Akin, I'm pretty sure he is done with politics.

While I can appreciate the arguments for Huckabee as 2nd place finisher (he won Iowa, and placed second in South Carolina which served as the tiebreaker between the New Hampshire and Iowa winners, he had the second-highest number of delegates) I'd argue Romney was still the runner-up. He had the second-highest number of delegates/ votes at the time he quit the race. Huckabee only beat him by staying when it was clear that McCain was going to be the nominee.

The Democratic Party likes dark-horse, maverick-y candidates. The Republicans, in true conservative fashion, don't like to rock the boat too much, and usually just nominate last time's runner-up.

I don't think that will be the case in 2016, though. I think that Hillary Clinton is heir apparent and will win the Democratic nomination without so much as a fight if she decides to run. There's literally no one in the Democratic Party apparatus that can defeat her at this point. For the Republicans, I seriously doubt that this election's runner-up (Santorum) will be the nominee. I doubt he'll run, but if he does, odds are he won't win the nomination.

Good point that Democrats do have a clear favorite (if she runs) and Republicans don't.

Although Hillary has said she won't run. So if we take her at face value, it's still going to be an open race.

Republicans do still seem to have a top tier, composed of whoever runs from the group of Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie.

[Cryptic]

The dynamics of the Democratic side will likely depend on if Hillary or Biden choose to run.  If either runs, it'll be one of those uncommon Democratic primaries where the frontrunner locks up the nomination.  If they don't run, I expect the primary will be like most Democratic ones where a dark horse comes out of the pack to beat the frontrunner.  The likely frontrunner to be beaten would be Cuomo.  As for who beats him and gets the nomination, that depends on who ends up running.  Possibilities include Schweitzer, O'Mailey, Hickenlooper, Kolbuchar, Warner, Warren, and others.  In other words, too many possibilities and too early to say.  

The Republicans are hard to guess, because for the first time in a LONG time there doesn't seem to be a clear heir apparent to the nomination.  Sanatorium is not going to get anywhere near the nomination, since many stronger candidates will be running.  I suppose Ryan could become the heir apparent if he remains a viable candidate between now and 2016.  I think it'll come down to Christie, Rubio, and Ryan vying for the nomination.  I think Jindal missed the boat by not having an opportunity to get his name out there this year and I don't see another Bush getting the nomination so soon after W.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Should Clinton run, every other candidate will be focused on bringing her down. Her favorable ratings are destined to drop, and she will face many of the same attacks that led to her defeat in 2008. She's certainly in a good position, but I think it's foolish to say she's unbeatable this far out.

She's way, way, way more popular now than in 2008.  No serious Democrat would challenge her - it doesn't matter if Dennis Kucinich is trying to bring you down.

[Mr. Morden]

Should Clinton run, every other candidate will be focused on bringing her down. Her favorable ratings are destined to drop, and she will face many of the same attacks that led to her defeat in 2008. She's certainly in a good position, but I think it's foolish to say she's unbeatable this far out.

She's way, way, way more popular now than in 2008.  No serious Democrat would challenge her - it doesn't matter if Dennis Kucinich is trying to bring you down.

Correct.  Her position within the party is much stronger now than it was in 2004/5/6, leading up to the 2008 race.  All of the more pragmatic Dems at that time, those who cared primarily about winning, wanted someone else (e.g., Bayh, Warner) to be the nominee, because many thought Clinton was way too polarizing to win the general election.  No one's saying that now.  And she also now has less opposition among the liberal base of the party, since the Iraq War is no longer such a big issue.

[King]

If 2016 looks like a Democratic year in 2015, Hillary or Biden will be nominated and defeat Paul Ryan or Rand Paul soundly.

If 2016 looks like a Republican year in 2015, Cuomo will the be nominee and lose to Rubio or Christie.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[BM]

Hillary is unstoppable for the nomination if she runs. Obama actually was discussed as a dark horse candidate after his high profile convention speech. He didn't really come out of nowhere to those who pay attention like people say. It was just surprising to some that he ran so early. Sorry but the likes of O'Malley and Hickenlooper just aren't going to electrify the base enough to take down the Clintons in the same way Obama did. And a lot of the 2016 possibilities will definitely step aside if Hillary enters anyway (Cuomo, Gillibrand, and Schweitzer for sure).

