possible 2020 presidential candidates
Mr. Illini:
GOP
Marco Rubio
Paul Ryan
Susana Martinez
Scott Walker
Kelly Ayotte
Nikki Haley
Dems
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Cory Booker
Deval Patrick
Julian Castro
Martin O'Malley
Mr. Morden:
Quote from: Mister Mets on February 24, 2014, 02:25:56 PM
Kristen Gilibrand (Post-Obama Senator, Represents milestone Democrats want, Political savvy+ media connections)
That raises an interesting question. If Clinton is the 2016 Democratic nominee, but loses the general election, will the yearning among some primary voters to nominate a woman the next time around, in 2020, be intensified, or subdued? Obviously, it's hard to say without seeing how the campaign plays out, but is there a scenario in which she loses, and people blame it in part on the voters not being ready for a female candidate, or something like that?
ShadowRocket:
I'm thinking Warren and Cuomo would wind up being the domimant candidates for the Democratic nomination. With each respectively representing the populist and centrist wings of the party and the clash between those two wings being the driving force behind the primary.
After three consecutive terms of Democratic control of the White House, I would think the Republicans would finally not be concernced about idealogical purity and are focused purely on electable. Which helps establishment-friendly candidates like Christie (if he survives Bridgegahzi) and Walker. Perhaps the also try and nominatate a woman or minority. Giving a boost to Rubio, Ayotte, and Haley.
Mister Mets:
Quote from: Mr. Morden on February 24, 2014, 08:23:45 PM
Quote from: Mister Mets on February 24, 2014, 02:25:56 PM
Kristen Gilibrand (Post-Obama Senator, Represents milestone Democrats want, Political savvy+ media connections)
That raises an interesting question. If Clinton is the 2016 Democratic nominee, but loses the general election, will the yearning among some primary voters to nominate a woman the next time around, in 2020, be intensified, or subdued? Obviously, it's hard to say without seeing how the campaign plays out, but is there a scenario in which she loses, and people blame it in part on the voters not being ready for a female candidate, or something like that?
If Hillary loses, I suspect the party would still be happy to nominate a woman, although the intensity would be subdued.
There are a few other arguments against Hillary that might not apply to Gillibrand. It might be argued that Hillary was too closely associated with Obama, or too old, or had too much baggage, or a poor campaigner, or maybe that she was just a victim of circumstances that would have just as easily sunk O'Malley and Cuomo.
Quote from: Chris B on February 26, 2014, 04:11:48 PM
I'm thinking Warren and Cuomo would wind up being the domimant candidates for the Democratic nomination. With each respectively representing the populist and centrist wings of the party and the clash between those two wings being the driving force behind the primary.
After three consecutive terms of Democratic control of the White House, I would think the Republicans would finally not be concernced about idealogical purity and are focused purely on electable. Which helps establishment-friendly candidates like Christie (if he survives Bridgegahzi) and Walker. Perhaps the also try and nominatate a woman or minority. Giving a boost to Rubio, Ayotte, and Haley.
If Warren wants the nomination, 2016 is her best shot.
By 2020, there will be more Democrats with appeal to progressive activists. There was a description of the new class of 2012 as including a few of the most liberal Senators ever (Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, Mazie Hirono, Brian Schatz, Tammy Baldwin.) By 2020, Murphy, and Schatz could be plausible nominees. Baldwin would represent major milestones with a record that makes activists happy, while also having decent establishment credentials (Elected to Congress in 1998, Defeated in a former Governor in an open election in a swing states) to appease more cautious Dems.
ShadowRocket:
Quote from: Mister Mets on February 26, 2014, 05:16:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Morden on February 24, 2014, 08:23:45 PM
Quote from: Mister Mets on February 24, 2014, 02:25:56 PM
Kristen Gilibrand (Post-Obama Senator, Represents milestone Democrats want, Political savvy+ media connections)
That raises an interesting question. If Clinton is the 2016 Democratic nominee, but loses the general election, will the yearning among some primary voters to nominate a woman the next time around, in 2020, be intensified, or subdued? Obviously, it's hard to say without seeing how the campaign plays out, but is there a scenario in which she loses, and people blame it in part on the voters not being ready for a female candidate, or something like that?
If Hillary loses, I suspect the party would still be happy to nominate a woman, although the intensity would be subdued.
There are a few other arguments against Hillary that might not apply to Gillibrand. It might be argued that Hillary was too closely associated with Obama, or too old, or had too much baggage, or a poor campaigner, or maybe that she was just a victim of circumstances that would have just as easily sunk O'Malley and Cuomo.
Quote from: Chris B on February 26, 2014, 04:11:48 PM
I'm thinking Warren and Cuomo would wind up being the domimant candidates for the Democratic nomination. With each respectively representing the populist and centrist wings of the party and the clash between those two wings being the driving force behind the primary.
After three consecutive terms of Democratic control of the White House, I would think the Republicans would finally not be concernced about idealogical purity and are focused purely on electable. Which helps establishment-friendly candidates like Christie (if he survives Bridgegahzi) and Walker. Perhaps the also try and nominatate a woman or minority. Giving a boost to Rubio, Ayotte, and Haley.
If Warren wants the nomination, 2016 is her best shot.
By 2020, there will be more Democrats with appeal to progressive activists. There was a description of the new class of 2012 as including a few of the most liberal Senators ever (Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, Mazie Hirono, Brian Schatz, Tammy Baldwin.) By 2020, Murphy, and Schatz could be plausible nominees. Baldwin would represent major milestones with a record that makes activists happy, while also having decent establishment credentials (Elected to Congress in 1998, Defeated in a former Governor in an open election in a swing states) to appease more cautious Dems.
I think she can wait if she wants to. The fact that she has built up a large following within the party, and is becoming, if not already is, the face of the populist wing are factors that I think give her an advantage over the other names you mentioned.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page