too early to talk 2016?

(Well, what else is there to talk about? Between 2016 and the fiscal cliff, 2016 is more fun. – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)




“Look, again, it’s way too early to talk about 2016, [Montana Gov. Brian] Schweitzer said on CNN’s “State of The Union.”

“I’m governor of Montana until January. At that point, I will no longer have a governor’s mansion. I won’t have a driver, I won’t have security, so I will have a little time on my hands. I think I did mention that I have a warm regard for the people of Iowa and New Hampshire.”

is the Big Line too short term?  Gotta get an 8 yr plan going on.  Who you see vying in the next go ’round?

I’ve been vocal (err, make that verbal) here talking up a Schweitzer run.  Would love to see how this develops and what he does over the next couple of years.  

National Dems gotta have him in mind — they know a Big West kinda candidate has a good feel, his folksiness is a huge sell, he’s all about fighting Citizens Unites, supporting our troops & veterans, and he has been putting up huge positive polls for yrs.  

All folks wishing on Hick’s dreams of a bigger desk gotta admit Schweitzer is the truer Prog and better candidate than Hick could ever be.

49 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. glasscup says:

    I’m sure his endorsement of Emily Sirota in a random school board race outside of his state will serve him well. Not sure where I stand on him generally but that certainly doesn’t speak to good judgment on his part.  

  2. caroman says:

    Schweitzer gave a red meat speech to the Dems at the Denver DNC which was, of course, enthusiastically received.  So, he’s got that going for him in comparison to Hickenlooper (who gave a ho-hum speech at the 2012 DNC).  But, Schweitzer’s speech was nowhere near the level of Obama’s 2004 DNC speech (which launched Obama’s presidential campaign).

    Bottom line: I don’t see Schweitzer happenin’.

  3. VanDammerVanDammer says:

    while poor old Algernon keeps POSTING away and never gets no attention

  4. CastleMan says:

    1. Schweitzer

    2. Andrew Cuomo

    3. Martin O’Malley

    4. Mark Warner

    5. Kirsten Gillibrand

    6. John Hickenlooper

    If Elizabeth Warren runs, she’d be the odds on favorite because, as you no doubt see, I doubt that either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden will run.

    If Sen.-elect Warren does not run, then it’s a wide-open race but I think Gillibrand would have the edge. There’s a desire in the party to nominate a woman and Gillibrand is a smart, savvy, and successful pol.

    Keep an eye on Deval Patrick, too. If John Kerry goes to Foggy Bottom then he is the next U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If Kerry stays in the capitol building, Patrick could be the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2016.  

  5. parsingreality says:

    Her looks.  Sad to say, but oh so true, many American voters vote with their evolutionary emotions.  Obama would have gotten another 3-5% if he had the looks of Mitt.

    Hillary has gained a lot of weight in the last four years. (Not throwing stones, I’m dieting. Again.)  

    She would need to find out from Nancy Pelosi who and where to get a lot of bodywork done.  That doctor is good.  Get a boob job whilst at it.

    Suddenly, maybe some of those old white men will start looking forward to HRC for Prez ads and some bathroom time.

    I dislike plastic surgery and even hair coloring.  But, OTOH, I know that being a natural woman in this media age spells election disaster.  

  6. parsingreality says:

    Don’t forget, neither of the last two Dem presidents were on anyone’s radar even a year out from the election.

    If this trend continues, we have no idea who the Dem candidate in 2016 will be.  

  7. …count me as a Gillibrand or Cuomo supporter at this point.

    Fiscal conservative Democrats who support immigrants and gays? My kind of Dems!

  8. Diogenesdemar says:

    By 2016, most Americans will have realized that 2012 was a tragic Mitt-stake.

    Love,

    ArapaGOP

    . . . he’ll be back.  

  9. BlueCat says:

    not as charmed as we were when he started registering on the radar and then gave that well received but,in hindsight, not particularly memorable 2008 speech. Neither he nor Hick would be my picks for 2016 and I agree with caroman.  Don’t see him happening. Times have changed.

