Much too early for this question

[viguy007]

As a Moderate Republican for Obama, I wonder who will be the candidates from your party in 2016 if Clinton does not run? I assume if she runs she will be the candidate.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Andrew Cuomo seems to be poising.

[Autumn]

2. Thank you for supporting Obama. Now will you please

get rid of the crazies in your party?

[aletier_v]

4. I think it's too late

Party's toast.

I feel like I swam away from the Titantic before the iceberg hit.

[viguy007]

15. I would like nothing more then that.

One of the reasons I am asking this question is that I think the crazies will maintain control of it. The only thing that Romney said which is true is that Obama will get nothing through congress. If the Democrats go too far too the left, I wonder if Christie will run as a fusion Independent candidate with a Dem VP. He is dead in my party now.

[Autumn]

17. It is my hope that the Democrats move way over to the left

and even if Christie had a Dem VP I would never vote for him. If the crazies maintain control of your party, your party is dead.

[DonViejo]

3. Yes! Much too early for this question nt

[DrToast]

5. Pretty sure Clinton will run

Biden wants to as well. As mentioned, Cuomo too.

I think it'll be Hillary though.

[No Vested Interest]

6. Cuomo, O'Malley

I do not expect Hillary Clinton to run. I fully understand that a woman of a certain age says she's ready to retire, even though Bill might think differently.
I also don't believe a person (man or woman) in late 60's can fare well against a decent opponent in mid-40's -mid50's.
Romney is quite fit for a man of 65, but compare with way Obama runs up and down steps, etc.

Yes, Andrew Cuomo of NY and Martin O'Malley of MD have both acquitted themselves honorably this election cycle.

[geek tragedy]

7. A woman WILL be on the ticket.

I hope Gillibrand runs.

[abumbyanyothername]

8. Really not possible to say

In late November 2004, Hillary Clinton was the undefeatable nominee of the Dem Party for 2008.

Didn't turn out that way at all.

It is going to be an interesting 4 years as it becomes apparent that the world has passed peak oil, that climate change is real and human caused and that the days of economic growth . . . anywhere, are over and that a transition to a new economic model is in order.

Really not possible to say who the party nominates in the face of all that change.

[aletier_v]

9. Yes, it's likely we're headed into a re-evaluation of traditional economics

and even keynesian.

Peak oil is being offset by shale processing,
I expected something like that,
there's plenty of petrocarbons,
the problem is processing cost,
not availability.

The climate change will probably be the real problem.

[abumbyanyothername]

10. 1 problem with shale processing

you get less energy out than you put in.

So, I daresay, that exacerbates rather than ameliorates the problem.

[aletier_v]

11. I don't see how that's possible

seeing as the industry has exploded in the past five years

but I'm not an expert,
I only know that the energy density of oil
is extremely hard to replace
with wind or tidal, etc, etc.

I'm feeling pretty depressed about the Republican party right now.

I just can't believe what I've seen over the past four years.

I'm going to a dance club and get blitzed.

[abumbyanyothername]

13. All right.

According to this wiki site, which may be close or way off:

EROI (for US) Fuel
100.0 Hydro
80.0 Coal
35.0 Oil imports 1990
35.0 World oil production
30.0 Oil and gas 1970
20.0 Oil production
18.0 Oil imports 2005
18.0 Wind
14.5 Oil and gas 2005
12.0 Oil imports 2007
10.0 Natural gas 2005
10.0 Nuclear
8.0 Oil discoveries
6.8 Photovoltaic
5.0 Ethanol sugarcane
5.0 Shale oil
3.0 Bitumen tar sands
1.9 Solar flat plate
1.6 Solar collector
1.3 Biodiesel
1.3 Ethanol corn


High per-capita energy use has been considered desirable as it is associated with a high standard of living based on energy-intensive machines. A society will generally exploit the highest available EROEI energy sources first, as these provide the most energy for the least effort. With non-renewable sources, progressively lower EROEI sources are then used as the higher-quality ones are exhausted.
For example, when oil was originally discovered, it took on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil. That ratio has declined steadily over the last century to about three barrels gained for one barrel used up in the U.S. (and about ten for one in Saudi Arabia).[citation needed] [3] Currently (2006) the EROEI of wind energy in North America and Europe is about 20:1[4] which has driven its adoption.


