Republicans
- Rand Paul. Announced.
- Ted Cruz. Announced.
- Marco Rubio. Announced.
- Mike Huckabee. Set to make a "big announcement" on May 5.
- Jeb Bush. As yet unannounced but behaving as if he were running, and generally believed to be doing so. The Establishment candidate by default.
- Scott Walker. Also unannounced and also widely believed to be running.
- Chris Christie. Once the media favorite, openly courting a run but wounded by scandal at home.
There are a few others. Rudolph Giuliani has been raising a lot of money, but it's hard to imagine him catching fire with Republican primary voters, especially given his poor performance last time around. Bobby Jindal is still sniffing around, but with all the big names above sucking the oxygen — and money — out of the room, it's hard to see how a guy like Jindal could find a way in.
On one of the Sunday talk shows this morning (I don't remember which one; I watch them all) David Brooks said that in his opinion the most plausible Republican candidates are Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker, an assessment with which I find myself in agreement. Of those three Bush is the most likely simply by virtue of having the backing of the traditional Republican Establishment (aka Wall Street); like Mitt Romney, he might be able to simply sit back and watch his opponents tear themselves apart. But I wouldn't bet on it. I think Rubio especially will put in a strong performance, and Bush will have to fight for it. He may ultimately claim the nomination, but he will be wounded, and probably forced to tack much farther to the right than he would like.
If Bush gets the nomination, look for him to make a "historic" pick for VP, i.e. a minority. Rubio would be attractive, but they are both from the same state, and federal law forbids the president and vice president from sharing a home state.
If I had to lay odds right now I'd say Bush has about a 50% chance of being the Republican nominee, Rubio a 30-35% chance, and Walker a 15-20% chance. But it's very early in the game, too early for such predictions to have much meaning.
Democrats
- Hillary Clinton. Duh. Announced.
- Martin O'Malley. Popular progressive governor of Maryland. Widely believed to be running.
- Bernie Sanders. Not officially announced but widely acknowledged to be running.
- Jim Webb. Publicly flirting with a campaign.
...Aaaaand that's it, at least for now. Those are all the "serious" candidates for the Democratic party's nomination for President of the United States. The Anointed One, the Outsider, the Crazy Old Man, and the Mean Dad. Pretty sad.
Martin O'Malley is interesting because he has legitimate blue collar and progressive street cred. he's much farther to the left than Hillary Clinton, and truth to tell I like his politics a lot better. If/when he makes it official, I will support him. I might even contribute to his campaign or participate in some way. But I will do so secure in the knowledge that he is the longest of long shots. Realistically, the Hilldog has this locked up.
That said, I am intrigued and delighted by Bernie Sanders' quixotic candidacy. Sanders, for those of you who don;'t know, is the iconoclastic senator from Vermont who famously describes himself as a "socialist." He caucuses with the Democrats, but spends most of his time railing against the growing corporate oligarchy that dominates American politics on both sides of the aisle. Having Bernie on the debate stage, especially if Martin O'Malley is also there, will force Hillary to talk about stuff she doesn't want to talk about, like her — and her husband's — connections to Big Money interests and the fact that, in terms of her voting record in the Senate, Hillary Clinton is closer to John McCain than Bernie Sanders on many issues.
A theme is shaping up here. Hillary is the frontrunner, a position she is likely to maintain right up until the nomination. O'Malley is her most serious alternative and toughest potential opponent. He could present a challenge simply by virtue of being "not Hillary," and I would expect to see him win a few primaries. But I don't expect a repeat of 2008. For one thing, O'Malley's candidacy doesn't carry with it the historical implications of Obama's in '08. No one will care that, if elected, he would be the first American president whose surname begins with the traditional Irish O'. Bottom line: This guy has "vice president" written all over him. (EDIT: Although wouldn't it be funny if O'Malley took it away from her? Beaten by another guy whose name starts with O! Heh.)
If he runs, Jim Webb would be the "national security" candidate on the Democratic side. That's a tough role to play. Democrats aren't as infatuated with their military types as Republicans are. And the general mood of the country — expect marijuana legalization to be on the ballot in several states — feels like it's moving away from a guy like Webb, who always manages to come off as the mean dad telling the kids at the sleepover to quiet down. Besides, it's not like Hillary Clinton lacks for national security credentials. Webb is an intelligent, thoughtful, and experienced public servant, and would undoubtedly make a competent, if uninspiring, president. But he lacks charisma, and his strongest qualifications are of minimal political benefit in a Democratic primary. Bottom line: This guy has "secretary of defense" written all over him.
As of this writing Election Day 2016 is one year, six months, and twenty days away (569 days). I realize that to our non-American regulars this seems like an absurdly long time for an election, and they're quite right. It is an absurdly long time for an election. One could argue that a rigorous process is warranted given the power and influence of the office being sought, and I could accept that if the process produced the best possible candidates. But does anyone seriously think that our process produces the best possible candidates?
This election is strange because, for the first time in over half a century, a non-incumbent candidate appears to have the nomination all but locked up on the Democratic side, while the Republicans are in disarray. Usually (certainly for all of my life) it has been the other way around. Indeed, it was once accepted as axiomatic that the Republican party nominated the "next guy in line," while the Democrats' nomination process was a free-for-all in which, more often than not, the favorite going in did not emerge as the eventual nominee.
Something else that has changed is the electoral math. Once upon a time — and for a long time — this favored Republicans for the White House. Consider: From 1968-2004 only two Democrats won the White House, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Carter beat Ford in '76 by the slimmest of margins, this despite Watergate, the Nixon pardon, and Ford's abysmal debate performance; he was later defeated for re-election. And Bill Clinton, despite being elected twice, never won a popular vote majority. On the other hand, Republican presidents had won by wide margins, even outright landslides, as when Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984. All else being equal, it seemed like Americans preferred Republican presidents. The GOP had become the "Establishment" party.
This Republican "lock" on the White House was counterbalanced by the Democrats' decades-long domination of the House of Representatives (our version of the Commons for our Commonwealth friends). This changed with Newt Gingrich's '94 Republican revolution, and control has been mostly in their hands ever since (with a brief Democratic interregnum from 2007-2011). As a result of redistricting, this Republican dominance of the House is set to remain a political fact of life at least until the next round of redistricting, which won't come until the next census in 2020. It might not be a permanent majority, but in political terms it is a generational majority, and it has shaped the political world we live in today.
On the other hand, Democrats now have the advantage in winning the White House. It's simple, really. If you add up the electoral votes in all the "blue" states (i.e. the ones likely to vote Democratic) and compare them to the number of electoral votes in all the "red" states (the ones that will vote Republican), the numbers favor the Democrats. This is because so many of the electorally biggest states, like California, New York, and New Jersey, are solidly blue. American elections are decided in a handful of so-called "swing" states, most importantly Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Since 1964 no candidate has been elected without winning at least two of those three states. As bellweathers go, they're as good as any. Watch those states.