    I also have reversed on HRC since 2008. Didn’t like her for Dem presidential candidate back then. Didn’t really think all that highly of her. But she’s shown her mettle, made her own reputation in her own right, not just as the woman who put up with Bill to get where she wanted to go politically.

    Being married to Bill definitely got her to the point of being able to win a Senator’s seat in her very first stab at elected office in a state she’d never lived in. Being appointed SOS, on the other hand, and doing a damn good job as a completely reliable member of the President’s team is all her own. She’s gained quite a lot in stature and experience.

    I think she’d be great for 2016. With a better campaign team she can be a great candidate with broad appeal to all the growing Dem leaning demos,as well as enough moderates and indies including a chunk of moderate Republican women.  As President, I think she’d do a damn fine job. And she’s not too old, either.  She promises to continue to age very well. A lot can happen between now and then but, right now, I like HRC.

  10. Littletonian says:

    but let’s not forget how badly her campaign was run in 2008. The comments on this diary (http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5952) are worth reading for Dems thinking about backing HRC in 2016.

    Remember, the 2008 nomination was Clinton’s to lose. She was an overwhelming InTrade favorite throughout 2006 and most of 2007. Obama’s campaign came out of nowhere – we were comparing Obama to Matt Santos at the time. Dig through the comments in that diary. You’ll see that Colorado Dems thought that HRC, if nominated, would pull out of Colorado and other smallish swing states – because we didn’t think she could beat John McCain here.

    It seems that HRC is a real force in the insider DC world, but I think we’re overrating her as a campaigner. She’s won two elections: the first for an open Senate seat in a blue state where her name recognition crushed everyone else’s, and a reelection in the same blue state when the GOP didn’t seriously challenge her. In her only “tough” race, she made more enemies than friends and caused (albeit temporary) chaos in the Democratic Party. And everyone thought she’d walk away with that one.

    I’ll be caucusing for someone else in 2016, because I’m not convinced that Clinton can win the presidency.

  11. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

    She’s been the hardest working cabinet secretary in the history of our republic. In defeat she’s been a party loyalist, she’s been a staunch defender of her president’s worldview, she’s an amazingly brave champion of civil rights worldwide, she’s one of the most intelligent persons in the entire Democratic Party pantheon, and she’s the savviest political operator on the international scene (and that includes Bill). She’s one of the most beloved and mysterious women in the world.

    And she will never be our American president.

    Ditto: Joe Biden. (See the above accolade.)

    2008 is yesteryear. 20012 is already so yesteryear. The worst mistake the Democratic Party and, especially it’s progressive wing, can make is not to respect that the American political scene is changing right this very minute–oops, this minute–oops, I mean this minute–oops, crap, folks,this minute–WTF? this minute… .

    The American political scene is changing at a nearly breathtaking pace. Do not discount the “Occupy” movement; it’s a genuine movement. Do not take for granted the demographic changes; demography does not permanently equal Democratic Party. Do not assume “Solyndra!”, “Kenyan!”, “Socialist!”, “Jeremy Wright!”, “God’s will!”, “Redistribution!”, etc. are the least in their crazed arsenal.

    Our arsenal today boasts an array of democratic (small d), humanistic, forward thinking, smart (smart!), patriotic up-and-comers. We’ve got a deep bench. Let’s not get stuck in the past. 2016? Let’s think past that. 2018. 2020. 20… .  

  12. VanDammerVanDammer says:

    I’m pretty sure you’re about the only one holding onto that grudge (or whatever it is). Emily’s hubby worked for Brian & def case of hubby trying to call in whatever whimsy chits he thought would help.  Explain to me how the hell that could hurt?  

    WTF you got to reveal about Emily’s dark & sordid past that would flick a gnats ass worth of bother to anyone?  If that’s the kinda crap you pass judgement on then I really truly wanna see the chiorboys and little angels you punch on your ballots.

  13. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

    But maybe I do.

    I don’t know David. But his radio persona: he’s a simpy opportunistic prick. And he’s not a credible advocate for his (radio personality) “progressive” view. But he’d supported Sweitzer, so maybe he called in a mark? And that’s a big deal in politics?

