Is this the White House line-up for 2008?
August 15th, 2005
-
Can Hilary become a less divisive figure?
It’s nearly three weeks since we last looked at the 2008 White House race and since then there have been some polls which reinforce the view that the former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani will be lined up against the New York Senator and former First Lady, Hilary Clinton.
Usually at this stage in the cycle the suggested possibilities for their parties’ Presidential nominations are people with little name recognition whose first major challenge is to establish themselves as national figures. Not so next time round where the only person who currently looks able to upset the Giuliani - Clinton show is the Arizona Senator and former contender, John McCain.
-
When we last discussed the race there was strong view on the site that Hilary Clinton was too divisive a figure to justify her favourite status in the betting. She’s currently just 4/1
Since then there been a number of polls - all of them reinforcing Hilary’s position for the Democratic nomination and Giuliani or McCain for the Republicans.
Although Hilary’s deficit is substantial it shows a big improvement over some June poll ratings putting her nearly 20% behind McCain. But polls can be deceiving as those punters who piled onto Howard Dean last time round for the Democratic nomination can testify. The former Governor of Vermont was a heavy odds-on favourite until the Iowa caucuses which brought Kerry into the frame.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Let’s hope not. Giuliani will have difficulty with christian conservatives due to his divorce and being pro-gay.
I’ve said it before and I’ll damn well keep saying it, please look beyond the polls! at this stage they reflect little more than name recognition back in 2001 Al Gore or Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic candidate by the rational you’ve been imposing Mike and it didn’t happen!
Hillary will have a very tough time getting the Democratic nomination, she has no base on the left of the party and the right of the party know that where she nominated she as a northern liberal would potentially go down to an even bigger defeat than John Kerry.
Indeed facing a mainstream, affable, conservative like Senator George Allen, Hillary would begin the campaign in worse shape than Kerry, the GOP base in the south and west would be locked down by a candidate like Allen, especially facing a polarising, northern, liberal such as Clinton meaning the battle would quickly be carried into the Midwestern swing states namely OH, PA, IA and WI and then in Dem leaning into the region such as MN and MI.
As a north-eastern liberal and, I’m sorry to say, a woman Clinton would under perform amongst blue collar voters most likely throwing the Midwest with the exception of Illinois to the GOP and assuring their candidate a substantial election win, indeed the damage to Democrats lower down the ticket in senate and congressional races could be catastrophic.
If John McCain where nominated rather than Allen, very possible, then Clinton’s defeat would be all the bigger, as well as inroads amongst blue collar voters in the Midwest McCain would probably be able to snatch states even in the Democratic heartlands of the north east and pacific west by appealing to more liberal leaning suburban voters, in such an election the Democrats would be looking at a defeat on a Dukakis scale.
On to the GOP side…
Giuliani, anti gun, pro-gay rights, pro- abortion rights and oh yes he’s admitted to a number of marital infidelities… there is NO WAY!!! He gets any where near the GOP nomination, what is more he has only ever been a Mayor, all be it of a large city, you do not go from being a Mayor to being a serious candidate for President.
In the Democratic Primaries Hillary’s PAC is second in fund raising to Indiana Senator Evan Bayh’s, while amongst Republicans Senator Bill Frist is in the lead. There is very little appetite amongst the Democrats I have met to nominate Clinton, who most feel would crash and burn against any but the most wacky republicans, the left of the party and keenly considering maverick liberal Senator Russ Feingold while the centre of the party is debating between Senator Evan Bayh and Governor Mark Warner… Hillary is simply not counted as a viable candidate even amongst Democrats, why on earth would she be a credible candidate nationally?
On the Republican side, Bill Frist is no doubt able to raise so much cash coz he’s not running for re election, George Allen has a great many friends in the GOP establishment and John McCain has been mending fences with the Bush administration for the last few years even hiring the same consultants as the Bushs, both will probably emerge as the leading candidates for the party’s 08 nomination if McCain doesn’t think he’s too old (which I doubt at this stage)… Allen would very much be the standard bearer for Bush’s brand of populist, southern, conservatism while McCain would be the candidate for the economic right of the party with his brand of “Goldwaterist” Libertarianism… I repeat there is no constituency for Giuliani!
So to repeat…
Giuliani will NOT get the GOP nomination nor even close.
Hillary will have to fight VERY hard to be in with a shot at the Democratic nomination.
