Bored with the 2012 presidential race? No worries – people are already talking about 2016. In particular, Chris Cillizza, the proprietor of WaPo’s excellent “The Fix” blog, has set up an NCAA-style bracket he calls “Sweet 2016” with 8 Democratic and 8 Republican contenders. Here’s how it shakes out:
Massachusetts is standing tall with two top contenders – Deval Patrick at #3 and Elizabeth Warren at #4. To be sure, though, both have tough first-round matches. And I think Schweitzer could be the Cinderella of the Democratic bracket. Unfortunately, voting for the first round has already closed (sorry about that). Results should be posted tomorrow.
Please share widely!
michaelhoran says
Jindal at 5? Well, he”ll have had, what, 7 years to get over that abysmal SoTu response, but I still don’t see it. Christie’s too thin-skinned and loudmouthed. I have Jeb at 2. Rand Paul? Even at 8, he’s too much a long shot. Is Rubio really that ready for prime time?
Clinton’s a longer shot than 7. Age will be a factor. I’d put Deval in the number one spot. But I’d love to see him run–he has a terrific debate presence. I don’t know what Mark Warner’s been doing behind the scenes, but I always thought he had the fever and possibly the skills–I’d move him up. Hmm, what was I saying about Warren elsewhere? Never won an election, no executive/managerial experience whatsoever, but she’s in the #4 spot???
I don’t know enough about O’Malley. Always liked the idea of big city mayors running, though, and what with his band, it would be like having of the Dropkick Murphies in the WH. Nothing wrong with that.
What is interesting is that with the exception of HIllary and Jeb (please, dear god, don’t let it come to that–enough with ths dynasties), most of the folks are next-generation and largely unknown to to the electorate as a whole.
ramuel-m-raagas says
is the Obama for America day of action on April 14, 2012. April 14 is the last Yom of Jewish Pesach. It shows no caring-ness to impose a political day of volunteering on the defined last day of eight calendar dates devoted to God [adonay].
Ryan says
That comment came out of no where, and has the distinctive odor of manufactored outrage.
It’s also beyond silly.
For starters, who the heck is “imposing” anything on you? I will note that the “Day of Action” is merely a date in which OfA is asking members to volunteer.
You know what volunteering means, right? In case you don’t, here’s Webster’s definition on voluntary:
Your own choice. By your own consent.
If you can’t volunteer that date, you can do what 99.999% of the rest of America will do and skip it. Obama forgives you.
When we decide to follow a faith, we accept the fact that sometimes we have to sacrifice other things we’d like to do because of that faith. I did that all the time when I was Catholic, including when the consequences were pretty damn stiff, which happened on more than one occasion. I didn’t complain.
Now, I realize you may be asked to make those sacrifices more often coming from a faith that’s much smaller and with somewhat stiffer rules, and I sympathize a lot. I really do. I’d go so far as to say that if this was Yom Kippur or Rosh Hashana, or a more important event for the democratic party (like, say, a caucus or convention), I’d almost certainly agree with you. But it isn’t and it’s not.
If the Day of Action is that important to you, feel free to pick some other day and make your action in the name of the OfA. That would only endear you more to the OfA crowd, anyway.
HeartlandDem says
Scott Brown and what’s her puss????? Oh ya, Ann Coulter on the right. They will respectively (not to be confused with respectfully) replace Chris Christie, who will stroke out.
Bob “Vaginal Probe” McDonnell has some serious damage control to do to get to 3rd. The whack-right don’t like that he balked on v-probegate and the left don’t like that he really is for anti-choice probes.
-observations
Christopher says
…I don’t see both Warren and Patrick entering the race. Two from the same state usually doesn’t happen.
HeartlandDem, what makes Cuomo a DINO? He’s been very good, IMO, great as AG, pushed marriage equality for example. Plus there’s the soft spot I have because I absolutely loved his father.
Ryan says
was a useful mask for his extreme DINO-ness. The guy is IN THE TANK for Wall St. and the wealthy elites of NY. Let’s not kid ourselves.
I’m all for politicians pushing for marriage equality, never for allowing those who use the issue as a decoy to push back against cries of DINOism in the base. Gay people are not some tool to be used to show progressive ‘bonafides’ to block the taint of everything else a candidate does on core democratic issues. Sorry, but that offends me.
Cuomo’s record of cutting taxes for the rich, pushing for *even more* casinos in his state, attacking state employee salaries and pensions, antagonizing the state’s unions, including the teacher’s unions over toying with education funding, etc. etc. etc. etc. is not anywhere close to progressive or “liberal lion” status.
