Andrew Cuomo

Disllusionment With Washington Opens Up Possibility Of State Governors Again Having Advantage For Presidential Race!

Much of the time in American history, there has been disillusionment with the Washington DC establishment, and a desire to have an “outsider” being our President.

Only three Presidents of the past century were elected directly from the Senate—Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama—while a total of six Governors or former Governors were elected to the Presidency—Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush. Additionally, former Governors who were Vice President first, and succeeded during the term—Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge–were also elected to a full term.

So the present anger at Washington and everything it represents opens up new opportunities for sitting or former Governors in both parties, such as follows:

Democrats—Andrew Cuomo of New York, Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts

Republicans-Chris Christie of New Jersey, Jeb Bush of Florida, Jon Huntsman of Utah, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John Kasich of Ohio, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas, Susana Martinez of New Mexico

Having said this, one still has to wonder if the Democratic Governors can overcome Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Mark Warner or Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar or Cory Booker.

And one has to wonder if the Republican Governors can overcome Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and others.

Des Moines Register Poll Of Iowa Democrats Prefers “Fresh Face” In 2016

A Des Moines Register Poll of Democrats in Iowa shows that they prefer a “fresh face” for the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, over a more experienced candidate such as Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, who together have about 70 years in public governing service.

Since Iowa is the first state to have a say in the nominating process, this could encourage “newer” faces, such as Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, soon to be Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, and San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, to “throw their hat in the ring”, a term developed by former President Theodore Roosevelt, when he announced he was running again for President in 1912.

This blogger has suggested earlier that such a development might be good for the Democratic Party, particularly at a time when the Republican Party will have a much younger nominee than either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.

The Case For A New Generation Of Democrats For The Presidential Election Of 2016!

As the Presidential race begins, and it has started already, like it or not, it is clear that Hillary Clinton, who will be 69 in 2016, and Joe Biden, who will be 74 in 2016, are the frontrunners, and that Hillary is using up most of the oxygen in the room, way ahead of Biden in polls, with other potential Democratic candidates in single digits.

But despite the confidence and optimism about Hillary and even Joe as a backup, there is a growing case for the argument that the Democratic Party should bypass both Hillary and Joe, no matter how much one may love or admire either of them, and go for a new generation of Democrats, as was done in 1960 with John F. Kennedy, in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, in 1992 with Bill Clinton, and 2008 with Barack Obama!

All of these successful Democratic Presidential winners were young–43, 52, 46, and 47 respectively at the time of the inauguration. All were younger than their GOP opponents, although Richard Nixon was only four years older, but represented a continuation of Dwight D. Eisenhower, our oldest President at the time when he retired in 1961!

But Jimmy Carter was eleven years younger than Gerald Ford; Bill Clinton 22 years younger than George H. W. Bush; and Barack Obama 25 years younger than John McCain!

The fact is ONLY three Presidents were inaugurated at age 65 or older—William Henry Harrison at age 68 and dying a month later; James Buchanan at age 65 but only 50 days short of age 66, and rated by many historians the worst President in American history; and Ronald Reagan, inaugurated at just weeks before his 70th and 74th birthday, and judged by many to have deteriorated mentally, with early Alzheimers in his second term of office!

And we have seen Bob Dole defeated at age 73 in 1996; John McCain defeated at age 72 in 2008; and Mitt Romney, defeated at age 65 inn 2012, but also about 50 days short of age 66 if he had been inaugurated, the same exact age as Buchanan was when he won in 1856!

Meanwhile, the Republican Party future is clearly in the hands of young politicians, including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and others, with these candidates being mostly in their 40s and 50s, and all younger than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden!

Historically, in most elections, the younger candidate wins, and the party of the President usually does not do well if it utilizes someone connected with the administration leaving office, no matter what level of popularity reigns when that President leaves office, as witness:

Richard Nixon lost after Eisenhower
Hubert Humphrey lost after Lyndon B. Johnson
Gerald Ford lost after Richard Nixon
Walter Mondale lost after Jimmy Carter
Al Gore lost after Bill Clinton

If Hilary Clinton runs, she represents Obama’s foreign policy record, for good or for bad, and also brings back the good and the bad of the Presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton.

