The 2016 Field

Ring any bells?

To my mind, this article in the Washington Post illustrates that the Republicans seem to have a stronger field for 2016 than do the Democrats. (Grasping at straws, I know).

On the Republican side, I think we can eliminate Chris Christie. He was always going to have a problem with the Republican grassroots, similar to Rudy Giuliani’s problem. His Blue-state policies will violate some Tea Party shibboleths. And now he wears the albatross of having apparently boosted Obama in the last days of this campaign.

That still leaves five obvious and exciting candidates, in their tally: Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Bobby Jindal. All sound quite promising. Not to mention a couple of heavyweights who chose to stay out this cycle, but have important constituencies: Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. Rick Perry has already opened the door. Next time, he won't be recovering from a back operation. And what about David Petraeus? Many have mentioned him for the presidency in the recent past. An extramarital affair may be reason to step down if you’re head of the CIA, but not otherwise. He might even gain lustre if it turns out he has been scapegoated. We’re up to nine papabiles here. I think you could plausibly add Condi Rice if she wanted to run; I doubt she does. And there is really no reason Romney could not run again.

On the other hand, the Democrats. I can’t see either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden getting the nomination next time—they’re both too familiar and too old, for a party that always craves something new and exciting. That seems to leave it to a battle to the finish between Andrew Cuomo and Martin O’Malley.