    In her campaign Emily came to my front gate and we chatted about her stands on educational issues.  She convinced me, she’d be a much better school board member than what we had. And what we’ve gotten. And a surrogate (volunteer?) did the same. Two personal contacts. Both sympathetic with my views. About my school district. Not a “random” school district. Mine. And hers.

    Now, about Schweitzer: Uhmm…maybe he also talked to Emily (after all, they were family friends) and he also agreed with her educational views? Cross-boundry politics? Horrors!

    So what’s your real beef with Schweitzer? Other than some vague “doesn’t speak well…” stuff? In spite of my misgivings, he will be mentioned in the upcoming race for our presidential nominee. Let’s get it out there. This is important shit.

    Why should not Schweitzer be a credible candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination?

    And I ask that of all other objectors, to whichever candidate they oppose: Why ? This is important shit. I and others need your insight.

  14. VanDammerVanDammer says:

    I do think there will be a wealth of women to seriously consider on the next big race and as much as I’ve grown to respect Hillary I do NOT think she would win.  I’m sorry but HRC it would be a repeat of 2008.  She can  start her ground game early, wear herself out once again clocking up the highway miles and bankng coin but she won’t pull it off and we’d lose momentum.  

    Best thing could happen is Obama gets 2 SCOTUS picks and HRC nom squeaks thru for one of them.  Would she take it?  It would sure help Dems with a fresh, baggage-free candidate for 2016.

  15. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

    But look at your (self identified) competition.

  16. parsingreality says:

    Even moi has given up tweaking his obsessions. Oops, I guess there’s only one.  

  17. CastleMan says:

    Here’s my GOP predictions, too:

    1. Chris Christie

    2. Rick Perry

    3. Jeb Bush

    4. Bobby Jindahl

    5. Ted Cruz

    6. Paul Ryan

    7. Marco Rubio

    I know Perry’s presidential campaign this time sucked, but he is well-liked among conservatives and I’d be willing to bet he’s learned some things. He’s the favorite, followed closely by Jeb Bush.

    Christie made too many enemies in his party a few weeks ago, while I do not believe the Republican party can overcome its biases enough to nominate Jindahl, Cruz, or Rubio.

    Ryan is part of the Romney loser team. That will kill his chances. No, Sarah Palin isn’t coming back. Neither is Rudy Giuliani.

  18. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

    Except Gillibrand. Maybe. Let’s see.

    Hick? CM, take another toke. dude.

    Patrick? If Kerry fogs his bottom, Scott’s in there. Patrick has to do something. As in, do.

  19. thiokuutoo says:

    O’Malley has started his pre-I’m thinking about running” work.  He did effectively represent Dems with his on camera talking heads show appearances.

    Cuomo comes with a baggage car.

    Nobody knows Schweitzer, Warner, Gillibrand and Hick.

    Hick has a good start just by being a governor.  His weird stuff going on with the environment stances could be a side issue, but an issue available to attack on a national scale.  

    Elizabeth Warren just went through a hard campaign, preceded by a lot of hot seat name building.  She has the brass needed to take on and defeat the Republicans.  Does she want to start campaigning again? Or be a senator for a while?  I like her and she would bring out the howling Republicans even more than Hillary Clinton can.  Dreaming of a Hillary Clinton/Elizabeth Warren ticket.

  20. VanDammerVanDammer says:

    and tell me which one would garner more support.  

    Hick would be dumb nuts to try to get in if Schweitzer already put his name out and started his corn belt sojourns.

    I’m not sure there are guarantees on Duval getting the seat.  If Kerry resigns doesn’t it go to a special election vs. an appointment?  Is that how Scott Brown blemished that seat?

    I gotta go back and brush off some of my old postings ’cause I know I was tossing some different names around back then.    

  21. Gray in Mountains says:

    I think Emily lost because her husband is so abrasive and easy to dislike. In fact, when you hear him, after the first time, when you are giving him a chance, you are likely to think “shut the fuck up you imperious prick”. But, Emily shouldn’t be blamed and neither should Schweitzer.