If Joe Biden runs, he represents what happens to a Vice President under a President, that the negatives of that President harm the Vice President, as with Nixon, Humphrey, Ford, Mondale, and Gore.

Only George H. W, Bush was able to overcome this hex, and succeed Ronald Reagan in 1988, although then losing reelection in 1992, the greatest percentage loss of any President in American history, except William Howard Taft in 1912!

It is reality that Democrats will be heavily favored in the Electoral College in 2016, no matter who runs, but it would be easier for a “New”, younger Democrat to be the Presidential nominee, such as Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, KIrsten Gilllibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Mark Warner, John Hickenlooper, or Elizabeth Warren, all of whom are much younger than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, with the exception of Warren, who would be 67 in 2016, which makes her a less ideal candidate based upon age!

It is important for Democrats to think carefully before they decide for a continuation of the Obama Presidency through Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, as nominating someone younger and separated from the Obama Administration would be preferable, and easier for the grueling campaign ahead!

The Democratic “Farm Team” Or “Bench” For National Office

When one looks at the Democratic Party, most of the attention for the 2016 Presidential Election centers around Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, both exceptionally qualified and popular political figures, with tremendous experience in government.

But both Hillary and Joe are getting on in age, with Hillary to be 69 in 2016, and Joe to be 74 in 2016.

Either would face a much younger Republican opponent in 2016, so one has to wonder whether it might be preferable to go for “new blood” for the Democratic nominee.

If that was to occur, there would be a fantastic “farm team” or “bench” for the Democrats, including:

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
Future Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey
Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts
Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado
Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York
Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia

This list of nine potential President candidates includes three women; two African Americans; and four white men, with seven states represented, and five US Senators and four Governors.

Any of these nine would be preferable, by far, to any Republican nominee for President, with many of the potential Republicans being horror stories, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Quinnipiac National University Poll Puts Hillary Clinton And Chris Christie Ahead In Popularity, And Elizabeth Warren A Surprising Third!

Public opinion polls are endless, and often are believed to be a poor barometer of future political success, but they are fascinating as a moment in time in how those polled see political leaders and issues.

We are still in the first year of the Presidential term, but already there is speculation as to who has the advantage for the Presidential nominations for 2016, as well as interest in how politicians come across to the American people in general. In other words, which politicians are the “hottest” is part of many surveys.

So the latest Quinnipiac National University Poll puts New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ahead of all other politicians in the “hotness” question, with Christie somewhat surprisingly being ahead of Clinton in precise numbers, with Christie at 53.1 and Clinton at 52.1.

Right behind them are Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren at 49.2 in third place, and President Obama and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand tied for fourth with 47.6.

Then comes Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, with 46.8; Senator Marco Rubio of Florida with 46.5; Vice President Joe Biden at 46.2; Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley with 45.7; and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal rounding out the top ten with 45.2.

Others further down include potential Presidential candidates, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky with 44.8; New York Governor Andrew Cuomo at 43.9; Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan with 43.0; Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with 41.1; former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum with 40.7; former Florida Governor Jeb Bush with 40.4; and Virginia Senator Mark Warner with 39.4.

If one is to take this poll seriously, that would put Chris Christie in a very good position for 2016, but the poll also indicates that his popularity is as high as it is because of independents and Democrats, and he ranks only eighth in this poll among fellow Republicans. How could Christie win the GOP nomination, by having to fight in Iowa’s caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary, where the right wing Republicans tend to win, and how could he carry enough delegate votes if he is well received by Democrats and Independents?

This poll also draws attention to two women other than Hillary Clinton, who could be other choices in replacement of her–Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, both who rank ahead of Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Martin O’Malley, and Mark Warner, alternative Democratic possibilities. all male.

At this point, the poll is basically food for thought, as it is still much too far ahead to make a judgment as to what is likely to be the scenario for 2016 for the Presidential race. But certainly, it should, as it always is, be a fascinating series of events and personalities that will emerge over the next three years!