Most people who paid attention in that state, including Democrats, knew exactly what they were getting when they voted for him; someone who could steamroll the competition and get things done, albeit with a history of DINOism.
After the cloud and taint of Spitzer, then the debacle Paterson’s ineffectual stay in office, nominating someone who could win for Gov and help remove that taint became paramount. Getting someone who could actually move through the Dem-GOP divide in Albany became equally important. To the state party and people who cared, those issues became more important than getting a liberal standard bearer, all adding to Cuomo’s aura of inevitability.
He’s been everything most people predicted, but let’s not pretend he’s been particularly liberal. He’s not Senator Gillebrand, who went from being a DINO in lower office to being a legit liberal in higher office.
Christopher, you do this kind of thing a lot — commenting on subjects you have spent almost no time looking into. When people call you out on it, you get upset.
I know my language can often come out more thorny than I’d like, so I just want to emphasize the fact that’s not what I’m trying to do right here. This isn’t an attack or an insult, it’s a critique.
I just think next time you should just spend 5 or 10 minutes and do a Google search first. That would have been plenty of time to figure out the ways in which Cuomo is a DINO. “Cuomo DINO,” “Cuomo taxes,” “Cuomo unions,” or “Cuomo liberal” probably would have yielded some interesting results, like this frightening Washington Post article.
HeartlandDem says
Christopher take a listen to WAMC and particularly Dr. Alan Chartok discuss the Cuomo Administration……..Andrew ain’t no Mario. He’s the worst kind of DINO out there….arrogant, ambitious and toxic to Democratic party principles.
thinkliberally says
Also Cuomo basically gave away the state to the Republicans in the redistricting process.
Ryan says
but ultimately, I don’t think much of this will stand the test of time. On the GOP side, there’s no way that Chris Christie doesn’t combust well before then. McDonnell’s not going to be able to escape from the issues that have dogged him as Governor when the glare of the stagelights that comes with running for governor turns into POTUS-candidate-sized floodlights, a la Rick Perry. Rubio won’t be trusted by the GOP base on immigration issues, which nixes him, and Jindal has the charisma of an iguana that’s been left out in the cold too long.
Usually, these things go to the runner up last time around, but I’m not sure the Republican establishment will accept Santorum, so it’s Jeb’s for the taking. By then, no doubt will the country be hoodwinked into thinking GWB was some bipartisan-y dogooder again, with the GOP carefully revamping the Bush legacy to benefit Jeb. We humans have short-term memories.
I think the Democratic side is more accurate, at least by a little. Gillebrand won’t make the jump now, and she certainly won’t if Cuomo will. Not sure why she’s on the list when Cuomo so obviously wants to run.
Let’s just cross off O’Malley and Schweitzer right off the list; they’re both just too unknown. Warner may toy with it, but ultimately won’t do it. He’s one of those guys who constantly toys with it, but never does it.
I genuinely think Deval Patrick is interested, so that seems accurate. I would love to see Warren run if she wins the Senate seat, but I’m not sure it happens. I don’t think she has the ego to pull an Obama and run for POTUS without so much as a full term in higher office under her belt.
As much as everyone and their mother will want Hillary (hey, even I feel it), is she going to run at almost 70? I bet she’s thought long and hard over that question… and decided no. To be honest, it’s probably for the best. A 60 year old Hillary almost certainly wins POTUS next time around, but I have my doubts over a 68 year old Hillary… or anyone. Heck, she showed some signs of wearing down at 60.
(Yeah, yeah, Ronald Reagan did it, but he had the entire country befuddled with his goofy smile and movie star past, benefited from the built-in GOP advantage in US politics for POTUS, and did it in a completely different day and age than today’s 24 hour news networks and Twitter. If John McCain ran for President in 1982 at the age he did in 2008, he may be remembered as Mr. Sunny Sunshine, too, instead of Mr. Get-Off-My-Lawn.)
What I don’t quite understand is why Hillary is pointed at so frequently with these kinds of lists, but Biden isn’t. They’re both the same age and Biden is the VP.
Now, mind you, I dislike Biden’s politics… a lot. Even more than Hillary’s. Yet, I find it odd that he doesn’t even merit consideration. No matter what kind of vibes he’s giving off, the guy could do it, especially considering how much the public seems to like him now, compared to how unknown — and somewhat toxic — he was before he became VP. I’d say that merits a #8 on the list.
