At this point, despite claims no decision has been made, it
certainly seems as though Hillary Clinton is planning on running for
President. I’ve written before that she
is in an extremely strong position to win the White House in 2016, should she
run. This is partly due to demographics;
in 2016, the electorate will be more black and Hispanic than in 2012. Democrats run well with these two key groups;
President Obama won more than 70% of the Latino vote in 2012 and upwards of 95%
of the African American vote.
All this would lead one to believe that any Democrat could
win the White House. But we are
forgetting two other voting blocs: independents and women. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure
out that, should she run, Clinton will likely dominate among women voters. There is a huge pent-up demand for a woman president,
and, fairly or unfairly, a woman candidate (on either side) would likely reap
those benefits.
And what do independents want? One could argue they want change. But that doesn’t necessarily mean changing
parties. It could simply mean they want a
change in the type of President
occupying the Oval Office. In 2016, that
will most likely translate to voters wanting someone with a bit more experience
under his or her belt. There are some
Republicans who would fit that bill, so it is not as if Clinton will run away
with that vote.
Independent voters also want someone who can deliver
results. It isn’t clear Clinton will
necessarily benefit from this. While her
husband oversaw a booming economy and the 90’s are generally regarded as a time
of prosperity, Hillary herself may not get that credit. Further, Bill Clinton’s presidency was not
without intense partisan battles, of which is something independents are
certainly tired.
So if Hillary decides not to run, who would take her place
as the Democratic standard bearer in 2016?
There are certainly people waiting in the wings, but can they win in
November? Can they even get the party’s nomination? Let’s examine each contender.
Joe Biden: The most obvious alternative to Hillary at
this point is the current Vice President.
It is highly unusual that a sitting Vice President is polling as poorly
as he is against a potential challenger (Clinton), but most polls have ‘Uncle
Joe’ barely breaking into double digits.
Despite that, in nearly every poll, he is still in second among
Democratic primary voters.
Therefore, he would probably benefit most if Clinton doesn’t
run, right? Hold the phone. While polls show (and there are limited polls
that ask this question) that currently Biden would be the second choice of most
primary voters, that assumes other Democratic candidates’ name recognition
would not increase over the next two years.
As it stands, most primary voters know little to nothing
about potential candidates like Mark Warner, Brian Schweitzer, Andrew Cuomo,
and Martin O’Malley. Even Elizabeth
Warren, the firebrand liberal from Massachusetts, is relatively unknown in the
broader Democratic electorate. Biden’s
support would likely drop precipitously after other candidates were able to
connect with the electorate.
But let’s assume that Biden could win the primary. Could he win a general election? In this case, the candidate certainly would
matter. Jeb Bush or Chris Christie would
likely mop the floor with Biden. Even
Rand Paul would probably win against Old Joe.
Unless the economy begins to vastly improve, I cannot see Biden winning
a general election against anyone but perhaps Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin.
Martin O’Malley: The current Governor of Maryland has not
shied away from suggesting he may run, with or without Clinton in the mix. O’Malley certainly seems to align with
Democrats on all the right issues. His
state was one of the few to pass stricter gun laws in the wake of Sandy Hook
and he led the effort in his state to pass a referendum on same sex marriage,
among other things.
But it just seems, despite all that, as if O’Malley elicits
zero excitement from the base.
Excitement is what wins primaries.
Is he hampered by being just another boring white guy? Or has he just not done a good job raising
his national profile in a way that can get Democrats envisioning him as
President? I think it is more of the
latter than the former. Which means that
O’Malley has about six more months to find a way to introduce himself.
Could he win in a general election? Yes, but he’d be no lock
to win. Being relatively unknown is a
double edged sword. O’Malley has already
proved that he isn’t great at introducing himself to the electorate, so
Republicans could possibly more easily define him. However, something he has going for him is
that he is not attached to the Obama administration. He is a two term Governor, and he is fairly
young (would be 53 at the time of the election). Voters have picked the younger candidate in
every election since 1992.
Andrew Cuomo: Governor O’Malley and Governor Cuomo are
often listed in the same breath, probably due to them each being governors in
the Northeast and both of them having expressed interest in running for
President. They even have similar
accomplishments while in office. Both
passed stricter gun-control laws and both passed same sex marriage.
Where Cuomo breaks out is in name recognition and money. New York is the media and money capital of
America. Not only does Cuomo benefit
from his father being a popular New York Governor in the 80s and 90s, but also
from having much of the press focus on him, though that could be a double-edged
sword. Further, Cuomo has a good
relationship with Wall Street, which would no doubt help with his fundraising.
Governor Cuomo, while more moderate than the party as a
whole, would stand a very good shot of getting the nomination and even winning
in the general election. He doesn’t have
much baggage and is well liked in New York even by Republicans. Cuomo has a track record of working with both
sides of the isle to achieve results.
Traditional liberals may not love him, but he would be a good fit for
independents.
Brian Schweitzer:
If the left wants its own version of
Chris Christie, they will be happy with Schweitzer. The former two-term governor of Montana is
brash and isn’t afraid to speak his mind.
On issues, he doesn’t fit well into a traditional “liberal” or
“conservative” box. He is pro-coal,
pro-fracking/drilling, and seems to have more conservative views on gun
rights. But the governor has also been a
leader in pushing for alternative energy sources such as wind and solar and has
recently endorsed same-sex marriage. He
talks often about the need for a living wage, an issue that could become
prominent by 2016.