2 - I think she might get nominated though would almost certainly use. Dean is an example of an early “favourite” who lost momentum, but a lot of these things are about perception. Was Kerry an especially brilliant candidate? Of course not. But after Iowa he established an image as the “natural choice” and so got the support of those who just wanted to get someone - anyone! - nominated and get on to fighting the Republicans. That could happen here although I admit Hillary stirs up much more negative feeling than Kerry.
And I cannot see how Giuliani would win the GOP nomination either.
Ben 2. You are always unequivocal in your postings and often, but not every time, you are proved right.
Evan Bayh is currently polling 3% against Hilary’s 40%. That’s a huge gap. The story is going to be Hilary and whether someone is able to knock her off her perch and the challenge for Bayh is getting the profile that’s going to be necessary.
I agree with you on Rudy G.
3 - oops, “use” should be “lose” in the first line of the post.
There’s a very good article on Slate about Hillary’s prospects. Well worth a read.
Mike
Sorry to be emphatic in my post. While Hillary may be polling at 40 and Bayh at 3 that’s a closer gap than Kerry v Dean in late 2002 and early 2003, and look what happened there… these polls really only reflect name recognition at this stage as they did at the same stage in the 2004 election cycle and indeed the 1992 election cycle… lets Democratic Presidential nominees, Al Gore or Mario Cumo tell you about it.
As for Hillary most Democrats believe her nomination would not only lead to a defeat but a big one which would endanger Democrats fighting for re-election in red states, while Senator Baucus in Montana would be well placed to survive, Senator Landrieu and Pryor in Louisiana and Arkansas respectively would face a far tougher fight with another northern eastern liberal and this time one who while no commonly seen as aloof is perceived as manipulative and icy (unfairly IMHO but that’s not the point).
For this reason I think Clinton is unlikely to be nominated, the left of the party sees her both as an electoral liability and as too much a part of the party establishment while the right and pragmatic sections of the party also see her as electoral liability but conversely as too liberal… the reason no one else is beating her in polls is simple, the left have yet to settle on a standard bearer, or even give it serious thought this far out and the same applies to the pragmatic, moderate wing of the party, Clinton’s base of support in the party for a presidential run is noting like as strong as her allies would argue that it is.
Never mind the politics, you lot. You can get 12-1 Australia to win the third Test with Ladbrokes. Get on now!!
My Democrat friends feel about Hillary as many Labour people used to feel about various left-wing potential leaders: they’d have been delighted to support them for leader if they’d thought they could beat the Tories, but they weren’t at all sure they could, and they were tired of losing. I don’t know any Democrats who wouldn’t *personally* be pleased by the election of President Hillary Clinton, and there is lots of tolerance for the idea that she has to take more centrist positions to have a chance. But there is still an underlying scepticism. If she builds up a significant poll lead over any plausible Republican candidate, she’ll be nominated. If not, probably not.
Nick
It really depends which polls they tend to believe, if their foolish and opt to believe Zogby and Gallup then no doubt there’ll be a number of polls suggesting that Clinton would be competitive.
What they should do is keep an eye on polls by Dem Corp, Pew, Mason-Dixon and Rasmussen. Which all have excellent track records unlike Mr Zogby’s firm and Gallup’s exit polling that was wrong both in 2000+04.
From the Dems I’ve spoken while I think there is some warmth to Senator Hillary Clinton VERY few are enthusiastic about a President Hillary Clinton, largely because she really doesn’t inspire anyone… the left think of her just as another DLC Dem and the Moderates think of her as a liability and a liberal one at that, though admittedly she has tried to tack to the right, then again so did Kerry.
It has to come down to what states does she win that Kerry didn’t and against a credible republican she doesn’t, while she might perform better than Kerry in Arkansas against an Allen or McCain she’d be lucky to break 46%. She would not have prayer in the south or west and as I’ve said would be forced into fight for an ever shrinking number of competitive states in a manner similar to Kerry only the number would probably dwindle more rapidly than in 2004, she would probably do worse than Kerry in the Midwest against either Allen or McCain and lose most of the region to the GOP candidate and against McCain she would face a threat to her base of support in liberal suburbia.
So in short she ads nothing to the Dems chances in 2008 and instead actually detracts from them making a swath of states that Kerry held only narrowly incredibly vulnerable to any credible republican.
