Most likely Democratic Nominee to succeed President Obama in 2016?

[politicalchick20]

HE IS THE CHOSEN ONE.

Heck yes, Mechaman! Granted, I've got a few other names in mind who might be more likely to get the nomination, but should he become a Senator, I can definitely see myself supporting good old Joe for president.

[tmthforu94]

Andrew Cuomo or Mark Warner

[Psychic Octopus]

Andrew Cuomo or Mark Warner

Basically what I think; Although I'm tempted to give Cuomo the upper hand. Hillary and Biden are also factors.

[Ogre Mage]

Very hard to say this far out but I think there will be a very strong push to have a woman on the Democratic ticket, either at the top or as the running mate. 

As for Hillary Clinton trying again, it is a reasonable possibility.  I suspect she will step down as SoS at the end of Obama's first term, take a bit of a break and then begin surveying the landscape for 2016.  Whether she will ultimately pull the trigger will be dependent on a variety of factors. 

The one major gap in Hillary's resume the last time she ran was a lack of major executive experience, which she now has.  She could enter the race saying that she has the requisite national-level legislative, executive, domestic and foreign policy experience necessary to serve as President.  Combined with the "time for a woman" push, it would be powerful.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia.

I disagree as well. Warner seems to be really overrated dude and he missed his best chance in 2008.

Forget about Clinton, Bayh or Kaine too.

It would be probably someone who's not yet reach an base which would allow him to run in 2016 (so Cuomo is likely)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

And 2008 wasn't a little too early for Barack Obama?

That's exactly my point. Maybe it will be someone freshly elected in either 2010 or 2012.

Gillibrand and Cuomo and maybe Hillary

Lol, no to another badly overrated "moderate heroine"

[Badger]

I think people are overestimating some names like Sestak who is still not favored to even win his primary, Cuomo who still hasn't announced a gubernatorial run, and Mark Warner who might have to shift to the middle to win reelection in 2014 which would complicate a primary run.

^^^^ this, though not so much re: Warner. Remember, Bill Clinton was considered from the "moderate" wing of the party in 1992. Also not sure why Gillibrand is getting so much more press than Kolbuchar.

Also, Hillary will turn 69 a week before the 2016 election. Not impossible, but I don't see her seeking the presidency then.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Also not sure why Gillibrand is getting so much more press than Kolbuchar.

I'd say it has a lot to do with looks and charisma. 

Although I consider Klobuchar to be a very good senator, to me at least she seems pretty boring both to look at and listen to, in a similar way to John Kerry. Gillibrand on the other hand is one of the better looking Senators, has a strong personality, and is decently charismatic. Now I would never decide who to vote for based on such trivial qualities, but a lot of persons do, and I think that's why Gillibrand is considered a more likely candidate.

   

[pragmatic liberal]

Also not sure why Gillibrand is getting so much more press than Kolbuchar.

I'd say it has a lot to do with looks and charisma. 

Although I consider Klobuchar to be a very good senator, to me at least she seems pretty boring both to look at and listen to, in a similar way to John Kerry. Gillibrand on the other hand is one of the better looking Senators, has a strong personality, and is decently charismatic. Now I would never decide who to vote for based on such trivial qualities, but a lot of persons do, and I think that's why Gillibrand is considered a more likely candidate.

   

The problem with Gillibrand - and it's a superficial one - is that she does not have a commanding presence. At all. She has a very girlish voice, not just in her vocal mannerisms but in her pitch as well. And she's short and very young-looking.

It's silly. And yes, these superficial characteristics affect women more than men. Although men face these bars too - it helps to be tall, to be good-looking, to not be bald or too portly, and to have a relatively deep voice.

I agree with one of the prior posters that there will be HEAVY pressure for the Democrats to put a woman on the ticket, at least as number two if not number one. But despite the fact that Gillibrand by 2016 will likely have won TWO reelections (2010 and 2012) in the nation's third-largest state, and despite her age being ideal, I'm skeptical she'll be seen as "presidential" enough.

Martha Coakley next door in Massachusetts might be a possibility, although age may be a factor with her. That's another problem with women politicians. There are fewer women in politics, period, and those that do run tend to run later in life after raising families, meaning that they're often older than is ideal for a national run (even taking into account the fact that women live longer).

Otherwise, yes, Klobuchar's a possibility though not a very high one. If the pressure to nominate a woman for VP is strong enough, you may have some House Reps. get a look. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (though she's probably too conservative) or Rep. Kathy Castor, for example.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Also, Hillary will turn 69 a week before the 2016 election. Not impossible, but I don't see her seeking the presidency then.

I agree with you about Hillary, although Ronald Reagan was 69 when he began his first term in 1981.  Of course, we're talking about different genders, different generations, and different parties.

[Bo]

Also, Hillary will turn 69 a week before the 2016 election. Not impossible, but I don't see her seeking the presidency then.

I agree with you about Hillary, although Ronald Reagan was 69 when he began his first term in 1981.  Of course, we're talking about different genders, different generations, and different parties.

Reagan was more an exception to the rule than the rule. Besides, he only won because Carter was a massive screw-up (or was percieved that way by most voters). Also, Reagan was senile in his second term. One of his press secretaries later admitted that she was very close to declaring Reagan senile, but decided not to.

[Bo]

Does anyone here think Chelsea Clinton is suitable Presidential material? She is going to get married (to some wealthy Jewish guy whose parents were both previously in Congress), which always helps to win an election. In addition, she is going to have large name recognition and many people still remember her father's Preisdency fondly.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Also, Hillary will turn 69 a week before the 2016 election. Not impossible, but I don't see her seeking the presidency then.

I agree with you about Hillary, although Ronald Reagan was 69 when he began his first term in 1981.  Of course, we're talking about different genders, different generations, and different parties.

Reagan was more an exception to the rule than the rule. Besides, he only won because Carter was a massive screw-up (or was percieved that way by most voters). Also, Reagan was senile in his second term. One of his press secretaries later admitted that she was very close to declaring Reagan senile, but decided not to.

I think during his second term, especially after the 1986 mid-terms that Reagan started experiencing the early signs of Alzheimers which ended up taking his life in 2004.  He was still mostly functional through most of HW's term, but by the time Clinton took office, he was going down hill.  He wasn't officially diagnosed until 1994, I think, but he had the symptoms for at least 6-8 years prior.

[Bo]

Also, Hillary will turn 69 a week before the 2016 election. Not impossible, but I don't see her seeking the presidency then.

I agree with you about Hillary, although Ronald Reagan was 69 when he began his first term in 1981.  Of course, we're talking about different genders, different generations, and different parties.

Reagan was more an exception to the rule than the rule. Besides, he only won because Carter was a massive screw-up (or was percieved that way by most voters). Also, Reagan was senile in his second term. One of his press secretaries later admitted that she was very close to declaring Reagan senile, but decided not to.

I think during his second term, especially after the 1986 mid-terms that Reagan started experiencing the early signs of Alzheimers which ended up taking his life in 2004.  He was still mostly functional through most of HW's term, but by the time Clinton took office, he was going down hill.  He wasn't officially diagnosed until 1994, I think, but he had the symptoms for at least 6-8 years prior.

I read that falling off a horse in Mexico in 1989 immedaitely accelerated Reagan's symptoms of Alzheimer's.