Howard Dean’s Statement About Generational Differences Of Presidents We Elect Brings Up Interesting Point About 2016!

Former Vermont Governor, 2004 Presidential competitor, and Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean was on MORNING JOE yesterday, and brought up an interesting point about generational differences of Presidents we elect to the Oval Office.

Dean said it is highly unlikely that we will see Hillary Clinton have no competition for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016, because for the nation to go back a generation in birth from one President to the next is unusual—in this case to go back to a “Baby Boomer” born in the late 1940s after electing a President born in the early 1960s. Therefore, Dean states that he believed someone born closer to the birth year of Barack Obama would be more likely to be the nominee, a person such as Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley or New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as examples–with O’Malley one and a half years younger than Obama and Cuomo three and a half years older than Obama.

So Dean has brought up the age issue, just as Republicans have, with their numerous potential candidates in their 40s and early 50s–including Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul among others.

This statement by Dean caused this author to check out how often has America elected a President much younger than his predecessor, and has uncovered the following:

William Henry Harrison—nearly ten years older than Martin Van Buren
Zachary Taylor—eleven years older than James K. Polk
James Buchanan—thirteen and a half years older than Franklin Pierce
Ronald Reagan—thirteen and a half years older than Jimmy Carter

A few other Presidents have been a few years older than their predecessor, but these are the only four cases of “generational” differences of Presidents we elect, although not precisely a “generation”, which is described as twenty years.

If Hillary Clinton was elected, she would be nearly 14 years older than Barack Obama, more difference than even Buchanan or Reagan from their predecessors.

If Joe Biden was elected, he would be nearly 19 years older than Barack Obama, the greatest difference between two Presidents in American history, and literally a “generation”!

This is food for thought, and realize that Harrison and Taylor were elected for their war exploits as generals, and all the cases mentioned above were before the Civil War, more than a century and a half ago, with the one exception of Ronald Reagan.

The question is whether, and said in irony, is either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden another Ronald Reagan? Again, this is said with tongue in cheek by a writer who has never been a big fan of Ronald Reagan!

If Hillary Clinton Runs, Will ANY Democrat Challenge Her For The Nomination?

Based on public opinion polls and general perceptions that are out there, Hillary Clinton is a shoo-in for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016, if she chooses to want it and run for it.

The hints are that she will run, and polls indicate more than 60 percent want her as the nominee, and only Vice President Joe Biden is in double digits with 12-13 percent, and Andrew Cuomo the only other person to really have even a few percent.

IF she does not run, there is an open season, with Joe Biden having the advantage, but certainly not a “slam dunk” against Cuomo, Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, and several possible women candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar.

It seems clear that Hillary Clinton, who even this author thought would not run, IS likely to run, and seemingly, be “crowned” the nominee, although there are skeptics who point out that she seemed in the same position in 2006-2008, and lost to a newcomer named Barack Obama.

But now , with extra experience as Secretary of State, it seems as if she is “unstoppable” if she chooses to make the run.

And the GOP is already starting to attack her, because they know it will be extremely difficult for ANY GOP nominee to stop her, as she could lose some of the states that Barack Obama won, and still win the election. The odds of Texas going to her, along with Georgia and Arizona, and the return of North Carolina to the Democratic column, seems possible, with growing Hispanic and Latino population and voting participants, and the likelihood that a higher percentage of women would vote for her, along with African Americans and young people, that how could any Republican nominee be able to come up with 270 electoral votes?

Last Four Originally Elected Democratic Presidents Were Underdogs: Will That Happen Again In 2016?

In the past half century, four Democratic nominees for President, all considered “underdogs”, were elected President.

John F. Kennedy was an underdog in 1960, being a Roman Catholic nominee, thought unlikely to be nominated or elected, but defeating Vice President Richard Nixon, who was far better known.