I think it is a bit soon to write off Guliani. Although it varies by state, the primary system allows a many more Republicans to vote (and in some cases not just Republicans) than just the Christian Right hardcore.
As far as his anti-gun, pro-abortion credentials go, he can tailor his position over the next three years (perhaps as a “states rights” thing).
In terms of going from mayor to President not being credible, if he had been Mayor of Springfield there would have been some point. But he was a hugely popular mayor of the USA’s largest and most important city, with a population at least five times that of Arkansas (of which Clinton was Governor - although I accept being a Governor is generally a somewhat more important job).
I agree he has work to do and you have to take these early polls with a pinch of salt (they are more name recognition contests than anything), but I am not sure he is in a worse position than any of the senior Senators (with all the baggage that brings) who are in the running.
“Although it varies by state, the primary system allows a many more Republicans to vote (and in some cases not just Republicans) than just the Christian Right hardcore.”
True - but it does generally skew things to the right. And I don’t think the primary system has ever nominated anyone who could really be described as a liberal Republican. The last one was Thomas Dewey in 1948, when notwithstanding the odd primary here and there, candidates were largely chosen in smoke-filled conference halls.
If you fancy the convicts in the 3rd test (though why, I can’t imagine), try 14-1 with skybet. Selling England at 15.5 (on a 25-10-0 index) with sporting gives you the draw as well.
FWIW, I’d back Hilary Clinton if I could get a sensible price. Look at what her enemies have been saying. She mixed with lesbians at Uni (who didn’t?), she didn’t shave her legs (an interest for some of us..) and she might have had an affair (crumbs…). But the biggest factor is the supprt of Bill.
Can someone please explain to me why the name of Jeb Bush hasn’t figured in this discussion? He would seem to fit the person spec…
Judging by the choice of Kerry over Dean the Democrats will prefer a centrist electable candidate to an obvious left winger. I can’t see Hillary or any other serious Democrat candidate running as a left winger.
As far as Hillary is concerned how does the female factor play out in the US? Will she gain support from female voters as the first ever credible female candidate for president or will she lose more than she gains because of an anti-female vote?
Will Bill Clinton campaign for her? This might make a difference both nationally and in Arkansas.
Overall I think a a lot depends on what happens to Bush over the next three years. The Democrats will be hoping for a ‘get the rascals out’ wave of support and they might get it if Iraq continues the way it is.
14 - But to a lot of the electorate, Kerry wasn’t seen as a centrist on social issues: and Hillary will have the same problem.
15- Agreed, but I believe he was seen as more centrist than Dean.
16 - true. Not necessarily borne out by their records in office, but Dean’s problem was to start tacking left for the primaries, and then forget to ever turn round.
11 - Innocent Abroad
Ruled himself out of the race by all accounts, has made noises to the press to the effect that he defiantly will not run this time, the notion of a dynasty is a big problems for him by all accounts.
Admittedly he or indeed SC Gov Mark Sanford would be excellent candidates for the GOP with solid records as governors in states that are normally tricky to govern. Sadly for the GOP Sanford has ruled himself out, as has Jeb, though I think the whole “dynasty issues” would have hurt Jeb had he run so soon after his brother.
The darling of the religious right Senator Rick Santorum has also ruled himself out of the race, he’s facing a very tough senate race next November and despite pulling in lots of money is lagging behind is likely opponent, pro-life Democrats and PA institution Bob Casey jr.
This leaves two leading candidates maverick Senator John McCain and Bush’s spiritual heir the affable Senator George Allen, both have backers in the GOP hierarchy and both will draw in a lot of cash and while Allen would be more amenable to the GOP base, McCain would be both palatable for the Republican grass roots but could also beat almost anyone the Democrats could put up against him, it doesn’t need to be mentioned that he’d wipe the floor with Hillary Clinton if she was nominated.
There are a number of other candidates with a more long shot chance…
Senator Sam Brownback seems to be looking to appeal to the religious right and Santorum’s exit from the race probably helps him the most, however he’s fairly cooky character and probably goes to far in trying to appeal to the religious right to mean he’d be competitive in a presidential race or even in the heavily skewed GOP primaries.
Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, is not standing for re-election to the senate and looks certain to enter the race for the GOP nomination, since rising to the GOP leadership in the senate he has tacked hard to the right, after a career through which he had steered a generally moderate course. He is however a very dry character without any of the warmth or affability of Allen or Bush and without the no bullsh*t style of McCain, indeed he’s very much a GOP version of John Kerry. Another interesting fact to know is that as an MD, when he was training he is on record as saying he killed and dissected stray cats… I don’t get the sense that people would warm to that
Senator Chuck Hagel, is very much a Republican in the McCain mould, but less well funded and unlikely to enter the race if McCain does.
Governor Mit Romney of Massachusetts, as socially conservative GOP governor in one of the USA’s most liberal states and with a solid record during his time in office. His Mormonism could potentially be a problem but more than likely it just wouldn’t figure, more than likely it is the fact that he is only a one term governor from “Taxachusett” that could hamper him the GOP primaries… but despite this he is one of relatively few credible GOP governors who are still in the running for the top slot.
Governor Mike Huckabee, popular termed-out governor of Arkansas with a special appeal to diet fanatics and the Christian right. While he is toying with a white house run and it the current chair of the national governor’s association… it’s unlikely that he would be competitive in the GOP primaries and would probably be reduced to fight it out with Brownback for the Christian Right’s support.
In addition to these wacky congressman Tom Tancredo looks set to run as the GOP’s answer to Denis Kucinich, Liberal outgoing NY Governor George Pataki despite being deeply unpopular in his home state and with little support from the GOP base is also eyeing a run as is (and we’ve already covered this) pro-choice, anti-2nd Amendment, pro-gay rights, and self confessed adulter Rudy Giuliani, who like Pataki doesn’t stand a chance IMHO.
Frist is the driest character imaginable - he makes Kerry look like FDR. And can you imagine the Democrats ever letting the cat thing be forgotten?
19 - book value
Yeah isn’t it wonderful?
did you ever see the Daily Show’s take on the cat thing?
Link if you haven’t…
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/daily_show_comedy_clips/index.php
Scroll all the way down till you get to January 13th 2003.
20 - thanks, I hadn’t seen that: I’ll watch it when I get home.
Ben 7. I made a four figure sum betting against Dean in 2004 and from recall I do not believe he got out of the 30s in the polls.
There are a couple of good articles in the Washington Monthly about Hillary’s chances:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0507.cannon.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0507.sullivan1.html
Mike
In the NH tracking polls in early 2004 and late 2003 Dean was leading his nearest rivals (Kerry or Clark depending which pollsters you side with) typically by a margin of 40-18 or there about and this was mere weeks before the primary.
Indeed in mid December 2003 Dean was leading Kerry his nearest rival (Kerry was to fall well bind Clark before his campaign was resurrected with his win in Iowa) by 45 to 20 in the New Hampshire tracking polls.
But that’s by the by, at this stage in the 92 cycle Mario Cumo was dead certain to win the Democratic nomination and at this stage in 2004 cycle Gore was an equal certainty… but this was largely only a reflection of name recognition, this why Hillary presently has such a large lead, indeed its also why Kerry and Edwards are figuring at all in the polling.
Even in late 2002 Dean was still stuck around the 2-3% mark in NH and nationally closer to the 1% mark, largely because the voters, even party activists hadn’t even begun to think about the presidential election and when polled where largely reflecting nothing more than what national Dem they where aware of, this has always been the case, indeed a week before Iowa John Edwards was bellow 15% un most polls and he went on to double that, indeed had the caucus been a week later there is some evidence to suggest that Edwards might have won it.
Ben, I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again: what news on Vilsack’s potential candidature, or Richardson’s, for that matter? Surely both can appeal to a certain part of the electorate left untouched by recent Democrat campaigns, namely the midwest or the southwest?
If only Wes Clark were not too old to get started …
From the perspective of an Englishman living in the US, it would seem to me that the key to the White House for the Democrats in 2008 is to nominate a candidate that can successfully reconnect with the swathe of blue-collar voters here in western Pennsylvania (where I live) and in the neighbouring states of Ohio and West Virginia.
Last year and in 2000, Bush won Ohio and West Virginia and in consequence the presidency by successfully appealing to the ‘values’ of blue-collar voters in these states which, especially the latter, are steeped in a culture of heavy industry and trade-unionism. Western Pennsylvania has a similar culture, and the state of Pennsylvania was narrowly lost by Bush last year only because of the huge black voter turnout in Philadelphia on the other side of the state.
Despite the falling national approval ratings for Bush it is quite clear on the ground that his support in these key states is holding up very well and it will be an uphill struggle for any Democrat to win them back.
