If Mitt Romney loses in November, last week we had the opportunity to watch and gauge the effectiveness of virtually every possible serious Republican contender for the party’s next presidential nomination. Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Chris Christie all had their moments in the spotlight, as did Rand Paul and even 2012 runner-up Rick Santorum. But none of the serious contenders for what will be an open Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 will be on display in Charlotte. Former President Bill Clinton will be center stage on Wednesday but his wife Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will be at the top of the list of Democratic contenders four years from now, is not on the schedule. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is barely stopping by to attend the conclave, let alone speak to the convention. There are, no doubt, some Democrats speaking in Charlotte who are thinking about running, but they are currently flying below the radar.
That will reduce the already slim hold of the convention on the interest of viewers. However, the assumption that the party’s nominee in 2008 and 2012 can’t possibly be their choice in 2016 may not be true.
There may be some sleepers on the speaker’s podium. San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro will deliver the keynote address tonight and already there are those who are promoting that speech as the equivalent of Barack Obama’s 2004 convention speech that catapulted him onto the national stage. It’s true that no one foresaw Obama’s 2008 triumph when he was a mere Senate candidate at John Kerry’s Boston convention but expecting lightening to strike the same way for Castro seems far-fetched at best. Obama’s speech was considered striking in part because he was so unheralded and the address’s non-partisan theme was so appealing. Even if Castro’s paean to Obama is considered a success tonight, it won’t be able to match Obama’s achievement. Nor is it likely it will elevate him to a position where he can challenge Mrs. Clinton or Cuomo.
Yet there is another reason why there is a paucity of 2016 contenders for the Democrats that is little discussed but is nevertheless very real. If President Obama does lose in November, it is entirely possible that he will not go quietly into a prosperous retirement like all other recent ex-presidents. He is young enough and still fired by sufficient ruthless ambition to want another crack at the presidency four years from now.
It has been a long time since a national political party gave a losing presidential candidate a second try. Richard Nixon, who lost to John Kennedy in 1960 but won on his second shot in 1968, was the last. The last defeated incumbent to get another try was Democrat Grover Cleveland who won in 1884, lost in 1888 and then won a non-consecutive second term in 1892.
Barack Obama is still considered a slight favorite in November. But the assumption that he will just go away if he loses this year ignores the fact that both the president and his devoted fans will not take defeat lying down. Expect them to claim it was the result of lingering racism as well as other excuses like campaign finance laws and alleged “voter suppression” by the GOP rather than a straightforward rejection of a president who couldn’t run on his record. These resentments will make an Obama comeback a very real possibility. The denial of a second term could be enough to recapture the fervor that drove the president’s messianic “hope and change” campaign in 2008.
Most defeated incumbents immediately become yesterday’s news and are quickly ignored by their party’s officeholders and activists. But neither Jimmy Carter nor George H.W. Bush, the two most recent defeated one-term chief executives, was the first African-American president. If Obama ran in 2016 would any leading Democrat dare to oppose him? Would even Hillary Clinton seek a rematch of her 2008 defeat? Once again, Obama could run as a man who wants to make history, a stance that is more congenial to him than his current attempt to win merely by trashing his opponents.
Should the president win in November, the Democrats will have a choice between their past and their future as Clinton, Cuomo and some yet unknown contenders face off. But if he loses, don’t be surprised if the man we watch on Thursday night will be back accepting his third consecutive nomination for president.
Quite possible — unless Obama loses in a Carter or Mondale style defeat. I'm sorry, but I still find it so hard to believe that so many Americans don't see through Obama's lies and politics.
I have to believe the polls and accept that this will be a close election. However, based on virtually all of the elections since BHO took office, I can't understand why voter's don't feel they need to FINISH THE JOB! What good does it do to vote against his agenda in nearly every election since he took office and then vote him back in? Does anybody really think his second term will be better than the first? I don't see where Romney/Ryan has been seriously damaged; in fact they seem like a pretty reasonable alternative and, a great alternative if you're unemployed and want to work. If you're unemployed and don't want to work, I can see why you would vote against them. Hopefully that's a pretty small segment of the voting population.
