Everyone Who Wants to Run in 2016 SHOULD Run in 2016.

[MineralMan]

Seriously. This is how our Presidential election process works. That includes Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, and anyone else who has presidential aspirations. I doubt if anyone will announce a run until after the 2014 elections, but if they want to announce now, that's fine, too. Why are we fighting over candidates in 2016 now? Encourage everyone who wants to run to run then.

Nobody should oppose anyone as a Democratic primary candidate for the presidency at this point. What good could that possibly do? Right now, we have a crucial congressional election coming up in November, 2014, and the candidates for those races are still to be selected in almost every state. Why are we concerned with who runs for President in 2016 now?

Early next month, in Minnesota, congressional district conventions will be held by both parties. We've already had our DFL state legislative conventions, where Democratic candidates for the state legislature were endorsed during those conventions. The congressional district conventions will endorse candidates for the House of Representatives. Then, the campaigns begin.

In other states, candidates for Congress and state legislatures are looking toward those states' primary elections. That is the issue in 2014. The presidential election is in 2016. Candidates for that position are going to have to wait until 2016 for the primaries, caucuses, and conventions that will end up selecting the final candidate. That's their deal right now. Most possible presidential candidates aren't eager to declare yet. They're waiting for the 2014 elections to be over. They should be waiting for that. The 2014 elections are crucial for our future.

But, every would-be presidential candidate who wants to run should run in the primaries. We all should support candidates who decide to run. That's how it works. We should all vote for the primary candidate of our choice in 2016. If we caucus in our state, we should vote to endorse the candidate of our choice in 2016, too.

Right now, though, it's 2014. Let's talk about 2014 and the 435 House seats and the third of the Senate seats that are up for election in 2014. Let's work on getting the very best possible Democratic candidates elected for each of those seats. The presidential election in 2016 is in 2016, not this year. In 2014, we need to:

GOTV 2014!

[MineralMan]

1. Shameless kick. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. Yup

It isn't anyone's "turn".

[MineralMan]

3. It should never be anyone's "turn."

It should always be the people's choice who ends up being the presidential candidate. That's how the primary system is supposed to work. Those who seek the office run for the office in the primaries and the people choose.

In 2008, the people chose Barack Obama. Who they'll choose in 2016 is something we'll find out in 2016. I'm content to wait until then, and let the people decide. Everyone who wants to be the next Democratic President should run.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. 100% this.

[el_bryanto]

4. By george you've convinced me. I just need a campaign manager. nt

[MineralMan]

6. Watch for filing dates in your state,

and in other states. You, too, can be a candidate for President.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Absolutely. The more the merrier. Let the voters decide.

If people think that one of the potential candidates is awful, then instead of begging him or her not to run, why not trust the primary voters to understand the awfulness of that candidate? I happen to be a Hillary supporter but I am certainly not shitting my pants about the prospect of Sanders, Warren or anyone else throwing their hat into the ring. Who knows, they might impress me way more than Hillary in the primary campaigns and cause me to shift my allegiance.

[MineralMan]

7. That's it.

I can't understand why we're even talking about Presidential candidates now. Absolutely nobody will probably announce a run until after this year's elections. I encourage everyone who is interested to announce, though, right after the elections, and I'm sure they will.

[Autumn]

8. Something I can agree with.

Everyone Who Wants to Run in 2016 SHOULD Run in 2016.

[MineralMan]

9. I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

Some people are talking about potential candidates' likelihood of surviving the primaries, but that's way premature at this point. I'd like to see everyone sharply focused on Congressional races in their districts or in nearby districts where a Democrat can win. That's the issue for 2014, not the 2016 presidential elections.

That's my opinion, anyhow.

[former9thward]

10. We talk about 2016 because it takes years to campaign for President.

Those who are running have been talking to people about running since about 2010. Donors, pollsters and other staff are lined up. Carter started running in 1973 three years before the election. Clinton started running in 1986, six years before he was elected.

[MineralMan]

11. That's fine. But we cannot afford to ignore

what is happening in 2014. And we are ignoring it. The erstwhile candidates for 2016 can take care of their own campaigning for now. Right now, there are 435 candidates who need our support now. Their elections are happening in just a few months.

It is an election year and one with a very important reason for activism in 2014.

GOTV 2014!

[riqster]

12. Size 13, boring old fart shoe wearing, KICK.

Yeah, I wear wingtips to work. I'm a grandfather, so it's OK.

[MineralMan]

13. Keep that size 13 foot swinging!

Kick butt with it.

[riqster]

14. Yeah, that is my M. O.

[Gothmog]

15. I want to turn Texas Blue

Go Wendy Davis. My attention is going to be on turning Texas blue in 2014

[treestar]

17. Yep. The reasons for going on about 2016 now are

either the naive belief that just having the right President is all that matters, or an attempt at divineness outside primary time.

[Jim Lane]

18. I'm undecided on that. There is a downside.

First, I of course agree with you that 2014 comes before 2016, but I do think most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

As to 2016, I offer a cautionary tale from the other side. Going into 2012, the Republican Party establishment clearly favored Romney. There were several other candidates generally considered more conservative who tried to appeal to the party's conservative base.

One issue was that there were so many of them that it was hard for any one to get momentum. Contributions, volunteer time, and media attention were divided among Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, and maybe others that I've mercifully forgotten. (Paul was a special case and Huntsman was competing with Romney, not with the RWNJ's.)

Suppose that, somehow, the conservatives had all gotten their act together in advance, conducted some kind of selection process, and united behind Santorum in 2011. Would he have won the nomination? I don't know but he would have had a much better shot that way.

The parallel isn't perfect. Unlike the Democratic Party process, some of the Republican primaries were winner-take-all, so there were states where Romney, with a plurality but under 50%, got all the delegates. That won't happen to us. Still, I could see a dynamic where there's one establishment candidate (Hillary if she runs, Cuomo if she doesn't, Biden sitting out) and a whole bunch of progressive challengers, with the result that none of the challengers can get to the point of being perceived as a credible alternative.

Early in Kerry's career, there was a similar situation in the Democratic primary for a Congressional seat. Kerry and several other antiwar candidates wanted to challenge the prowar Democratic incumbent, Phil Philbin. They knew, however, that if they all ran, they'd split the vote and Philbin would win with a plurality. An informal convention was arranged. All the candidates made their pitches and there was some kind of voting system and winnowing out the low finishers. After several ballots, it was down to Kerry and Robert Drinan, with Drinan well ahead but lacking the agreed-upon margin (two-thirds I think). Kerry, to great applause, withdrew. Everyone united behind Drinan and he won the primary.

I have no idea if anything similar could be done at the presidential level, and I'm not 100% sure it should be. There is an advantage to letting the process pick the strongest progressive. I'm just saying that I'm also not completely sold on a total free-for-all as being tactically best for our side.

[MineralMan]

19. You raise some interesting points, but

None of them really apply until after this year's election. It's uncommon for any presidential candidate to declare before the mid-term elections are over. Others talk about it, but the potential candidates do not say whether or not they will run. That's been sort of the unspoken rule for a long time. The reason is so that the mid-term elections will not be distracted from by debate over an election two years in the future.