Their only chance will be to nominate a candidate, maybe in the mould of John Edwards, who can compete with Bush to represent the ‘values’ of the average voter out here and then capitalise on the tremendous economic hardships that many ordinary people face here as heavy industry continues to wither away here in the rustbelt. That person is definitely not Hillary Clinton and the Democrats know that.
18 - Ben - There has been a lot in the newspapers here already about the 2006 PA Senate race and actually Rick Santorum appears an early favourite to hold the seat. It is acknowledged to be very close but he is attracting a huge amount of funding from the religious right and the national GOP and his base amongst the poorer, conservative blue-collar voters around Pittsburgh (where he is based) is very solid.
He does not attract support in the wealthy suburbs of Philadelphia to the scale of the more moderate Sen. Arlen Specter but he has a solid enough base for a narrow win.
Has Obama ruled himself out? I know it’s been discussed previously, but what would his chances be? He’s mega popular in the party, which might mean he’d walk the primaries (though given Dean’s fate, who knows), but what about the national picture?
Presumably the Bible Belt is a write off for the Dems anyway, but Obama could mobilize the inner city votes in FL, OH and the other swing states that called for Bush this time. Would he lose any states that Kerry held? I suppose a lot depends on his opponent.
Any liberal Republican e.g. Guiliani, McCain, risks losing the religious right to abstentionism or a Buchananite third party. However, the prospect of Hillary could mobilize the GOP core around whatever candidate the GOP run. “Anyone but Hillary”, in the same way that those who voted Nader in 2000 settled for Kerry in 2004 (not that it did them any good).
I can’t envisage Hillary winning. I agree with Ben at 1 that she probably won’t even get the nomination, and if she did the Dems would be slaughtered by almost anyone.
What gives me some hope as somebody who would like to see the Republicans lose in 2008 is that the talk is almost always about the Democrats needing to break out of the blue states in 2000 and 2004 and very rarely about Republicans needing to break out of the red states.
In a literal sense, of course, that is right because whoever is Rebublican candidate “just” needs to win all Bush’s states whereas a Democrat needs to win more than Gore/Kerry.
But it gives any Republican very little margin for error unless they pick somebody like Giuliani who would clearly have an eye on other states (most obviously New York) - and the consensus above is that such a choice is unlikely.
There is a tendancy to be crudely determinist about what happened in 2000 and 2004. We could easily be having a similar discussion now with Gore narrowly returned to the White House and the Republicans needing to find a moderate Northerner in order to avoid an extended lock out from the White House. Of course we aren’t, but that only makes the issue for the Republicans less urgent rather than wholly irrelevant.
The big difference between 2008 and previous elections is that the incumbent party doesn’t have the VP as the “obvious” candidate as was the case with Bush Senior in 1988 and Gore in 2000. That means we will have the intriguing spectacle next spring of two sets of keenly-contested primaries.
There’s been a lot of good sense talked in this thread about various candidates. I do agree the Democrats need to look at a southern or midwesterner with some conservative credentials. The GOP has it easier in that respect though the danger would be that a McCain candidature COULD spark a third-party conservative candidature from a Buchanan-like figure if the feeling in evangelical circles was that the GOP nominee wasn’t sufficiently robust on moral issues.
Next year’s midterms notwithstanding, the GOP has the next election to lose and it’s probably as true in Washington as in London that Governments lose elections more than Oppositions win them. The advantage of course for the GOP is that their candidate could distance himself slightly from the Bush Administration if things go badly wrong.
There is a very interesting Rasmussen Reports tracking poll which shows how Hilary is seen by the public (left, right, centre- would vote for/against). It is really interesting, and Rasmussen were the most accurate polster in the 2004 election. It has shown a slow by steady move from left to centre in eyes of public. Interesting to see how it goes in the next year.
Reagarding Santorum- the great gossip guy Robert Novak says that Republicans are very worries about Santorum and his awful campaign- yes, lots of money, but Santorum isn’t putting much effort in- busy writing controversial books and visiting primary states. 12 or so points behind in an independent poll is poor, and he is even well behind in internal polls according to sources. There are various stories about the fact that he won’t stand/wants to lose, which I don’t believe. Would be a great thing to see him lose.
29 - “I do agree the Democrats need to look at a southern or midwesterner with some conservative credentials”
Any thoughts on who? To an outsider, John Edwards and Bill Richardson stand out as the most obvious contenders.
