[hrothgar]

Spent some time watching the Sunday morning talk shows this weekend. I was most amused to see multiple claims from all over the political spectrum suggesting that

1. Hillary Clinton was the inevitable nominee for the the Democrats
2. The Republican's had no one who would be remotely competitive (this last from Newt Gingrich)

The whole situation left me feeling somewhat bemused:

1. I recall similar efforts to anoint Hillary back in 2008, which seem to have run into a few issues
2. Clinton is going to be rather old in 2016 and presumably a bit older in 2020... I hate to say it, but she might have missed her window

Don't get me wrong... I'd love to see another eight years of Democratic control of the White House. Should provide us with enough to remove Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and the like from the Supreme Court. However, these pronouncements are ridiculous...

[Bbradley62]

I agree that Hillary will be too old in 2016. Yes, she'd be 20 months younger than Reagan was when he was first elected, but I see that as an argument for the "too old" position. I also agree that it's impossible to tell who will emerge as national leaders over the next three years; way too many current governors have that potential.

But, Alito will certainly survive on the court through the 2024 election, and Thomas probably will as well (if there a Democrat in the White House). It's a lean-slightly-left group (Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer, all 10-15 years older than Thomas) that will be replaced between now and then.

[hrothgar]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-10, 09:47, said:

But, Alito will certainly survive on the court through the 2024 election, and Thomas probably will as well (if there a Democrat in the White House). It's a lean-slightly-left group (Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer, all 10-15 years older than Thomas) that will be replaced between now and then.

Not sure whether I would describe Scalia as "lean-slightly-left"...
Kennedy has been voting with the conservatives for 8 years now.

My assumption is that Ginsburg and Breyer will step down during the next four years

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2012-December-10, 10:35, said:

Not sure whether I would describe Scalia as "lean-slightly-left"...
Kennedy has been voting with the conservatives for 8 years now.

My assumption is that Ginsburg and Breyer will step down during the next four years

I think he meant on average, as a group.

For a while I think the general voter trend was more or less toward alternating parties. Based on this, I thought at the time that the Obama-Clinton primary race was the real presidential election, which was historically fascinating. I do think John McCain was also a good candidate (well, the VP was a joke), but realistically no republican had a chance.

Now things have changed somewhat, the republicans have moved far enough off the reservation that I think the democrats have a chance in 2016 despite eight years incumbency. A lot can change in four years, but it might be a situation where the actual candidates matter.

Last, if Clinton is already being played as the presumptive candidate, it is possible that this "hint" comes from Clinton herself. If she still wants it, age will certainly not stop her.

[Bbradley62]

hrothgar, on 2012-December-10, 10:35, said:

My assumption is that Ginsburg and Breyer will step down during the next four years

Ginsburg has essentially stated that she intends to retire at the end of the SCOTUS term in Spring 2015; she wants to be on the Court until age 82, "like Brandeis".

[mike777]

My two cents.

I hardly think Hillary will be too old in 2016. From what I can tell she leads a healthy lifestyle compared with Reagan...diff. times.

If not Hillary then who in 2 years or so?

As for the whole Supreme Court thing I dont see her gaining many votes on that issue that she will not own in any case.

[Bbradley62]

mike777, on 2012-December-10, 12:51, said:

If not Hillary then who in 2 years or so?

Democrats don't work like this. Excluding years when the sitting prez or veep was the obvious nominee:
In December 1984, it would have been very difficult to identify Michael Dukakis as the 1988 nominee.
In December 1988, it would have been very difficult to identify Bill Clinton as the 1992 nominee.
In December 2000, it would have been very difficult to identify John Kerry as the 2004 nominee.
In December 2004, it would have been very difficult to identify Barack Obama as the 2008 nominee.

Any of Governors Martin O'Malley (MD), Deval Patrick (MA), Jay Nixon (MO), Andrew Cuomo (NY), or Senators Mark Pryor (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA), Jon Tester (MT), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kay Hagan (NC), Sherrod Brown (OH), Bob Casey (PA), Mark Warner (VA) and Maria Cantwell (WA), or Senators-elect Tim Kaine (VA) and Tammy Baldwin (WI) could become much higher-profile and be candidates if things go their way over the next few years.

[billw55]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-10, 14:28, said:

Democrats don't work like this. Excluding years when the sitting prez or veep was the obvious nominee:
In December 1984, it would have been very difficult to identify Michael Dukakis as the 1988 nominee.
In December 1988, it would have been very difficult to identify Bill Clinton as the 1992 nominee.
In December 2000, it would have been very difficult to identify John Kerry as the 2004 nominee.
In December 2004, it would have been very difficult to identify Barack Obama as the 2008 nominee.

Any of Governors Martin O'Malley (MD), Deval Patrick (MA), Jay Nixon (MO), Andrew Cuomo (NY), or Senators Mark Pryor (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA), Jon Tester (MT), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kay Hagan (NC), Sherrod Brown (OH), Bob Casey (PA), Mark Warner (VA) and Maria Cantwell (WA), or Senators-elect Tim Kaine (VA) and Tammy Baldwin (WI) could become much higher-profile and be candidates if things go their way over the next few years.

Agree except for 2004 --> 2008. In 2004 Obama was already known as rising star in the party. Although 2008 was mostly considered too early for him (by some, it still is), he was definitely not flying under the radar.

Let's be realistic here. If Clinton wants the nomination, it is hers for the taking.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2012-December-10, 12:51, said:

My two cents.

I hardly think Hillary will be too old in 2016. From what I can tell she leads a healthy lifestyle compared with Reagan...diff. times.

I agree. While she's obviously no spring chicken, she hardly seems like she's in her late 60's. I think she has plenty of good years in her.

If she can handle the globe-trotting pace of SoS now, I think she can handle POTUS in a few years.

A good question is what she'll be doing in the interim, so she stays in the public mind.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2012-December-11, 16:24, said:

I agree. While she's obviously no spring chicken, she hardly seems like she's in her late 60's. I think she has plenty of good years in her.

If she can handle the globe-trotting pace of SoS now, I think she can handle POTUS in a few years.

A good question is what she'll be doing in the interim, so she stays in the public mind.

She needs to go to fund raisers and raise 1-2 billion
She needs to set up 600-1000 local field offices\
She needs to set up her team.
She will speak out on important issues such as:
how to improve the economy
how to improve education
how to help the poor
how to help the elder
speak out on social issues such as gay marriage/rights and choice.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2012-December-11, 19:45, said:

She needs to go to fund raisers and raise 1-2 billion
She needs to set up 600-1000 local field offices\
She needs to set up her team.
She will speak out on important issues such as:
how to improve the economy
how to improve education
how to help the poor
how to help the elder
speak out on social issues such as gay marriage/rights and choice.

Does she need to spend four years doing this? I think that leaving her post this early will mean she is way out of the public consciousness when the next election rills around.

[mike777]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-11, 19:59, said:

Does she need to spend four years doing this? I think that leaving her post this early will mean she is way out of the public consciousness when the next election rills around.

Yes, it took Obama 4 years to do all of this.

[Bbradley62]

How about if she becomes a regular member of The Round Table on This Week with George Stephanopoulos for two years?

[kenberg]

After the 1972 election someone bet me that Spiro Agnew would be the Republican nominee in 1976. I guess it seemed reasonable at the time. I think that HC would make a pretty credible candidate in 2016. For one thing, she has proven staying power.

The effects of aging vary greatly from one individual to another. We shall see what we shall see.