Although many qualities of an energy source matter (for example oil is energy-dense and transportable, while wind is variable), when the EROEI of the main sources of energy for an economy fall energy becomes more difficult to obtain and its value rises relative to other resources and goods. Therefore the EROEI gains importance when comparing energy alternatives. Since expenditure of energy to obtain energy requires productive effort, as the EROEI falls an increasing proportion of the economy has to be devoted to obtaining the same amount of net energy.
Since the invention of agriculture, humans have increasingly used exogenous sources of energy to multiply human muscle-power. Some historians have attributed this largely to more easily exploited (i.e. higher EROEI) energy sources, which is related to the concept of energy slaves. Thomas Homer-Dixon [5] demonstrates that a falling EROEI in the Later Roman Empire was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Western Empire in the fifth century CE. In "The Upside of Down" he suggests that EROEI analysis provides a basis for the analysis of the rise and fall of civilisations. Looking at the maximum extent of the Roman Empire, (60 million) and its technological base the agrarian base of Rome was about 1:12 per hectare for wheat and 1:27 for alfalfa (giving a 1:2.7 production for oxen). One can then use this to calculate the population of the Roman Empire required at its height, on the basis of about 2,500-3,000 calories per day per person. It comes out

[GallopingGhost]

12. I was thinking about this the other night.

I don't know at this point, except that I don't believe it will be Clinton.

I think the next four years under President Obama will improve so much that Dems will keep the WH, though.

[Doctor Jack]

14. I think Clinton has the inside track right now

My dad had an interesting hypothesis. He thinks that in order to get Bill Clinton to really go all out for Obama this year, Obama promised that Hillary would get his massive ground operation in 2016. So she will be resigning after the election to rest up, get healthy, and then start to lay the groundwork for another run.

[Nika]

16. That is interesting food for thought

Thanks

[demhottie]

18. Cuomo v Christie

The 2016 democratic and republican nominees, respectively.

[union_maid]

19. I promised myself I would not think about this until Wednesday...

I believe Hillary when she says she doesn't want to run. However, Bill will be working on her to change her mind and we all know what an effective campaigner he can be, so that's still a little up in the air. I think if not Hillary, then Andrew Cuomo would have a really good shot. He's been a effective governor, which we really, really needed. I don't always agree with every fiscal decision he makes, but he is making Albany functional again. And Sandy has elevated his visibility.

[Paceman]

20. Sense that the Mayor of Newark Corey Booker might be planning a run.

Very smooth guy and reminds me of President Obama.

[woolldog]

23. I get the sense he wants to be governor of NJ.

That'd be a great springboard to the Presidency.

[AverageJoe90]

25. Maybe so.

Also, welcome to DU, paceman.

[locks]

21. Let's see how Elizabeth Warren does

That lady's a fast learner

[bemildred]

22. I expect new blood, young blood in 2016.

Obama is a young man, I thinks he's shown what that can mean.

A woman, perhaps, from which we have several good ones to choose.

I don't expect Hilary to run, though I will support her if she does.

[politicat]

24. Dream team: pick two

Dannel Malloy (gov of Connecticut)
Mark Udall (Sr sen, Colorado)
Patty Murray (sen, Washington)
Beverley Purdue (gov, north Carolina)
Christine Gregoire (gov, Washington)
Ken Salazar (Former Senator, attorney Gen CO; current Sec Int)
Loretta Sanchez (Ca47th)
Jared Polis (Co3rd)
Antonio Villarigosa (mayor, LA)
Joe Biden (VP)

Notice lots of Western states. Western states are growing fast, several are either swing, tippable or already blue, and addressing Western states issues will make them even more blue (except the Mormon Corridor). I'd watch all of them closely.

[demwing]

26. Biden /nt

[DFW]

27. When Howard Dean was 59

(He'll be 63 this month)

Howard told me 3½ years ago that he wouldn't run again because he thought he was too old and wanted younger people to be going after the presidency. This was a month after Obama's inauguration.

I think I'm not the only one he has said this to, either. Look for guys like Maryland's Gov. O'Malley or maybe someone even younger to be in the spotlight of discussion.

Look for the Republicans to be asking themselves the same question, too. Here's a sickening thought: they might have had a better chance this year nominating the dangerously unqualified but very photogenic Marco Rubio instead of Willard. Next time, they might do just that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Clinton-Salazar/nt