I’m sorry to disagree with Ben but I believe the GOP could back Giuliani. You noted that he was only a mayor of a city. Yes but the 19th largest city in the world with a population the same size as some of the states (over 7 million). Not only was he mayor but was mayor on 9/11, which, to some republicans I know is enough to cancel his liberal stance on a number of issues. Most of the bible belt supporters of bush are not members indeed a lot of republicans have criticised the bush administration over the deficit. Most members of the GOP I have met are not overtly religous, although, support (quietly) their stance on improving standards of morals in public are not part of the bible belt brigade and run shy of some of them ore extreme ideas (such as anti-Darwin, but that started to come in when Democrats were still in control of state house and before Bush as president, in Texas politicans of all sides pander to a very conservsative base).
30 - Pennsylvania is an intriguing swing state that divides into 4 distinct areas for political purposes. You have Philadelphia city which is very black and votes 80% or so Democratic, similar to Washington DC. Then you have the suburbs of Philadelphia, which are the wealthiest part of the state, a key base of the ‘new economy’, and tend to support either moderate republicans, or a moderate democrat if presented with a very conservative republican. Then there is western Pennsylvania around Pittsburgh which is a slowly recovering but still somewhat depressed rustbelt area. In the old days the democrats used to weigh the votes here, but recently the area has moved sharply republican as with neighbouring Ohio and West Virginia as a result of the perceived views of the democrats on ‘values’, abortion, gun control, gay marriage etc etc. Lastly there is central, rural Pennsylvainia which is at least as ‘bible belt’ republican as Alabama or Utah.
As I said, Santorum is very strong in the central and western PA areas, but he needs to at least draw level in the Philly suburbs to win. The more moderate republican Arlen Specter managed this last fall and held his seat easily. George Bush showed that the strategy of building support in western and central PA and pretty much ignoring Philly city and suburbs can bring the GOP very close to victory here but not close enough. Expect the GOP senate campaign here to centre on winning over moderate voters in the Philadelphia suburbs whilst keeping the more rural conservative base happy - not an easy task.
26 – Anatole
Vilsack seems to be blowing hot and cold at the moment, he’s a moderate Dem with two consecutive terms as Governor of a moderate, rural, Midwestern swing state so he’s certainly qualified.
He has a very nice PAC named the “Heartland PAC” with a very swish website so he’s certainly keeping his options open and but he recently took over the chairmanship of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), after Evan Bayh stepped down.
Over all he seems to be keeping his options open I think having only just taken the post a t the DLC he’s more likely to either angle for the VP slot or seek to influce the contest from his position as head of the DLC, he’s not seeking a third term in 06, he may even be looking at a future senate run in 2010.
If it weren’t for his name he’d be one of the Dems best candidates, sadly I have a terrible feeling that that name really wouldn’t travel well… “President Vilsack” it sounds right for Hungry or Slovenia but not the United States.
Bill Richardson, is being coy, overall I think his failures while energy sec in the Clinton Administration would make him uncompetitive nationally and while his appeal to Hispanics would be significant, he still doesn’t look like a president and he would only have a term and a half as governor of New Mexico where he to run for the nomination. I just don’t see him having any unique selling point other than an appeal amongst Hispanics which is largely trumped by his time as energy sec and his unpresidential appearance.
27 – Kevin
Its true that Santorum has a big lead on fundraising but the DNC will be pumping in cash as the race hots-up and he’s lagging significantly behind Casey in most polls, the Casey name in PA is also surly going to be a big pull and with Santorum’s approval/ disapproval numbers looking very unhealthy I think it’s going to be a very close contest indeed, though I think Casey should win, though I appreciate that your impression on the ground might be different. If Casey wins the usual big margins in the Philly suburbs and is able to expand the Democratic base amongst the blue collar workers in the west of the state and assuming that there isn’t 100% turnout (including the Amish) in the “T” then Casey should win, but funding is a big issue the national dems need to match their words of support with actions.
28 – Melv
Obama has effectively let it be know that he’s far more interested in being the junior senator for Illinois and has no interest in a presidential run. And he’s right, he’d have only four years in the senate and while, unlike John Edwards, he is generally viewed as an excellent senator as well as a charismatic speaker he’d still have only a small amount of legislative experience and no executive experience, and despite all this he’d still be a liberal senator from a liberal state.