  22. thiokuutoo says:

    Up To The Minute

    The Dems have a lot of decent people who might be available to run.  A few of them should be hanging out their testing the waters sign soon.

    Right now HRC is getting older by the minute. As much as we like her and would like her to run, she is 65; she would be 70 taking office if elected.  Age by itself is not a problem, one of the worse presidents was 69 when elected.  It will be how much battle does she have in her for the four year campaign and the constant attacks by the Republicans?  As much as they hate Obama, they really hate a white woman named Clinton.

    I would like to see the first names floating out in the next few months.  Sort of the parade the greyhounds do before going in the starting cages.  This is where the Republicans are four years ahead of the Dems.  They have a clown car filled and another clown car ready for their candidates.

  23. BlueCat says:

    I was completely against HRC back in 2008 when many were staunch supporters and here I am in the opposite position. I never loved HRC with or without exclamation points and was known to make snide remarks about the contrast between her role as a supposed feminist icon and the fact that she attained her political aspirations the old fashioned, third world way; by being somebody’s wife. But stuff happens, people grow and learn hard lessons.

    I never doubted her smarts and once she became Senator by whatever means even I have to admit that she was popular on both sides of the aisle and did a good job for her constituents. And her commitment to being an extremely supportive SOS after her bitter battle with Obama shows real integrity and strength of character. It took Bill way longer to stop being a petty pain in the ass to Obama. This all makes me think that she is entirely capable of having learned from the mistakes of the 2008 campaign.  

    Guess we’ll see. Quite likely she’s not even willing to go through it all over again and may view the whole thing as too much to contemplate at her age. I realize her age is a problem but not necessarily an insurmountable one.  I also don’t think she would have to be viewed as a backward looking choice, being the first woman to be nominated by a major party for President.

    As for all the talking heads thinking she had it in the bag in 2008 that says more about the lameness of the 24/7 talking head cycle than anything else. They also thought Giuliani was a shoe in. I never thought for a second she could possibly win the presidency back then and that we’d lose if we nominated her at that time with such high negatives to go with the positives.

    I’m sure there will be several strong and credible possible candidates emerging but whoever it is, I’m pretty positive it won’t be Schweitzer and the thought of Hick? Laughable.  

  24. caroman says:

    Actually, I agree with your assessment, to a point.  A few of us at the Pols meetup a few weeks ago noted that Hillary’s hair was so bad that we felt it was an indication that she wasn’t running.  But, lately I’ve noticed she’s looking better — pulling it back is best IMHO.

    My money is on Hillary because I see no one else who excites the Dems.

  25. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    So I’ll just say: Why would anyone want Barack to have the looks of MITT?

    Barack is a hottie as-is. Mitt looks like a Ken doll. I’d have to see it to believe he has anything down there besides magic underwear and  smooth hairless plastic, and I’m NOT asking.

  26. GalapagoLarryGalapagoLarry says:

    But, unfortunately, true. OTOH, Warren is no “looker” and she just won a tough race against a (to my unpracticed eye [ha]) darned handsome stud.

  27. BlueCat says:

    with  the short elegant simple cut she wore in 2008. I’d definitely loose the long droopy stringy hair.

  28. parsingreality says:

    Different standards.  And Christie is younger.

    People voted for Reagan, JFK, and Dan Quayle because they were good looking men. A lot of old white men wanked, no doubt, to Sarah Palin.

    Our evaluation of a woman goes straight back to our evolution and breeding.  

    Just cuz she’s the only good, serious possibility now means nothing about three years from now.  Per my next post.  

  29. BlueCat says:

    in spite of all I’ve said about HRC. Remember Everybody who confidently forecast HRC v Giuliani as a done deal back in 2007?  And remember when McCain was supposedly put a fork in it done as the potential GOP nominee? It’s a political eternity until the next presidential election. But still fun to speculate.

  30. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    She is simply to old.  The name of the game is to put somebody on the court who can serve for 30 years and keep the fascists out for that time.  Hillary is not too old to run for and be president.   But not for the court., sorry.