Jimmy Carter was an underdog in 1976, the first Southern nominee for President since Zachary Taylor in 1848, and really considered the longest of long shots to be the Democratic nominee, and yet won the Presidency over President Gerald Ford.

Bill Clinton was an underdog in 1992, considered part of the “second tier” of possible Democratic nominees for President, and thought to be “dead in the water”, due to the Gennifer Flowers sex scandal, but managing to be the “Comeback Kid”, and win the nomination and the election against President George H. W. Bush.

And Barack Obama was certainly considered an underdog to Hillary Clinton in 2008, and being African American, seemed a particularly “long shot” to go all the way to the Presidency, defeating Senator John McCain of Arizona.

All four Democratic winners all had youth–Kennedy at 43, Carter at 52, Clinton at 46, and Obama at 47 years of age. And get this–these four men were elected exactly SIXTEEN years apart–1960, 1976, 1992, and 2008!

Could this happen again?

Hillary Clinton is seen as the clear front runner, and Joe Biden is the second established “veteran” in the potential race for President in 2016.

But could it be that Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, or Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, or Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, or Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, or Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, or a future Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, or Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts would end up as a sudden surprise during the primaries and caucuses in 2016, and emerge the nominee and the winner of the Presidency?

Who can say, but the past COULD be an indicator of the future!

Hillary Clinton’s Endorsement Of Gay Marriage: What It Portends

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has finally endorsed gay marriage in a strong public statement, mirroring her husband’s statement that the Defense of Marriage Act, passed during his Presidency in 1996, was a mistake, and that it was time for it to be repealed.

Hillary Clinton has always been a strong supporter of gay rights, but avoided gay marriage until now.

The question is why, and there are three answers:

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case that could transform this nation on the subject of marriage, unlike anything since Loving V Virginia in 1967, which finally declared interracial marriage to be constitutional. Extra pressure on the Court at a time like this cannot help but possibly influence Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, either or both who could be the decisive votes on the case.

Many Democrats have endorse gay marriage, including President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and potential Democratic nominees for President, including Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, so if Hillary Clinton is soon to decide to run for President in 2016 she would, obviously, need to get into line on the issue.

Also, Hillary could be taking this step out of pure principle, and belief that the time is right for this significant social advancement.

No matter what the motivation, and it is probably all three, it is proper to salute Hillary Clinton for speaking up, once again, for human rights and human dignity!

The Conservative Political Action Conference: A Bunch Of Retreads And Future Losers!

Conservatives are in the third of four days of their annual Conservative Political Action Conference, and it is quite an event, a circus of retreads and future losers, who fail to see that the nation has rejected their ideology when it is presented to them in Senate races, and only holding on to power in the House of Representatives because of gerrymandered districts created by the Tea Party uprising of 2010, which led to a large number of Republican governors and state legislatures at the precisely correct time to affect the shaping of House districts for the ten year cycle following the census figures.

The Tea Party movement has had its heyday, and there are already signs of its future demise, although they will persist in some rural districts in the House, and have their Senators, including Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, all ambitious to be President of the United States, but none of them should be delusional that they will actually be the next President, while they are all fighting to outdo each other three years ahead of 2016!

Attention at this conference is given to such retreads as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and Newt Gingrich.

Also, such losers as Wayne La Pierre, Grover Norquist and the usual right wing talk show hosts, including Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, are part of the “distinguished” speakers spewing forth their divisiveness.

And the conservatives are making clear that they will not budge in any form on the issue of gay rights, immigration reform,their “traditional” view of women being submissive to men, and refusal to separate science from the influence of religion!

There are differences on foreign policy between the libertarians and the neoconservatives, however, and any suggestion of moderation on ANY issue has led to Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell being denied an invitation to speak.

The ultimate reality is that it does not matter what happens at the CPAC, as it is like Don Quixote battling the windmill! The American people are NOT going to elect any of these “clowns”, even those who seem more “moderate”, such as Christie, to the White House in 2016. The Republicans are fighting a civil war, primarily over who shall represent them in 2016, but it is all for naught!

The next President will, assuredly, be a Democrat—whether Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar or someone else not yet known!