First, I disagree that Obama is the slight favorite. Incumbents at any level who consistenly poll below 50% two months before Election Day usually lose.And then there's Romney's edge in fund-raising. He won't be outspent late. n And, Rick Santorum and Rand Paul as ''serious contenders'' for the GOP 2016 Presidential nomination? '' Now, that's funny. If Romney loses it will be because Santorum's extreme positions during the interminable GOP primaries forced Romney rightward, taking a toll on his favorable-unfavorable standing. And while Rand Paul isn't quite as extreme as his father, he still is out of the mainstream and I'll be surprise if he wins re-election to the Senate. n Should Romney lose there will be a plethora of able contenders for 2016, some of whom you mentioned. Paul and Santorum will not be among them. n
Obama likely sees himself either as America's last President, or President without term limits. All his actions thus far seem to be heading in the direction of ensuring there's no US left to govern after 2016. Progressives have been screaming for a decade the problem with the US is it isn't like most of the other countries in the world. Well thanks to Obama that's going to change soon. But instead of Denmark, we're going to resemble Burma
It all depends. There is a possibility, Mr. Tobin, that Obama will lose pretty badly, in the process pretty much wiping out the Democratic party as we know it. Imagine the very plausible scenario of a 6% defeat and significant Republican gains in the Senate. At that point, the knives come out, as moderate Democrats purge themselves of the Progressives who have taken over. The Cory Bookers in the Party will emerge to muscle aside the whackjobs.
Based on his performance today, maybe Booker is one of the whack jobs.
Fairly thin gruel, really — the speculation regarding Hillary Clinton seems particularly far-fetched. She has stated numerous times that she won't run for president again, implying that the last train left the station as far as she is concerned. She is going to be almost 70 by 2016 after all. n n n> Barack Obama is still considered a slight favorite in November. n nHey, what a shocking admission! Perhaps reality is starting to sink in after all? I've been reading the usual kool-aid about what a splendid success the GOP convention was, how good candidate Romney's speech was etc. etc.. Yet here we are, checking the TV ratings for the Tampa show and evaluating Romney's post convention "bump" in the polls and the data pointing to an imminent Romney/Ryan landslide does not seem particularly convincing…
I think highly of Mr. Tobin's commentary, but completely disagree with this one. No way do the Dems give The One another shot if he loses in 2012. The Dems are not forgiving or patient with their failed nominees, never mind a failed incumbent. n nIn the immediate aftermath of an Obama loss I expect the Left to have a complete meltdown that will make 2000 look cool and composed. They are not ready for it – it is not on their radar at all that the guy could fail. The invective hurled at Romney/Ryan will be even uglier than the campaign. The resentment will curdle among Lefty true believers and will poison our politics for at least the next 20 years. n nTo appease the base (and because they partly agree), Obama will be enshrined as something of a living martyr to those obstructive Republicans, racism, yada, yada and the Democratic operatives and power brokers will pay him all manner of compliments publicly, but no one will encourage him to run again. They will prefer to retire him to the shelf (albeit, very high on the shelf, one made to look like a pedestal.) n nPlus, I don't think Obama will run again if he loses this time. True, a loss will be really hard on his narcissism. However, I don't think he LIKES this job very well. (He certainly doesn't try very hard at it.) He can write another set of memoirs, be revered on Oprah and The View, make millions, get himself appointed to some meaningless high muckety-muck position attached somehow to Davos and let people come and kiss his ring and live happily ever after. Maybe he wins a 2nd Nobel. Michelle will be fine with this also n nI think being able to retire and take up a full time pose of being "above it all" is what he really wants. I mean, we've just never been good enough for him, you know? n n
Maybe Michelle will step up???
I suppose I could see Obama trying again, but if Hillary runs (and I certainly think she would), I think she would crush him in the primary. Let's not forget that she would have beaten him fairly handily if either A) Democrats didn't have a proportional system for allocating delegates, which enabled Obama to stay fairly close even when getting blown out in big states like California, or B) Hillary didn't make the fatal strategic error of basically ignoring small states (particularly those with caucuses) and the states that voted immediately after Super Tuesday (when the nomination should have theoretically been wrapped up), which enabled Obama to increase his lead to the point that she couldn't catch him, even when she was beating him regularly toward the end. There are still a lot of unhappy Democrats who think Hillary would have been the better choice (and frankly, it's hard to argue with them), and Obama would be a failed president standing in the way of the first potential female president in history. Not going to happen. It's more likely that he would try to run in 2020 or beyond, I think.