Hillary Clinton continues to have a dominant lead in Iowa Democrats’ preferences for their 2016 presidential nominee almost three years before actual candidates will begin chowing down on cobs of corn. The straw poll on the Republican side is much closer, with three candidates locked at the top and two others in double digits.
Clinton tops Vice President Joe Biden 60-18, with no one else even approaching 5%. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren each have 3%, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner are at 1%, and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick register almost no support. 14% favor someone else or are not sure.
The victors of the two most recent Republican caucuses, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, are tied at 17%, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie right on their tails at 16%, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 11%, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 10%, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 8%, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan at 6%, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin each at 4%, with only 8% not behind a candidate.
If Clinton did not run, Biden would lead Cuomo 36-14, with Warren at 8% and the others still in the low single digits. Without Biden, Cuomo leads Warren 20-11.
The GOP contenders are all pretty well-known and well-liked, but beyond Clinton and Biden, there are few recognizable names on the left side of the aisle. The least-known Republican is Walker, of whom 38% surprisingly have no opinion, but 55% of Democrats cannot say how they feel about Cuomo, 60% of Warren, and 80-90% of the others. Then again, few had yet heard of a certain state senator from Illinois at this point in 2004.
Hillary would be a field clearer of the sort you don't usually see unless there is an incumbent president or vice president running, and that is particularly true on the Democratic side. But absent her, the race will be up for grabs by any number of candidates who will all start out with little name ID. Biden's advantage now may not be as strong if he does actually choose to run.
The GOP field, on the other hand, will almost certainly be stocked with rising stars who took a pass on Obama, and it will be wide open regardless of the entrants to the race. That would be an unusual development for a party that typically crowns the guy who is seen as the next in line. This time, several candidates could have a claim to that mantle unless Romney surprisingly picks one of these options as his running mate. Of course, this is all contingent upon Romney not winning in November.
Full results here
"If '12 was a crazy race for Republicans, wait til '16."
Even a dummy like you, Tom, must realize - there won't be a GOP primary in 2016.
Posted by: riiight | July 23, 2012 at 03:42 PM
Tom didn't write that or the above post; I did. Note that I said: "Of course, this is all contingent upon Romney not winning in November."
Posted by: Dustin Ingalls | July 23, 2012 at 03:45 PM
No Republican primary in 2016? That's a bit overoptimistic. Sure, they're solidly wedged in on the wrong side of a demographic shift, but they'll still have enough voters to put together a primary in 2016. They might have to start time-sharing convention space with the Libertarians by 2024, though.
Posted by: realnrh | July 23, 2012 at 04:14 PM
I doubt Clinton runs. Biden will try, but he'll end up being the first sitting Vice-President to lose his party's nomination. I think a wildcard takes it in 2016. Like Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer or New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich.
Posted by: GaModerate | July 23, 2012 at 04:22 PM
Look to see if someone like Martin O'Malley is invited to give the keynote address at the convention. O'Malley has been putting himself on the national stage for a while, via talk shows and addresses, so it's only a matter of time before he decides to run for president. Clinton I don't think wants to run, but if she did, it would be pretty tough for anyone to beat her (although that's what everyone said four years ago). If Clinton runs, Biden won't, but don't count him out if she doesn't. Warren won't run in 2016, look to her for 2020 or 2024.
As for the GOP, Santorum will probably be the Palin of this year: a social conservative with the "next in line" title, teasing at getting in the race but ultimately deciding to sit out and be a pundit. Huckabee is unlikely to run, enjoying his spot on Fox and the fact that he still has followers even though he is not running for office. Rand Paul might, as a sort of bridge between the Libertarian and conservative factions of the GOP. Rubio will run eventually, so 2016 is as good as ever. Palin probably is done with elected life. Walker shouldn't run, but he might, unless he is terribly beat in 2014.
By the way, there is no quicker way to have your opinion completely invalidated than calling someone "dummy".
Cheers!
Posted by: Derek Gabriel | July 23, 2012 at 05:08 PM
Also, Cuomo has gotten in trouble with labor interests. He would have to bulk up there in order to survive a Democratic primary.
Posted by: Derek Gabriel | July 23, 2012 at 05:10 PM
Four years is an eternity in politics and it seems pretty crazy to think about 2016 until we know the results of 2012 ... but that said - if I had to bet on 2016 I'd put my money on Clinton.
Posted by: Obama 2012 | July 23, 2012 at 09:42 PM
How pathetic for the democrats! Their primary choices are a neophyte and a buffoon. hillary's only 'accomplishments' have been because of who she is married to. She exists solely in the shawdow of her husband. biden has always been considered someone not to take seriously by the democratic establishment. Can this be the best they can field in 2016?
Posted by: Perplexed | July 24, 2012 at 08:32 AM
So 8 years in the Senate and almost 4 years as Secretary of State are not accomplishments?
Posted by: A33 | July 24, 2012 at 05:48 PM