New 2016 Rankings: Christie Jumps Into 'Top Tier,' Elizabeth Warren Challenges Hillary

[big_dog]

Christie joins Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul as newbies in the top tier along with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, according to the school's "Crystal Ball" predictors Larry Sabato and Kyle Kondik. They report that the recent philosophical battle between Paul and Christie sets up a rare political clash over the direction of the party, and has the result of taking the steam out of Rubio's climb to the top of potential GOP presidential candidates.

More surprising: They report hearing "faint whispers" from some Democrats, especially supporters of President Obama, who are eager to move beyond Hillary Clinton to a new candidate in 2016. Their choice: Recently-elected Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

"We continue to hear faint whispers of opposition to Clinton among some Democrats, particularly among the party's young, Obama-supporting activists. Warren, who has a notably liberal background and who could have the same glass-ceiling shattering effect as Clinton if nominated, is the obvious person to challenge Clinton, if she wanted to. The grassroots on the left would find her an attractive alternative if Clinton is once again viewed as too establishment, or if Bill becomes controversial again -- always a possibility. So we're moving Warren up a notch on our Democratic presidential list," said Kondik and Sabato.

The UVa. team has had Walker in the top tier for a while, believing that he is known as an activist conservative governor who fought and won against unions. "In the event of a Paul-Christie duel (or a battle among others) for the soul of the Republican Party, Walker could present himself as a consensus choice whose nomination would avert a GOP identity crisis," they said. http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-2016-rankings-christie-jumps-into-top-tier-elizabeth-warren-challenges-hillary/article/2534336

[DonCoquixote]

1. translation:

Those who want to make sure that Hillary is inevitable (yet again) will find a way to kneecap Warren.

[brooklynite]

6. No they won't...because Warren won't be running...

All this Examiner story covers is Larry Sabato's analysis names with "buzz"; and the only reason Warren has buzz (she's not creating a campaign team, raising money or making the rounds of Primary states to make speeches and collect campaign chits) is because a group of progressives seem to want to emulate the Tea Party's insistence on ideological purity in their candidates.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. I don't think WArren will run this time

maybe in the future. However, look out for O'Malley.

[joshcryer]

15. She should challenge Hillary.

The US will want to elect a woman this time around, I think. It's not going to be another white man.

[CobaltBlue]

21. Oh, now . . . !

and the only reason [Elizabeth] Warren has buzz (she's not creating a campaign team, raising money or making the rounds of Primary states to make speeches and collect campaign chits) is because a group of progressives seem to want to emulate the Tea Party's insistence on ideological purity in their candidates.

You tease!

: )

How dare members of the Democratic Party consider nominating someone more pure to the long-established positions of the party!

[Recursion]

22. 1968... 1972... 1984.... 1988... (nt)

[MrSlayer]

2. If Christie gets by the primary I think he's the next President.

Regardless of who he goes against. Lots of working class Democrats will vote for him because they like the tough talk and bluster. It's doesn't matter that he's as bad as any teabagger, he'll be portrayed as a moderate by the corporate media.

[joshcryer]

14. Working class white male Democrats.

The rest will vote Hillary.

[liberal N proud]

26. He was helped by Sandy and his reaction to it.

[frazzled]

3. Yadda yadda

I'm convinced that anyone who is focused on 2016 (besides paid political operatives in the early stages of organizing a campaign) has no interest whatsoever in politics or world events--only horse races.

We are a mere 7 months into the first of four years of the current administration. Much is going on in the world (Egypt, Syria, Yemen) and at home (the economy, rollout of the Health Care law, a paralyzed Congress). Chasing 2016 is like looking for UFOs and chasing unicorns to the end of the rainbow. It may be fun and diverting, but it's not dealing with anything real. I'm sure that the day after the election in November 2016 (3 1/4 years from now), they'll be on to the next one. So what's the point?

[davidpdx]

9. Well put

There is so much going on including the election next year that is crucial to getting things done in the last two years of Obama's Presidency. If we do poorly, the next two years.

[joshcryer]

16. All signs are Hillary is going to run.

I am against that and therefore will look for alternate options as far back as I wish.

Nov. 4th 2014 is 1 year 2 months 2 weeks and 3 days away. That following week is when the 2016 campaign will likely begin (exploratory committees will be announced, etc).

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Faint whispers?

Someone doesn't listen well.

[DURHAM D]

5. lol Sabato has been Clinton bashing since the early 90s.

Now he gets quoted on DU. fuck him

[Beacool]

8. You're quoting rumors from a RW rag??????

[Sunlei]

10. maybe you (R)azis can run romney scissorhands again-make him spend his own cash.

[BlueDemKev]

11. Elizabeth Warren won't be able to win a national race...

...the Republicans will paint her as a "far left elitist" who is rabidly anti-business, blah, blah...

Hillary Clinton should be our nominee.

[MjolnirTime]

12. Warren doesn't pose a challenge to anyone Presidentially. She has no chance.

Hillary will take Fatass Christie down with one arm.

(Better?)

[BlueStater]

13. You're referring to Chris Christie, right?

Either way, some people find "fatass" offensive so I would edit your post before it gets hidden.

[polichick]

19. We only wish E Warren would run - and chances are good that...

Christie will beat all the other nutbags in their primary and then beat Hillary too.

Republican wins against Republican lite.

Dems would be smart to run a populist - but they won't.

[Beacool]

20. Hillary still runs ahead of Christie.

[polichick]

23. For now. In any case, it would be a lot more meaningful to run...

a candidate from the Democratic wing of the party against someone like Rand Paul, rather than Clinton vs Christie.

D corporatist vs R corporatist = same ol' shit for Americans.

[Beacool]

24. Hillary is a Democrat, whether some of you like or not.

As if some of the people who are being proposed would have a chance in hell in the general election.

Please.......

[polichick]

25. She's a Clinton-DLC-corporatist-MIC Democrat...

Your position that only such "Dems" can win got us a couple of presidents, but not presidents who cared a lot about old-school Democratic values.

If that's all this party offers these days, it ain't nearly enough.



Edit: typo

[agentS]

27. Warren can beat Christie because the rest of the GOP are morons

Warren's got savvy and a solid base + clean-ish hands.
Christie's got money and media charm, BUT he's surrounded by morons who shoot off at the mouth, corruption issues, and a weak base (Tea Party folks do NOT like him and after R-money they may not be inclined to vote for him).
Warren brings the bulk of women and minorities, plus several key states.
Christie brings big money, the stupid states, and racist/misogynist white people. Too similar to R-money.

Warren would be trailing from behind most of the race before the convention, but give it time. The GOP will always sink to the bottom.
With Hillary it's a shoe-in, unless she hires bad staff again. With Warren, it's an uphill fight, but not a big one. I like her odds.