2016 Begins - Rand Paul Headed for New Hampshire – PPP Poll Show Paul Gaining Ground on Christie While Clinton Leads Overall – for Now

The 2016 Field Suggested by PP

Senator Rand Paul will be in New Hampshire in Mayto attend the New Hampshire GOP Liberty Dinner. Rand Paul will be the first potential 2016 candidate to step foot in the Granite State, according to CNN. Paul is also schedule to attend Lincoln Day Dinner in Cedar Rapids, Iowa in May(USA Today). This puts the Kentucky Senator in the two “first” states for 2016 – the first primary being held in New Hampshire and the first caucus being held in Iowa. To those watching the 2016 field begin to unfold, it is a clear sign that Paul has intentions of running for the Oval Office.

If one questions how well Rand Paul would fare, Public Policy Polling has begun their 2016 survey’s – the Miami Herald offers an overview of the poll which shows Paul gaining significant ground on Marc Rubio (R-FL), now coming in second place, pushing New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to 3rd. On the Democrat side, it is clear, at this point, that Hillary Clinton has the majority of support, followed by V.P. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren (the new Democrat Senator from Massachusetts) and rounding out the field, Andrew Cuomo of New York. This poll shows Clinton besting all rivals, on both sides, but in match-ups against Republican’s the margin is at 7% approximately – Christie fares the best (Clinton 46, Christie 42), with Rand Paul in second (Clinton 49, Paul 43)(Miami Herald)

In reality it is still far too early to poll seriously, given the fact that there are potential candidates on both sides of the usual aisles that have not either been included in the polling, or have not come to the forefront. There are two key points that can be taken from PPP’s early polling. The first is that Rand Paul is a potential candidate that requires watching. His brand of Libertarian Republicanism appeals across a broad spectrum, which includes individuals from both parties. He is young, and fresh, compared with the balance of those forecasted (with the obvious exception of Marc Rubio). Hillary Clinton commands serious speculation; however, one must be wary of the powers that be in the Democrat machine when it comes to Clinton. She is more than qualified, as she was in 2008 (compared to the field which included John McCain and Barack Obama). However, despite winning the popular vote in the primary, she was shut down at the Democrat Convention as the party leaders used Super-Delegates to oust Clinton and hand Barack Obama the nomination. Those operatives in the same Progressive segment of the Democrat Party have decided to push one Elizabeth Warren in 2016 – should Clinton decide to throw her hat in the ring, Warren if she runs as she told to do – and one could very well see a repeat of the Super Delegates voting the half term Senator from Massachustts to the top of the ticket. Warren, a former Harvard Professor, sailed to a win in Massachusetts against the popular Scott Brown, basically due to Massachusetts Democrat Leanings, during a general election, on a ticket with Barack Obama, who has one of his highest approval ratings in the nation in Massachustts. In other words, Democrats swept Massachusetts on Barack Obama’s coattails. This does not bode well for a general election candidate on their own, regardless of, or perhaps especially if that candidate is a woman.

From the perspective of a feminist, Clinton was the no-brainer candidate in 2008, the one chance the Democrats had of being the first major political party to put a woman in the White House. Statistically, the odds are not good that there would be a woman nominated in such a short period of time (given the 3 decades between the first woman to be nominated to the bottom of a ticket, (Ferraro) and the last to e nominated to the bottom of a ticket (Palin), and in both cases, that ticket lost. Have hearts and minds towards women in leadership positions changed in the last eight years? That is the question, which, political correctness aside, anyone with any sense understands it has not. The only woman that would stand a chance and only a chance of besting an opponent would be Clinton, and that would strongly depend upon who the opponent might be.

Clinton comes across are formidable, out of all the candidates named in the PPP poll. However, a mere 7 points separates her, even this early in the game from the GOP names tossed into the poll. Pretending all things are equal and Clinton would be viewed on a par with male counterparts, and would be treated the same by media and the populace in general, she would have a dickens of a time against the Doctor turned Senator from Kentucky. Paul would have no problem with the youth vote, his fiscal conservative credentials would bode well with the Republican base, with the exception of some social conservatives that may have a problem with his stance certain positions – however, that said, his stance on those positions from a Libertarian standpoint, coincide with the Constitution – giving States the power to decide social issues - that’s a plus and could easily be used as a persuadable. He’s already shown he can cross partisan line (See the variety of supporters of his now-infamous drone filibuster.), and to boot, he’s younger. The later attribute should not be a factor, however, it was used successfully in the last two elections, the first with John McCain, no need to explain that one, and the second, with Romney as being “out-of-touch”, parodies as being more from the 50’s - not quite as “hip” as the President. It was pitting Thurston Howell the Third, against James Dean. Therefore, if one were looking through a crystal ball (which does not exist), at the current crop mentioned in the PPO poll, one would see Paul taking the GOP primary field, and, based on recent history, Elizabeth Warren as the opponent. No need to speculate on the outcome there. To be fair, it would be difficult for any Democrat to contrast themselves to Paul’s brand of Republicanism, unless the Democrat nominee were to come out of the closet as a Socialist and all that implies. The only powers capable of mucking up the waters on both sides of the spectrum are the party players not mentioned those in the National GOP and DNC, especially if one is running as a Republican.