In terms of the primary, Schweitzer would almost certainly
be viewed to be the more conservative candidate. Primaries are usually dominated by the more
extreme of each party, liberal or conservative.
Therefore, unless he were to be able to bring a large number of
independents to the voting booth as Barack Obama did in 2008, Schweitzer would
have a very hard time winning. However,
if liberals were to not coalesce around one candidate, Governor Schweitzer could
win a plurality of the vote by letting the other candidates split the liberal
bloc.
Schweitzer seems like he would be a fairly decent general
election candidate. While Governor, he
was focused on results and was not afraid to be brash to get his positions
heard. He would likely do well in western
states like Nevada and Colorado and could even bring his home state into the
Democratic fold (he left with a greater than 60% approval rating).
Mark Warner: Senator Warner has not ruled out running for
President. The extremely well-liked
former-Governor-turned-Senator of Virginia certainly looks the part. However,
Warner’s task will be to differentiate himself from other candidates. He is younger than Biden, but about the same
age as O’Malley and Cuomo. He is more
soft-spoken than Schweitzer, yet is not really well known for anything among
Democrats. Further, he is undeniably
attached to the current President; he has voted with Obama 97% of the time.
Now, that may not be a death knell in the Democratic
primary, but unless independent voters begin to warm again on the current
President, Democrats might not want to nominate someone so closely associated
with the administration. That being
said, Warner will likely handily win re-election in the purple state of
Virginia this year, even with his record.
And in 2016, he would almost certainly bring Virginia and likely even neighboring
North Carolina with him.
Below is a map (courtesy 270towin) showing what a probable
Warner-GOP matchup would look like. With
Warner holding all Obama states that the President won by greater than 5%, plus
adding Warner’s home state of Virginia, he is winning with 285 electoral
votes. Yes, it is possible, with the
right nominee, the GOP could pick off one of the more democratic states such as
Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, or New Hampshire, but it is equally as likely that
Warner would carry at least one of the remaining swing states. Warner could be a formidable general election
candidate, but he would have to win a crowded primary first.
Elizabeth Warren: Ahh, the darling of liberals. Besides Hillary herself, there has not been
more speculation over any other candidate than the Harvard
professor-turned-Massachusetts Senator.
The talk of her running has only intensified since her book, “A Fighting
Chance” went on sale just last month.
Warren has repeatedly said the words, “I’m not running for
President”. That could be interpreted in
two different ways. One way, the way I
think she would like us to interpret it, is that she will not run for President in 2016.
The other way, and the interpretation I read, is that she is not currently running. I believe she is holding the door open in
case Hillary doesn’t run.
She has already publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton for
President, so she clearly won’t run against her. But if Clinton decides not to run, there will
be a huge desire for a true progressive, and even more so a woman, to seek the
nomination. I certainly believe Warren
would take that torch and run with it, given the chance.
How would she do in a Democratic primary? She would likely win it. She would be the candidate activists flock
towards. The biggest holdouts would be
the more conservative wing of the party.
However, that wing has been getting progressively (no pun intended)
smaller since President Obama took office in 2009. Democrats want a passionate progressive, not
a passive one, as Obama has been.
What would likely be an easy nomination (relative to 2008)
could end up being a very difficult general election, however. Warren is unabashedly liberal, but the
country as a whole is not. In a recent
poll recording ideology of Americans, Gallop found that only 23% of Americans
identified as ‘liberal’ while 38% called themselves conservative.
That isn’t to say that Warren could not win a general
election. She is very passionate about
her beliefs, and that is also something that Americans like in a candidate. But her path to 270 would likely be a bit
narrower than someone with more broad appeal, such as Clinton or Warner. Southern states in which Democrats have been
trying to compete in recent years, like North Carolina and Georgia, would
likely be off the table. Similarly, if
Warren is framed as an elitist liberal, more working class states such as
Michigan and Pennsylvania could become tossups.
It is a risk the party would need to weigh.
Bernie Sanders: I’m not convinced Bernie Sanders would
actually run. Though he’s the same age
as Vice President Biden, he looks and sounds much older. His reason for getting in the race would not
be to win, but to drive the debate to the left.
I don’t honestly see much of a path for him to getting the
nomination. He is certainly a liberal’s
liberal. He even describes himself as a
socialist.
Despite America being partially socialized since the 1930s,
Americans still have a very negative reaction to the word. He would have almost zero chance of winning a
general election, given his views and his age, and the Democrats would not risk
nominating him.
So who wins the nomination should Clinton not run? As I said before, my bet would be on
Warren. Progressives in the party see
her as 2016’s Obama. Though she may not
have the establishment’s support, the primary system would likely work in her
favor. With Iowa as a caucus state,
turnout is lower and therefore leans more liberal. New Hampshire would be a likely win for the
Senator of neighboring Massachusetts.
After gaining momentum from those states, she would need to do well
enough in the other early states to sustain her momentum going into Super
Tuesday. Really, her path looks much
like Obama’s did in 2008, except that no one else is nearly as strong as
Clinton was in that year.
Have I left anyone out?
Do you feel I have overestimated Elizabeth Warren or underestimated
someone else? Sound off in the comments
section below!