In time I think he’s going to become a significant, independently minded, progressive voice in the senate and I whole heartedly expect that he will one day be president but its too soon to start thinking about it now, wait till he’s re-elected in 2010
It could be that a moderate such as Bayh if he won the nomination looking to cement his base (a candidate like Bayh would have no desperate need to reinforce his appeal to Middle America) would pick Obama as his VP running mate as Bayh/Obama ticket would be very powerful IMHO, it would lock up the Dem base without “frightening the horses” and yet allow Bayh to continue to plug away deep into Republican territory potentially bringing his home state of Indiana as well as Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia and Missouri into play as well as leaning swing states such as Ohio, Arkansas and Florida towards the Democrats and of this no doubt being bolstered by a very high afro-American turnout probably surpassing the 2000 levels.
For the Democrats to stand a chance, they will need some-one who can appeal to the South - that certainly rules out Kerry, and probably Clinton too. That leaves Edwards as their best shot.
36 - Alan J
I’m afraid that despite his ready smile and well crafted stump speeches, Edwards doesn’t have a prayer in the south.
He’s a one term senator from a southern state that is true, but his senate seat was very vulnerable and he declined to run again and saw it fall to the GOP, while despite his presence on the Democratic ticket Kerry/ Edwards went down to a crushing defeat in his native North Carolina (56-43%).
On top of all this Edwards’ senate voting record was one of the most liberal of all Democrats in the Senate, meaning that had he run for re-election he’d probably have lost.
A liberal one term Senator such as Edwards can’t rely on his southern drawl to make the south competitive for him, what more at the national level no one term senator from either side, who hasn’t held any elective office for four years is going to be competitive in 2008.
The best Southern candidates the Dems could hope to produce would either be Virginia Governor Mark Warner (who’s term ends next January, and then he’s termed out for four years) who got an impressive, populist to moderate record in VA but has only held elective office for four years and might well do better to run for Senate in 06 or 08. After Warner there are three candidates who have not in any way suggested that they’ll want to run, Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) is a moderate and racks up big wins in her native Arkansas where she is pretty popular and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) who has consistently won narrow victories against aggressive republican campaigns in Louisiana where her family is a political institution, after these two there is the often embattled but still popular Governor of North Carolina who while Kerry/ Edwards and the Dems Senate candidate Erskie Bowles went down to defeat won a landslide re-election for governor… but none of these three seem to have given any suggestion of wanting to run, while Warner is certainly considering it.
Evan Bayh despite being a moderate has made a career out of appealing to moderate rural and moderate suburban voters and while he might not score well in the “sunbelt” he’d stand to do very well in the upper south and Midwest, indeed Bayh’s brand of rural, Midwestern, populism would be a powerful and appealing brand for the Democrats to champion and could carry the centre of gravity for the 2008 campaign into republican territory. Indeed Bayh is the only candidate, apart from maybe Warner who could probably do this for the Dems in 08, baring a catastrophy for the GOP and the Bush Administration.
Sorry that should have been…
Evan Bayh despite being a midwesterner has made a career out of appealing to moderate rural
Sorry that should have been…
Evan Bayh despite being a midwesterner has made a career out of appealing to moderate rural…
I’ve always had a soft spot for Govenor Rendell of Pensylvania - I think the Democrats need a figurehead who looks like he’s won a few bar brawls in his time.
More realistically I think it likely the dems will go for whichever moderate figure gives them the best penetration into swing voters. They are desperate to win and will just crunch the numbers.
More interesting is the republicans where there could be all kinds of fireworks around the (very serious) bid that John McCain will put together. While the figures will undoubtably show McCain beating any dem, the republicans will have the luxury of worrying about their principles…
An interesting trend no-one here has noted is the rise of populist democrats. Most notably Gov Brian Schweitzer in Montana who purveys a solidly pro-gun, anti-corporate message that has turned Montana into a real swing-state - the 2006 senate race in Montana is one to seriously watch as the incumbent republican is embroiled in payola problems. Similarly, Nevada will be in play in 2008, especially given the strong performance as senate minority leader of Harry Reid. Also, a recent congressional by-election in Ohio saw a very strong performance by the populist democrat and Iraq-veteran Paul Hackett, who almost stole a seat that usually votes 70/30 R. The Democrats need to idetify a candidate who can be genuinely populist without scaring corporate America.