All said and done, it is still wildly early to speculate, as again, there are the unknowns at this point, and far too many variables that exist, given the year before one starts to see those who would begin to challenge. That should logically occur after the mid-terms in 2014.

2016 Speculation: Palin, Cruz, Clinton, Bush, Warren, and the Race to the top.

Sixteen of the potential GOP 2016 Candidates imagined by Politico - image Politico.com

The 2016 Presidential election may seem as if it is too far in the future for speculation to begin as to who will run in both parties, and to whom the two major political parties will “anoint” as the eventual winner, regardless of primaries. The speculation began before the first votes were cast in the 2012 election, as President Obama, as was the case with Bill Clinton and George Bush, will not be eligible to run for a third term (regardless of the rumors to the contrary regarding President Obama). Generally speaking those who appear in the early lists generally don’t throw their hats in the ring when it comes down to the wire (see Palin, Huckabee, and Jindel for example in 2011-2012), but for giggles, the early list:

From Politico: : Bobby Jindel (R-Governor of Louisiana) , John Kasich (R-Governor of Ohio), Bob McDonnell (R-Governor of Virginia), Martin O’Malley (D-Governor of MD), Vice President Joe Biden (D) Gov. Rick Perry (R-Governor of Texas) Mark Warner (D-Senator from Va.), Rick Santorum (R-2012 GOP Candidate), Rick Scott (R-Governor of Fl.), Jan Brewer (R-Governor of AZ),Scott Walker (R-Governor of Wisconsin, Susanna Martinez, (R-Governor of New Mexico) Hillary Clinton (D) and Andrew Cuomo (D-Governor of NY), Brian Schweitzer (D-Governor of Montana)(Washington Post), Ted Cruz (R-Senator TX) (Fox News), Sarah Palin (R)(Baltimore Sun), Jeb Bush (R), Marc Rubio (R-Senator FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Bob Portman (R- Senator Ohio), Kelly Ayotte (R-Senate NH) (The Tacoma News Tribune) Mike Pence (R-Governor Indiana), Paul Ryan (R-Congress (WI), Brian Sandoval (R- Governor of NV), John Thune (R-Senate SD), Michelle Bachman (R-Congress MN), Chris Christie (R-Governor of NJ)(Politico), Julian Castro (D-Mayor of San Antonio) (USA Today), Newt Gingrich (R) (Politico) ,Elizabeth Warren (D-MA Senate)(Boston Magazine) - That’s the list for now.

If one were to consider that the GOP has a habit of nominating a candidate (or more to the point, appearing to push a candidate that has lost in a previous election (See John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney), then logic would dictate that the most likely of the bunch would be Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich), however, there’s Jeb Bush in the ring, so one may bet they’ll go the way of the dynasty. (Also consider that neither of the aforementioned would fit the GOP moderate mold.)

On the Democrat side, Hillary Clinton is already ahead in the buzz, however, the Democrats are going to need a hook, and they are going to focus, as they did in 2006-2008, on a little known woman, with little experience and very little national exposure – that’s Elizabeth Warren, darling of the Progressives.

That doesn’t stop the press from seeing a matchup between two political dynasties in a Bush vs. Clinton 2016 match-up(CNN).

What is interesting to this feminist is the fact that there are so many woman and much speculation as to 2016 Presidential runs on the GOP side: Bachman, Palin, Ayotte, Martinez, and Brewer, while on the DNC side one has Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. Of the women listed, one can see Palin, Brewer, and Martinez going the distance (basing this on experience as Governors and having as far as having a grassroots base in place the tow at the top would be Brewer and Palin). However, to have the party that generally get’s the women’s vote (silly, $9.00 worth of Birth Control is more important somehow than fiscal sanity – which is contrary to feminism as most women must support themselves and their families, being independent of the male), has only two females that are mentioned, Hillary who would fall into the “owe a Presidency” (if she were in the GOP) column, and Elizabeth Warren – who with zero experience, and one slogan (Billionaires!) will be the most likely nominee and one can see a 2008 Democrat convention all over again (where Clinton would be robbed a second time!).

Names no on the list: Huckabee, Huntsman, and those who have yet to crawl out of the political woodwork.

The bigger question, in the course of the next two years, is will a third party emerge, along with a third party candidate, that will fit the bill enough to give the major parties a run for their money. On the GOP: side, there are several that have Tea Party Connections that are strong enough to carry an independent bid, Palin, Perry, Rand Paul (son of perennial Libertarian-Republican candidate, Ron Paul). There is only on one that would hold an Independent party on the DEM side, and that would be Elizabeth Warren, the Progressive Party (should they decide to go that route, which is highly unlikely). It would be healthy for the nation however, to see the large political parties split, as now there is a schism in both (although that argument is rarely framed), the Progressive Socialists who are driven by Unions, versus, the other “groups” that belong to the Democrats, and on the GOP side, the moderate do anything, say anything to get elected semi-fiscal conservatives, versus the social and fiscal conservatives – who would be either an Independent or Tea Party.

In any event, start watching late night TV in February, for who shows up on Letterman, and Leno, and of course, starts making the rounds of all the talk shows – fundraisers aside, (which is how Politico judges who may or may not throw hats into the ring), it is face time with the public in general that usually is a hint of what is to come.. .and the beat goes on.