—-
Tangent, but: Given the way ‘traditions’ work in politics, I very much wonder if we’ve moved past the era of Vice Presidents being seen as the next-in-line, with most future VP choices being seen as caretakers. Think of it… assuming Obama wins reelection, and Biden does decide to retire, we’ll have seen 16 years of VP caretakers. If another President or two follows that up with more caretaker VP picks, I say it becomes history, with an entire generation of *adults* who’ve grown up thinking that’s the way VPs are chosen.
I think this is actually somewhat astounding to think about, given that the VP-is-next-in-line-to-run meme has been with us for a good 150 years or more.
stomv says
and I’m glad Schweitzer is a good fit for Montana, but for tUSA? Really?
I’m an urban guy. Relative to Montana, almost everybody in Massachusetts is. I have a hard time imagining Schweitzer focused on issues like mass transit and smart growth when as governor of Montana he’s been focused on agriculture and mineral extraction.
Ryan says
Having no policy record is, sadly in this day and age, a plus… but let’s not pretend that name recognition doesn’t help. Obama had plenty of that within the Democratic Party when he ran and what he didn’t, the Kennedy’s and Kerry gave him.
petr says
Recent images I’ve seen show both a markedly aged and a remarkably much calmer Hillary. I think she’s made her peace with electoral politics and agree with your assessment. I think she’s a great and righteous Sec of State and will translate that to great and global ‘retirement’ work like the kind her husband is doing.
I also agree about Deval… with the added note that he’s intimately tied to the present Obama machine as well as ideologically very closely aligned to Obama. If Obama has a great second term Deval could slip right in as a proxy third term… indeed, I think they are so ideologically paired that Deval mightn’t even get his feelings hurt over that.
I can’t see Warren yet. I have to see her in the thick of an election and then in the thick of legislating before I can even think about viability in a presidential run.
Christopher says
Ryan, regarding Cuomo I actually was vaguely aware of some of the things you cited. My guess is (in fact I’m fairly certain) that you and I draw the DINO/real Democrat line at different spots on the spectrum. Plus, given the 2010 climate and the nature of his GOP opponent I really am thrilled he won that race.
I was impressed by Schweitzer’s speech at the Convention in 2008 and have thought since that putting him on the ticket would be great.
Ryan says
if tax cuts for the rich isn’t even it? I mean, really. If we can’t be for making the uber rich pay their fair share, why the hell are we in this party? If we can’t be for that, does the Democratic Party even have any meaning?
dont-get-cute says
Both of his parents were foreign citizens at the time of his birth, they did not naturalize and become Americans until he was four years old! If he had been born four years later, after they became Americans, then he’d be a Natural Born Citizen. Yes, it seems like it hardly makes a difference, but the pool of people eligible to be President doesn’t need to be maximized, it needs to be minimized and limited to people who were born to American citizens, so that they don’t ever feel like they are also loyal to the country their parents were citizens of when they were born, and which they could have been citizens of too. It should be limited to people who never had any other options but to be an American citizen.
petr says
…I don’t think it works that way. If he was physically born here, even to non-citizens, he’s considered natural born, under the constitution, and thus eligible.
dont-get-cute says
And even that is an over-reach of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. We should not even be giving citizenship at birth to children of foreigners, let alone declaring them eligible to be President. They should have to naturalize along with their parents to be citizens, and only children of citizens should be citizens at birth (which would make them also be Natural Born Citizens). But right now, we have “citizens by birth” who are not “Natural Born” due to the Wong Kim Ark decision.
petr says
… again.
I do believe you are misunderstanding the decision you cite, as well as the implications therein.
thinkliberally says
I think DGC is putting what s/he thinks should happen over the reality of the Constitution as it is currently applied.
Mr. Lynne says
n/t
dont-get-cute says
But thanks for agreeing that how it is currently applied does not mean how it should be applied. By letter of the law and by practical reasoning, its clear there is a special category called NBC and that foreigners are indeed subject to another power (not just diplomats). I know you all disagree, you think all that matters is if they were born here, which is frankly stupid.
petr says
… the Supreme Court said in the very case you cited…
Derp.
dont-get-cute says
Wong Kim Ark wasn’t running for President, so it wasn’t about what makes someone a NBC, and second, it was a bad ruling, if not for his particular case but at least in terms of how it became applied. At the time, the US badly needed immigrants, and the promise that their children would be citizens without even needing to naturalize was a lure to attract immigrants and a way to encourage assimilation. But things have changed and now anchor-babies are a problem. Children of immigrants and tourists and aliens should have to naturalize along with their parents to be citizens. It’s just disrespectful of foreign parents to snatch their children from their country just because they happened to be born here. I know they aren’t snatched but just by making them automatic citizens is an obnoxious imposition on the family’s unity and identity. Other countries don’t do that, they respect the child’s connection to their parents.