  31. BlueCat says:

    Obama may have the chance to nominate two and they should be as young or younger than the righties Bush stuck us with. A President won’t be in office for 30 years.

  32. BlueCat says:

    can’t win the top job either because he is obese. All modern day Presidents have been pretty fit looking. It would be different if Christie were merely a little chubby but he’s please don’t sit next to me on a plane size.  

  33. BlueCat says:

    All the Presidents of my life time, much less yours, have been pretty decent looking guys whether they suit one’s personal preferences or not.  In the TV age we have never elected a a President who wasn’t pretty presentable nor any who were grossly overweight. So there is definitely a bias based on appearance, though it’s no doubt a bigger problem for women. A trim older man with an average face and character lines is considered more attractive than a woman of the same description. No amount of outrage is likely to change that any time soon. Sigh.

  34. VanDammerVanDammer says:


    … Victor Newman on the ‘Young and the Restless.’

    … a guy wearing a golf shirt in an Eddie Bauer catalogue

    … the guy at a party who gives you his card.

    … a guy who sells subdivisions in the Everglades.

    … the guy who pitches overpriced cemetery plots.

    … the pharmacist who doesn’t accept your prescription plan.

    … the guy on TV selling life insurance, doesn’t he?

    … that guy on a Father’s Day ad for Norelco.

    … the guy on cable urging you to tap your home equity.

    … the guy on the ‘Just For Men’ bottle”

    … he’d be selling fruit dehydrators on cable

    … the photo that comes with the frame.

    –thanks to Letterman

  35. raymond1 says:

    … and it’s based on both her mind and her looks.

  36. BlueCat says:

    is a good looking lady. Nice bone structure, great cheek bones, a fresh healthy look with minimal make up.  It’s not like you have to be movie star great looking to get ahead in politics. It’s more like there’s a floor and it’s easier for men to make the cut.

    And, by the way, I share PCG’s views on Mitt’s looks.  There’s nothing wrong with his features but there’s something about his facial expressions and gestures that just strike me as goofy and not in an isn’t that adorable kind of way. Kind of crazy eyed when he smiles and he seems to try so hard to master “normal” gestures. Kind of creepy.

  37. Diogenesdemar says:

    but I remember reading, in junior high school — The Mason Williams FCC Rapport.  Yeah, that Mason Williams — in addition to being a renown guitarist, he was also, among other things, a wonderfully subversive comedian and comedy writer — see also Smothers Brothers.

    Anyway, I think it was in that book that Williams wrote (loosely quoted) — The United States President is the guy we hire to do our country’s television commercials . . .

    That’s certainly been true since the dawn of television.

  38. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    The tallest candidate almost always wins the presidency. (Exception: GWB.) Wonder how that’ll play out the first time a woman debates a man for the presidency?

  39. VanDammerVanDammer says:

    no problem pointing out when i’m needing a cranial extracation from my rear.

    You’re right about packing the court with young true liberal Dems.  I’m just not sure what to do with HRC though.  She’s gonna run & run hard and, sorry to say, she’ll lose it for us if she gets the nom.  There is a deep hatred for HRC from bassackward Redders that’s done nothing but fester.  They don’t have to play a birth certificate game or spot the secret Muslim to whip up their crazees into a frenzy.  

    HRC would be a huge motivating factor for their GOTV efforts and an easy flag to wave in generating donations.  Why give them such a target to rally around?  

  40. VanDammerVanDammer says:

    …confidently forecast HRC v Giuliani as a done deal back in 2007?

    sorry for making y’all cringe & upchuck a bit  

  41. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    So true.

  42. CastleMan says:

    can be and generally are filled by appointment until the next general election. Brown won the election conducted after Ted Kennedy’s death, but he was not appointed to fill the seat pending the election.  

  43. RedGreenRedGreen says:

    Except in Massachusetts, the interim appointment only lasts until the special election to fill the seat, which takes place between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy. The state changed the law in 2004 so that Gov. Mitt Romney couldn’t appoint a two-year replacement for Sen. John Kerry if he won the presidential election.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.