I don't think the runner up rule for Republicans applies this time either. Satanorum was just the last anti-Romney candidate standing because the others were all exposed as some combination of stupid, insane, and incompetent before him. People actually wanted Bachmann, Perry, Cain, etc before him. That doesn't really strike me as a close but no cigar type who everyone regrets not nominating over Romney. People realize the 2012 field was awful so they're hyping up their fresh blood for 2016.

[Ogre Mage]

I agree with TNF, Ben, Mr. Morden and BeccaM.  If Clinton runs in 2016 she will be the Democratic nominee.  No one out there has the ability to generate the kind of electricity among the grassroots that Obama did and Clinton is a vastly stronger candidate than she was in 2008.

A clear sign of her strength -- you already have several potential 2016 Dem candidates saying they won't run if she does.  And then there are rumors about others trying to figure out what her plans are.  This is telling.

[Mister Mets]

The dynamics of the Democratic side will likely depend on if Hillary or Biden choose to run.  If either runs, it'll be one of those uncommon Democratic primaries where the frontrunner locks up the nomination.  If they don't run, I expect the primary will be like most Democratic ones where a dark horse comes out of the pack to beat the frontrunner.  The likely frontrunner to be beaten would be Cuomo.  As for who beats him and gets the nomination, that depends on who ends up running.  Possibilities include Schweitzer, O'Mailey, Hickenlooper, Kolbuchar, Warner, Warren, and others.  In other words, too many possibilities and too early to say.  

The Republicans are hard to guess, because for the first time in a LONG time there doesn't seem to be a clear heir apparent to the nomination.  Sanatorium is not going to get anywhere near the nomination, since many stronger candidates will be running.  I suppose Ryan could become the heir apparent if he remains a viable candidate between now and 2016.  I think it'll come down to Christie, Rubio, and Ryan vying for the nomination.  I think Jindal missed the boat by not having an opportunity to get his name out there this year and I don't see another Bush getting the nomination so soon after W.

Biden would have a shot if Hillary's not running. But a guy in his 70s with a history of silly statements who didn't fare very well in the 2008 primary (aside from impressing the future President) is going to be vulnerable.

One factor is that that there are less Democrats who will stay out of the race if Biden runs than if Hillary runs.

Hillary is unstoppable for the nomination if she runs. Obama actually was discussed as a dark horse candidate after his high profile convention speech. He didn't really come out of nowhere to those who pay attention like people say. It was just surprising to some that he ran so early. Sorry but the likes of O'Malley and Hickenlooper just aren't going to electrify the base enough to take down the Clintons in the same way Obama did. And a lot of the 2016 possibilities will definitely step aside if Hillary enters anyway (Cuomo, Gillibrand, and Schweitzer for sure).

I don't think the runner up rule for Republicans applies this time either. Satanorum was just the last anti-Romney candidate standing because the others were all exposed as some combination of stupid, insane, and incompetent before him. People actually wanted Bachmann, Perry, Cain, etc before him. That doesn't really strike me as a close but no cigar type who everyone regrets not nominating over Romney. People realize the 2012 field was awful so they're hyping up their fresh blood for 2016.

Obama didn't come out of nowhere, although much of his presidential run was because of what he did in 2006, including his book tour and success campaigning for congressional candidates, which left him well-positioned when Democrats took back both houses of congress. A lot of that wasn't apparent eight years ago.

I'm sure some people mentioned him as a potential dark horse, although much of that is due to the sheer quantity of coverage.

One problem with making predictions so early is that many try to imitate the previous results, looking at potential candidates who fit earlier surprising templates. So Julian Castro is seen as a potential Dark Horse because of his similarities to Obama (keynote speaker, young, potential historic first). Historically, Democrats are more likely to pick candidates like Jimmy Carter who don't really fit previous templates.

Republicans are more predictable. They're almost certainly not going to pick Santorum, but if history is any indication, they'll go with someone currently acknowledged as a top-tier candidate. Meanwhile, Democrats are much more likely to go with someone who isn't mentioned, except as a potential dark horse.

Though I could be wrong. In 2016, the Democratic nomination could be Hillary's, as she stays above fifty percent in every primary poll. Meanwhile, the Republicans go with a currently obscure Governor.