That said, I can’t see the next 3 years playing well for Bush; democrats have opportunity to make modest gains in senate and congress in 2006, without any real expectation of securing control - BUT nevertheless they have a huge opportunity to spend this period hanging a general feeling of America being on the wrong track around Bush, his cabal, and perhaps the wider GOP. I don’t think we should be judging 2008 by current received wisdom.
As for Hillary - no - the US does not need a Clinton dynasty, any more than it needs any more Bushes… And I can’t see Giulani having the support he’d need outside the beltway. Warner, Bayh or Edwards would seem likely D candidates to me; as for the GOP it’s very hard to see a candidate who would be have national appeal and yet satisfy the ideologues of the religious right, who increasingly seem to pull the GOP strings.
It’s a long time since congress produced a president - JFK was the last to be elected from there. This is despite a fair few candidates being chosen from the Senate. The American electorate seems to favour those with executive experience rather than those whose voting record inevitably contains enough to be used aiaginst them in very negative campaigning.
Another name to consider is that of Bush himself. Every president who can wants to more or less nominate a successor to the White House (which is how his father got there after all). Should we completely rule out a GOP candidate from within the administration? I would suggest not.
37 - “On top of all this Edwards’ senate voting record was one of the most liberal of all Democrats in the Senate”
Very economically populist, but I’m not sure about “most liberal”. I agree with your assessment of his prospects (I rarely disagree with you on US politics Ben - worryinly
). His particular problem is in not holding any office at the moment or having had a significant congressional or gubernatorial past.
43 - book value
True about being economically populist, in the end i think he’d have been better served not running for president in the first place and on instead trying to hang on to his senate seat, it would have been tough but not impossible. While his economic populism would have played well, the social issues would have come back round and hit him in the face, any southern dem, except say in FL, voting against the “partial birth abortion ban” for example was making a big mistake IMHO… simply for reasons of political survival.
43/44 - I’m not sure it’s a mistake for Edwards leaving the Senate. Being a Senator at all hasn’t been a tremendously good way to the top job in the past (makes you look an insider and gives you a record to defend - for example the ones Ben mentions). As it is, Thanks to his Presidential and Vice-Presidential run he is now an established figure on the US political scene who is a lot better known than the vast majority of people now in the Senate. He is hardly at risk of fading away. He is freed from concerns of pork barrel politics for North Carolina and can campaign more or less as much as he likes and focus on national rather than local causes.
There are plenty of precendents. Neither Reagan nor Carter nor Nixon held public office at the time they stood for President - Reagan had ceased to be California governor four years previously, Carter had ceased to be Georgia governor one year previously, and Nixon had not stood for office since he failed to become California governor fully six years before he won the Presidency.
I agree, though, that there are question marks over his personal appeal in the South. He may instead be the Northerners’ favourite Southerner.
45. Would he have a prayer running for NC Governor? He surely needs to get rid of the Senator title?
Ps is wes clark running for arkanasa governor?
buzZ aLDrin for ark @ nasa governor
How about Newt Gingrich. He has just released a new book and is keen to run. Certainly an ideas man but is he too loaded with baggage?
48 - Surely Newt must be too baggage laden to have a good chance. He was widely criticised for the Republicans’ defeat in 1998 and was involved in a campaign financing scandal in 1997. Mind you, in an open field for both nominations you never know.
46 - There is an existing Democrat (not that it means much) governor who I think is term limited so there is a vacancy coming up. As Ben says, Edwards is by no means popular enough to guarantee success (evidenced by Bush easily carrying North Carolina in the Presidential elections) - plus it could be seen as nothing more than a stepping stone (like Nixon in California in 1962).
No idea on Clarka’s currenta positiona on Arkansasa.
Lets hope it is Rudy Giuliani. If he couldn’t beat her in New York (he pulled out of the Senate race in 2000 - although this was because of health he was trailing her by 10-20pts) then he can’t beat her anywhere. McCain looks like the more probable candidate - hawkish and centrist enough to appeal to disaffected dems but with stronger support from the Republican base than Giuliani (McCain-Bush or McCain-Giuliani is the more probable combination for the Republican nomination). Saying that I would vote still vote for Hillary (if I was American that is). Its a pity that Lieberman is too old since he a candidates that could win the 2008 election and support core Democrat values.
47. Fine go to hell. what your anger is about is complete mystery.
Re. 42, indeed, and Rice is one such possibility.