Mr. Lynne says
… decision cited Lynch v. Clarke, which explicitly states the candidate question.
dont-get-cute says
I thought we had established that I’m interested in what the law should be going forward, not what someone said 200 years ago, back when they were trying to get citizens. My argument is that the pool of people eligible to be president should be much smaller than the pool of citizens, and that merely being born in the territory, as opposed to say moving here when three months old, is a very irrelevant factor to limit the pool. What matters is being born and raised by citizens as a citizen and being someone who never had any choice about being a citizen, never had any competing claims.
Also I feel you guys are trying to disrespect parental rights and diminish family ties and disrespect citizenship generally, and just want everyone in the World to be a US citizen and eligible for the presidency and not connected at all to their heritage or ancestry.
Mr. Lynne says
Par for you. I just corrected you on the relevance of Won Kim Ark to candidacy
SomervilleTom says
The phrase “natural born citizen” is not formally defined in the US Constitution itself, presumably because the authors and signers found the meaning of the phrase self-evident. There is nothing in the “letter of the law” nor is there any “practical reasoning” to conclude that the phrase, as it is now applied, is other than precisely what the founders intended.
You may find it “stupid”, but several centuries of jurisprudence, practice, and tradition have said that being “born in the USA” makes one a “natural-born citizen” and eligible to run for the presidency. The law is the law, whether you (and your fellow birthers) find it “stupid” or not.
dont-get-cute says
there was no such thing as jus soli citizenship, all citizens were either natural born children of citizens, or they were naturalized citizens. It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment was wrongly interpreted 30 years later in Ark that we started deviating from what the founders intended by calling children of foreign citizens US citizens if they were born here.
Mr. Lynne says
… Ark wasn’t the genesis of this notion. Go read my wikipedia link.
SomervilleTom says
You really DO live in your own world.
Christopher is correct, this is an utterly pointless exchange.
petr says
The Republican side is missing Scott Brown. Granted, I don’t like him, but If he wins against Warren, that’s all the cred he’ll need to be talked about for ’16. Certainly, that will position him much better than Bobby Jindal and the two or three whodats they got there now. Of course, if Warren wins, fugedaboutit.
Also, if Rick Santorum can take this race all the way to the convention this year you can bet he’ll be in it in 2016, and probably with better funding at that time…
Jeb Bush looks to me like somebody who’s happy with the way his life is going and isn’t going to change it now. His opportunity to run in the senate in 2010 was the beginning of the closing of the window for him. If George H. W. Bush passes away before 2016 (he’s 87 now…) then the establishment drops him and he gets very little traction. The dynasty ends when 41 does.
Rand Paul will probably run and quickly reveal himself to be loopier than his father, at which point he’ll continue to run, only without relevance.
thinkliberally says
I don’t see any way that Joe Biden isn’t at least a top-8 and I’d say more like top-2 candidate for the Dems in 2016.
Also it’s fairly preposterous for Elizabeth Warren to be a presidential candidate (and ranked 4th, no less) when she has such a battle still remaining to even become a first-term senator.
Christopher says
You are waisting your time and sanity debating DGC on the natural-born-citizen question. This dead horse has been beaten several times.
Christopher says
You’ll be pleased to know that this time I did just a little digging and found Andrew Cuomo’s profile on Vote Smart. With one possible exception (The Business Council of NY) his endorsements are liberal. He got two 100% ratings from ACORN and accepted the nomination of the Working Families Party. There is no question in my mind that he is more Democrat than Republican. I’m also willing to cut an NY politician a bit of slack on the rich issue seeing as how Wall Street is in that state. In general, I don’t have much patience for purity tests. There are a few DINOs in our legislature, I think.
sabutai says
At this point four years ago, wouldn’t Eliot Spitzer have been a number one pick? Instead we get a neophyte governor and an unelected professor in the top five. Of the top eight, six live within a two hour plane flight from JFK airport.
The bench is far deeper and better than this. I’m sure people like Cillizza will realize that about six months after the voters do.